Alexander Rossian

Dr. Guenzel

ENC 1102-0M31

April 22 2020

Workshop Draft 3 Research Paper (will add proper title for final)

Introduction

The founding fathers never imagined, or supported, a system that spends billions of

dollars, much of which comes from wealthy individuals, corporations, and average Americans

alike. Does that mean our framework is broken? Or is our framework successful and adaptive to

the present era? This issue of campaign finance, and its enveloping laws, is a profoundly

discussed subject within our political system. Politicians such as Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders,

Elizabeth Warren, and Michael Bloomberg have all loudly voiced their views regarding this

topic. Given that battling for a political race requires extraordinary amounts of money, one

should question the impacts of that money. Throughout the last 80 years a plethora of laws,

amendments, and Supreme Court rulings have vastly shifted the way in which campaigns are

held, leading us to an election such as the 2016 one. I will be analyzing three campaign finance

positions. Firstly, that our system should maintain the status quo, remain as is, regarding

campaign financing. Secondly, that campaign financing should be strongly regulated by capping

donations amounts radically and further tightening laws regarding Political Action Committees

and SuperPAC’s. Lastly, that we should remove restrictions and regulations regarding campaign

finance because those laws and regulations limit American’s constitutional rights, and

furthermore are ineffective. 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.

Background

The 2016 presidential election proved to be the most expensive election cycle in

American history costing 2.4 billion dollars according to the Federal Election Commissions.

According to the Washington Post, the 2016 election cycle, including congressional races, added

another 4 billion dollars effectively summing campaign spending at approximately 6.5 billion

dollars for one cycle. The first American election was held in 1788 under the freshly ratified

constitution. Throughout American history, the structure and operation of elections have

radically changed and evolved. In fact, according to OpenSecrets.com, George Washington, the

first American president, spoiled constituents with free whiskey hoping for their vote in return, a

practice which is illegal today. Until 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran for office, one had to come

from a prestigious family with great wealth to even stand a chance of getting elected. Although,

in 1943 campaigning for elections took one of its most radical shifts with the birth of political

action committees, commonly referred to as PAC’s. Campaign finance revolves around money

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

variety of sources: individual’s, PAC’s, corporations, and unions. There are Federal laws that set

limits on the amount these sources can contribute; however, these limits only apply to monetary

donations that are explicitly related, or controlled by, the campaign. Furthermore, in the 2010

landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissions, Justice

Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion ruling “Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate

independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech.”(Citizens United v. FEC) The nation’s highest

court, in their adjudicating process, equated money with speech, and thus ruled that limits on
indirect campaign contributions violate freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment.

This is not to be confused with direct contributions. The ruling changed the system to allow

unlimited contributions for party building activities such as running televised advertisements, so

long that no explicit support for the candidate is given. In effect, individuals and corporations

legally bypass the federally regulated limit by donating to SuperPAC’s, which then spend on

elections so long that they are independent and don’t coordinate with the campaign. In order to

better understand the issue of campaign finance and the various perspectives analyzed in this

paper, there are a handful of concepts that must briefly be explained: soft money, hard money,

issue advocacy, and express advocacy. Soft money is classified as donations given to the

political party or PAC, not directly to the candidate, with no limit on the dollar amount; the 2010

Supreme Court case mentioned above is what allowed for unlimited amounts of soft money to be

donated. On the contrary, hard money is given directly to the candidate’s campaign or PAC and

can be used for anything, although it comes with extremely strict, federally regulated, limits.

Issue advocacy is considered marketing that attempts to persuade viewers on a particular issue,

but not directly supporting an outcome in the election, a particular candidate, and cannot be

linked to the campaign. Express advocacy is the opposite, by stating directly what outcome the

creator of the advertisement wants and is strictly regulated by the Federal Elections Commission.

Hard money is used for express advocacy, while soft money is used for issue advocacy. Some

argue that the current system works because people, regardless of their financial capacity, can

donate to politicians that hold similar views, which allows citizens to strongly engage in the

electoral process. Contrarily, others argue that this is a legal form of bribery, or as referred to in

the political world: pay-to-play politics. By donating great amounts of money to someone, they
believe that in return the politicians will need to satisfy the donor or risk losing future

contributions in the next election cycle.

Maintain the Status-Quo

Proponents of our current system believe that government has exhausted the options

regarding campaign finance reforms as all three bodies have made attempts, both successful and

not, to change the laws regarding the issue. Highly regarded lawyer James Bopp, who has

litigated landmark campaign finance cases in front of the Supreme Court states that “The U.S.

Supreme Court already has addressed the remedies proposed by the “reformers” and found them

unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court and numerous federal courts

following it have struck down almost all laws that attempt to restrict campaign spending or

campaign advertising by individuals or organizations (including corporations, unions, political

action committees [PACs], and political parties).” (Bopp 1) Those who don’t want the system to

change argue that considering the highest court in the nation has deemed the vast majority of

reform attempts as unconstitutional and infringing on American’s rights, it would be morally

wrong to merely attempt reform when those reforms have serious constitutional violations. In

2010, Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissions ruled that the

system setting certain constraints on contributions was unconstitutional as it violated free speech.

Americans that side with this opinion believe that the issue at hand isn’t too much money in

politics, but rather the fact that too much of the money comes from too little a percentage of the

population. The issue is that not enough citizens are participating and exercising their civic duty

in the election process. Ann M. Ravel, in her journal piece in TIME Magazine writes, “In the

first part of the 2016 election campaign cycle, just 158 families, along with companies

they own or control, contributed nearly half of all the money that was raised to support
the presidential candidates. Meanwhile, a huge number of people around the country are

so disillusioned with government that they don’t even vote, let alone contribute to

political causes.” (Ravel, 3) Her data suggesting that nearly half the money donated

originated from less than 200 families is eye opening to say the least. In order to better

engage the public in the electoral process, some states have begun taking measures such

as disclosing where the money is spent, and in Seattle, as an example, proposals have

been made to supply all residents with a twenty five Dollars voucher to be donated to any

given candidate. Although, the FEC doesn’t seem to care too much about enforcing the

rules regarding disclosure, which have passed through both the legislative and judicial

branches as law of the land. It’s hypocritical to want a change in the system when certain

current rules (2015) aren’t even being followed. Supreme Court justice Anthony

Kennedy, who authored the Citizens United v. FEC decision explicitly wrote “ With the

advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens

with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their

positions and supporters” (Citizens United v. FEC) in the ruling. Disclosure was a main part of

the ruling that served the crucial purpose of creating a more trustful relationship between

constituents and politicians. Voters deserve to know where money is being spent by these

campaigns. Although sadly this hasn’t happened, and even Justice Kennedy admitted this in an

interview with the Harvard Law school dean saying “You live in this cyber age. A report can be

done in 24 hours, disclosure is not working the way it should.” (Kennedy, Anthony. Boston: 2

November 2015. Television)

Strong Regulation and Limits Should be Imposed

Hearing the cost of the 2016 election cycle, $6.5 billion, shocks most Americans who

hadn’t previously been aware. Various important questions arise when discussing such figures.

Where the money comes from, its usage, and why some wealthy corporations and individuals

deem it worthy to contribute millions of dollars. The fact that the American election spending

system is like no other system internationally, including both developed and developing nations,

is concerning. According to the New York Times, “Britain is not unusual in running short,

relatively inexpensive campaigns. But few nations combine enthusiastic fascination with

American-style politics — the governing Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party both

hired top advisers to President Obama this election cycle — with campaign finance rules so

stringent that they would seem better suited to City Council races in the United States.”(Stephen

Castle, Britain's Campaign Finance Laws Leave Parties With Idle Money.” The New York

Times) Additionally, Christopher Ingraham asserts that “Similarly, spending limits in

Canada mean that the typical candidate for the country's Parliament spent between $12,000 and

$90,000, on average, during the 2015 election. By contrast, American candidates for the

House spent close to $500,000 in 2016, while Senate candidates spent around $1.5 million.”

(Ingraham, Christopher. “Analysis | Somebody Just Put a Price Tag on the 2016 Election. It's a

Doozy.” The Washington Post) The American system has the longest lasting elections that

include the highest individual donations by far. According to OpenSecrets.com, between the

2016 and 2018 election cycles, billionaire Sheldon Adelson has contributed $220 million to

Republicans and Billionaire ex-presidential candidate Tom Steyer has contributed around $160

million to Democrats. This system couldn’t be more corrupt; the notion that these men, and

hundreds of other super wealthy people, donate at such high volume and don’t expect something
in return is foolish. It’s clear that their money is a ticket to the potential officials’ ear if elected.

Furthermore, politicians feel beholden to donors because if they disappoint their donors, getting

re-elected effectively becomes more difficult. Russel Berman over at The Atlantic makes a strong

case regarding how Americans feel stating “The problem of money in politics is so universally

recognized that even Donald Trump, the ultimate capitalist, and Bernie Sanders, a self-described

Democratic socialist, agree on it. Sanders has spent his career railing against the corrupting

influence of wealthy and corporate donors, while Trump has unmasked the game by admitting

that he gave money to politicians to curry favor with them. The success of both of these

politicians suggests the degree to which Americans are fed up with the influence of money on

politics.” (Berman, Russell. “How Do We Fix Campaign Finance in U.S. Politics?” The Atlantic)

When Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agree on an issue, and additionally build successful

campaigns revolving the shared belief, it’s clear that the case for campaign finance reform is

legitimate and what the country yearns for. Berman than continues by stating “If

overturning Citizens United won’t fix things, we should toughen up disclosure requirements so

that at least people will know what individuals and organizations are paying for the ads they see

on TV.” Berman also argues that the wealthy will always have a way in influencing the system.

With that in mind he goes on to explain that a strong reform would be federally financed

campaigns across all types of elections to “empower average people” as he says. Senator

Elizabeth Warren has long been a strong advocate for aggressive reforms. While she ran to be

the Democratic nominee for the 2020 election, she released her campaign finance reform plan on

her website. She states that “With money comes time, access, and the corruption of our

representative democracy. Enough is enough. It’s time to get big money out of politics.”

(Warren, Get Big Money Out of Politics) She then goes on to state that her plan is comprised of
three parts: no more pay to play politics where the wealthy buy power and access, in a

democracy the power belongs to the people, and that spending and raising disclosures must be

vastly expanded. It’s important to note that for a senator like Warren, who rejects all big money

donations, having these positions makes elections harder for her as she must compete with less

money. Although the fact that she’s so vocal about the issue and actively takes a role in

practicing what she preaches while she’s in a position where many wealthy would donate great

sums to her adds to her credibility on the issue and furthermore proves that campaign finance

reforms must be enacted.

Regulations and Limits Should be loosened & Reforms are Inefficient

Campaign finance reforms worry many politicians in Washington as they fear it will

make the system less fair by increasing the chances of incumbent victories due to their name

recognition; fundraising advantages wouldn’t play as big a role. Historically speaking, the vast

majority of reform attempts have been deemed unconstitutional and knocked down by the

judicial system. James Bopp, in his 24-page analysis states” 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."(Bopp 4) The First Amendment protection of campaign advocacy is a crucial

aspect as to why limits should be removed, even in the case of hard money. Supreme Court case

Buckley v. Valeo ruled that certain limits to contributions rooting from the Federal Election

Campaign Act of 1971 are unconstitutional. 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. Furthermore, considering the large size and scope of the U.S Federal

government, there isn't enough money being spent on politics. The government should take steps

to put power back in the hands of the citizens, as the system was meant to be “by the people for

the people” as Abraham Lincoln said in his famous Gettysburg Address. Eliminating various of

the current laws would only strengthen the way the American citizen can participate and fulfill

their civic duty in the process. Bopp states what he believes are proposals to adopt true reform,

“Congress first needs to recognize that today’s perceived abuses are simply the predictable result

of past “reforms” in which the suppression of free speech was the principal focus. Today’s

complex laws cause wasteful distortions in the electoral process and lessen transparency and

public accountability. There are, however, constitutional measures that would correct these

flaws. Specifically, raising or eliminating contribution limits, which have been eroded by

inflation, would allow elected officials to concentrate more on their public duties than on raising

funds, make the flow of campaign money more transparent, and improve public accountability.”

(Bopp 2) Its mind boggling that inflation hasn’t been adjusted to PAC contributions for over 40

years. If limits were raised or removed, constituents would have a stronger role in the electoral

process, which in turn disincentivizes SuperPAC’s (the largest portion of contributions) and

contributions that are considered soft money which can only be used indirectly such as through

issue advocacy. SuperPAC’s are indeed extremely large and influential in U.S. politics, given, as

the data shows that out of the $6.5 billion spent in 2016, a staggering $4 billion came from

SuperPAC’s; but by removing or heightening the individual contribution limit, in effect, would

remove the need for these huge groups, thus largely eliminating what reforms consider corrupt

actors from the process. If fighting the potential for corruption is the top priority, as the majority

of reform proponents believe, the best solution would, in fact, be to shorten, simplify, and
remove various laws in order to permit the direct passage of donations. In addition, transparency

should be more greatly emphasized so that the American people can have a better understanding

regarding the money, its impacts, and where exactly it ends up for what given purpose.

Conclusion

The three perspectives investigated throughout the research questioned my perceived

notions regarding campaign finance several times. Should campaign finance reforms be enacted

to rid the system of corruption, is the system currently the best it could be, or should limits be

removed? One imperative consistency between the three perspectives in my findings is the need

to tighten the restrictions regarding disclosures. Elizabeth Warren, James Bopp, Ann M. Ravel,

Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Russel Berman all agree that campaign contribution and

campaign spending disclosures must be heightened, and interestingly enough their agreements

are based in the same ideology: creating a more trustful and transparent relationship between the

voter and politician.

Reform Transparency and Disclosure Radically

Voters should have a right to know exactly who’s donating and what that money is being

used for; what many forget is the role that a politician serves in American government, a public

official. Public officials work for us, the American people, and that must be emphasized so that

the American voter can be more informed while making electoral decisions. Voters must take

into account who is donating, at what amounts of cash, to a particular politician as those

donations might implicate lobbying power that could serve against a citizen’s personal interests;

and as a rule of thumb, citizen’s voting decisions are almost exclusively rooted in their own self-

interests. Contrary to much of the reform perspective that states that money buys elections, it was

evidently seen in the 2016 election that this was not the case: Hilary Clinton spent more than
double of what Donald Trump did while campaigning, and she still lost. Although, the argument

that these large SuperPAC’s disengage the average voter is merit filled as the Washington Post

explains that over $4 billion was spent in the Congressional elections in 2016 and yet Congress

has had its worst approval rating with the American public, only declining in the past 15 years: it

now stands at less 25% approval. The majority of Americans aren’t satisfied with the job being

done, which only further proves that the voter must be better connected to our officials and

elections. It’s bad that 200 individuals were responsible for almost half of contributions in 2016.

Remove Contribution Limits to Disincentivize the Existence of SuperPAC’s

The evidence leads me to agree that limits do suppress 1st Amendment rights to freedom

of speech and expression, but at the same time the large SuperPAC’s are way too powerful. If

many of the limits were removed the need to donate to SuperPAC’s would dramatically

decrease. The only reason why SuperPAC’s even exist is to serve as a loophole around the

federally mandated contribution limit. It’s no secret that when a SuperPAC receives donation’s

in the hundreds of millions that the money isn’t being used to very effectively support the given

candidate. These SuperPAC’s raise hundreds of millions of Dollars, which gives them an overly

powerful collective lobbying power; this overly powerful collective lobbying power of mainly

super wealthy donors is precisely what acts as a barrier between the average American and the

politician. Based off the analysis I’ve been conducting it’s clear that getting rid of these large

umbrella groups would refranchise the constituents. Although, I don’t propose a governmental

mandate, from above, making SuperPAC’s illegal as that’s a clear 1st Amendment violation. I

propose a legal, and more effective, method of ending contribution limits in order to allow the

incentive system to operate as it rarely fails. Furthermore, there’d be absolutely no reason for

people to donate through these large groups if they could simply donate directly to the candidate
of their choice and invest in what they believe. Thus, the existence of SuperPAC’s fades away

and eventually disappears as the incentive is gone, ultimately rebuilding the bridge that connects

the American voter directly to the politician.

 Works Cited

Blumenthal, Paul. “Anthony Kennedy's Citizens United Disclosure Salve 'Not

Working'.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 2 Nov. 2015, www.huffpost.com/entry/citizens-united-

anthony-kennedy_n_5637c481e4b0631799134b92.

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.

Berman, Russell. “How Do We Fix Campaign Finance in U.S. Politics?” The Atlantic, Atlantic

Media Company, 16 Mar. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/fix-

money-in-politics/473214/.

Castle, Stephen. “Britain's Campaign Finance Laws Leave Parties With Idle Money.” The New

York Times, The New York Times, 4 May 2015,

www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/world/europe/britains-campaign-finance-laws-leave-

parties-with-idle-money.html?

_r=4&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=85E480D0692688A4DFB91DC6B32FE13C&gwt

=pay.

Jones, Bradley. “Most Americans Want to Limit Campaign Spending.” Pew Research Center, Pew

Research Center, 8 May 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-

americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-

influence/.
 Ingraham, Christopher. “Analysis | Somebody Just Put a Price Tag on the 2016 Election. It's a

Doozy.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 14 Apr. 2017,

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on-

the-2016-election-its-a-doozy/.

“Outside Spending.” OpenSecrets.org, www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/fes_summ.php?

cycle=2016.

Ravel, Ann M. “Do We Really Need Campaign Finance Reform?” TIME, 19 Jan. 2016,

time.com/4182502/campaign-finance-reform/.

Smith, Bradley A. "Faulty assumptions and undemocratic consequences of campaign finance

reform." The Yale Law Journal 105.4 (1996): 1049-1091.

Supreme Court. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission's . 21 Jan. 2010,

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf.

Warren, Elizabeth. “Getting Big Money Out of Politics.” Elizabeth Warren,

elizabethwarren.com/plans/campaign-finance-reform.