Alexander Rossian

Professor Guenzel

English Composition 1102

20 April 2020

Rhetorical Analysis 3 Reverse Outline

My research project dives into the topic of campaign finance. Campaign finance is money

raised for the purpose of electing a particular candidate. Campaigns raise money through a

variety of methods, which include individual donations, and wealthy individuals and large

corporations who bypass the federally regulated donation limit by donating large sums to a

political action committee, PAC. Donating to a PAC, with few differences, is essentially

donating directly to the candidate, only doing so through a quasi-broker. Through my research, I

would like to expand my knowledge on the topic and analyze the varying opinions regarding our

system. My analysis revolves around a main quest to understand how the current campaign

finance system impacts politics, and what reform proposals, if any, would further strengthen the

way in which we practice our constitutional right of voting. 

-The research I’m conducting focuses on campaign finance and whether our current

system is the most effective and fair system compared to campaign finance reforms that

others believe are better. Political Actions Committees are a super important part of my

project as large sums of money, in the range of millions for example, can only be donated

through PAC’s, so it’s furthermore essential for the reader to have a strong understanding

of PAC’s and how they have evolved to what they are today.

The 2016 presidential campaign ended up being the costliest political race cycle in

American history costing 2.4 billion dollars. The principal American political race was held in
1788 under the newly confirmed constitution. The founding fathers would've never envisioned,

or bolstered, a framework that burns through billions of dollars, quite a bit of which originates

from affluent people, enterprises, and normal Americans the same. Does that mean our

framework is broken? Or then again is our framework successful and versatile to the present

occasions? This issue of campaign finance, and its enveloping laws, is a profoundly discussed

subject within our political system. Given that battling for a political race requires extraordinary

entireties of money, what are the impacts of that money. 

- According to the Federal Election Commission, the most expensive election in

American history was the 2016 election, which costed approximately 6.5 billion

Dollars. When analyzing the works of the founding fathers, they clearly did not

envision a system like the one we have today. Although, considering the fact the

founding fathers lived a few generations ago, what they believed or envisioned

may not be applicable today due to the fact that the world operates and looks

completely different than it did in the times of George Washington and John

Hancock. Researching and observing the founding fathers is an essential

introductory aspect of my research paper as our current legal and political

system still operate based off the constitution, and the differentiating views of

how that document should be interpreted. Giving the reader some perspective of

the foundation of our system is essential to understanding my research in greater

depth as various of the arguments made have a constitutional backing.

The Heritage Foundation is one America's largest political policy think tanks. They lean

more to the conservative spectrum but make it clear that their main priorities are “advancing the
principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American

values, and a strong national defense.” Regardless of one's personal politics, the Heritage

Foundation is a well-respected think tank with over 100 policy experts that exert substantial

influence in the American political system. The University of Pennsylvania listed The Heritage

Foundation as the think tank that is most impactful regarding public policy. James Bopp, the

author of my selected text Campaign Finance Reform: The Good, The Bad and the

Unconstitutional, is an American attorney who, according to the National Law Journal, has been

considered one of this country’s most influential attorneys. He is best acknowledged for his

studies and research regarding my research project: campaign finance and election laws. Bopp

has litigated, and won, the Supreme Court case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission,

which involved the limits regarding how much an individual can donate to a campaign/party. He

is also well known for defending Susan B. Anthony, and Citizens United in the Supreme Court

case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Regarding my research, Bopp’s 24-page

analysis serves my project incredibly well as it not only elevates varying opinions and facts

regarding the topic, but it’s also written by a person who is considered to be one of the top

experts regarding campaign finance. Although I disagree with much of what Bopp asserts, I

didn’t want to use a source that I fully agree with, rather I wanted to give myself a fair

opportunity to evaluate varying sides of the debate to be able to ultimately form a more educated

opinion for myself and my peers. 

- One of my primary sources is an analysis from the Heritage Foundation, written

by one of the worlds highest regarded legal expert James Bopp. Not only is he an

expert on the issue of campaign finance, but more importantly he has actually

litigated, as main counsel, several landmark Supreme Court cases regarding the
 issue. As is clear when reading, his analysis in filled with a great amount of his

views and political opinions regarding the issue.

Bopp begins his 24-page analysis by asserting that many politicians feel threatened by the

fact certain protection acts would lessen the politician’s receptiveness to citizens opinions and

beliefs. He adds a quote from former House Majority Whip Tom Delay stating what some of his

fellow congressmen have been discussing: "Some politicians have remarked that many of their

colleagues "feel threatened by negative advertisements and want to control what is said during

campaigns". Bopp continues in his analysis and asserts that in his view the problem with

campaign finance isn't what most reformers argue, which is that there is too much money in

politics. He argues the contrary that considering the large scope and size of the U.S government,

there isn't enough money being spent on politics. He argues not only to reduce the size and scope

of the government, but also that congress shouldn't attempt to enact regulations that would

reduce the amount of money allowed to be used in political campaigns. Furthermore, he believes

that eliminating various of the current laws would only strengthen the way the American citizen

can participate and fulfill their civic duty in the process. He then goes on to point out various

unconstitutional measures; thereafter, he proposes various constitutional measures that he

believes congress should take a look at. These concerns that he asserts are constitutionally

binding are as follows "the distortions and evasions caused by complex laws, the lack of

transparency in political contributions that result from such distortions, and the almost constant

need for public officials to engage in raising a large number of small contributions." One

substantial argument in this analysis is the First Amendment protection of campaign advocacy.

Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo is mentioned to great extent as it ruled on certain limits to

contributions and measures to prevent quid pro quos. Furthermore, the case also ruled to limit the
scope of political speech consisting of express advocacy and issue advocacy. These two types of

advocacy compare what a candidate can say regarding their election or defeat and the

constitutional protections regarding them. Soft money vs hard money is also closely analyzed in

this piece comparing what is deemed to be necessary expenditures that need not be upheld by

regulations compared to hard money which is money that just be declared and subject to

regulations. 

- This 24-page analysis makes various essential points. It asserts that, for example,

according to the notable former House Majority Whip, politicians within the

caucus have shared concerns about the power of strongly funded campaigns and

the way that it can affect their own political power.

- The second essential claim Bopp makes is that considering the size of our federal

government, not enough money is spent on campaign finance. By eliminating

various campaign finance reforms and current laws, Bopp believes it would only

bolster our democracy and strengthen each individual’s civic duty.

- The third essential point is the constitutional aspect, which Bopp brings evidence

from Supreme Court cases and first amendment rights implications. Soft money

and hard money are two terms that will be explained at greater length in my

research project as it’s essential for the reader to understand the terms, their

implications, and how they have been affected through court rulings.

  This piece is extremely helpful to my research as it deeply clarified much of the

arguments that have been prevalent for so many years and showed me a different perspective that

I've never seen. Although, I don't agree with many conclusions or opinions that Bopp makes, I

chose to use this piece because I despise arguing or analyzing information that I agree with as I
feel like I do not learn as much as when I analyze opposing views. My research project will

focus on three different perspectives. Them being: 1. The argument that asserts that our system

should maintain the status quo regarding campaign financing. 2. The argument that we should

strongly regulate campaign financing to limit donations radically. 3. The argument suggests that

we should remove more restrictions and regulations regarding campaign finance because those

laws and regulations limit American’s First Amendment right to free speech and association. I

will be able to very appropriately use Bopp’s analysis for perspectives 1 and 3. Although Bopp

does argue perspective 3 at certain points in his analysis, he also makes a strong case for

maintaining the status quo. Regardless, due to the length and scope of his piece, I have made use

of a large amount of his research to get a better idea of the disagreements and suggestions from

both sides of the political spectrum. 

- Throughout the piece, of course his analysis in filled with a great amount of his

opinions and beliefs. This satisfies my quench for greater knowledge on the issue

as it disagrees with many of my beliefs that I’ve had up to the point of starting

this project, of course with further research and analyzation that can change.

This is essential to my paper as it serves the purpose of really challenging many

of my views, which allows for a more unbiased research paper, which of course

benefits the reader by receiving a stronger research. Also essential to my paper

are the three underlying perspectives that I’m analyzing: add more restrictions,

loosen restrictions, and keeping the system as is.

 Works Cited

“About Heritage.” The Heritage Foundation, 1 Jan. 1970, www.heritage.org/about-

heritage/impact.

“James Bopp.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Apr. 2020,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bopp.

Bopp, James. “Campaign Finance ‘Reform’: The Good, The Bad and the Unconstitutional.” The

Heritage Foundation, 19 July 1999, www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/campaign-

finance-reform-the-good-the-bad-and-the-unconstitutional.