Campaign Finance Reform

In the United States, candidates for public office have always needed money to run for public office. To get it they have often depended on wealthy contributors expecting favors in return. In 1971, the federal government passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), in an attempt to combat this phenomenon. The FECA (which was amended several times until 1979) put a cap on the amount a single donor could contribute to a campaign for federal government, and required public disclosure of these contributions.

But the landmark 1976 Supreme Court ruling, Buckley v. Valeo undid a portion of these reforms. The most controversial aspect of the ruling was that spending limits (as opposed to contribution limits) for candidates for public office were a violation of free speech. (However campaign contribution limits were acceptable as long as they were not so low as to prevent a candidate from geting his message across.)

Despite these reforms, and, in part due to the Buckely v. Valeo decision, wealthy donors have been able to indirectly contribute vast sums of money to the candidate of their choice. For instance, unlimited contributions can be made to the parties for "party-building activities", but often end up bolstering individual campaigns. The 1996 and 1998 elections for Congress and the presidency broke all previous campaign fundraising records, but Congress has failed repeatedly to act on even modest reform proposals to obstruct the flow of "soft-money".

Meanwhile, the states have been plagued by the same problems afflicting campaigns for federal office. As the costs of campaigning for statewide office and state legislative seats skyrocketed over the last few decades, legislators have begun to place greater emphasis on fundraising. PACs and large donors have played an increasing role as sources of campaign revenue, and incumbents have been outspending challengers by larger and larger sums.

The states began to respond to these developments in the 1990s by enacting a variety of different reforms. The most popular reform has been the adoption or revision of contribution limits. For instance, Missouri, Oregon, Montana, and the District of Columbia have limited campaign contributions from an individual to no more than $100. All of these laws were overturned by federal courts. In 1996 Oregon passed a law allowing candidates for state office to raise no more than 10 percent of their campaign funds from contributors who live outside the electoral district. But this, too, was ruled unconstitutional. Alaska's cap on out-of-state contributions was also struck down on First Amendment grounds.

The most far-reaching campaign finance reform law was enacted by Maine in 1996, and by three other states (Vermont, Massachusetts and Arizona) that have followed Maine's example.

The main sources for the overrulings of many state campaign finance reform laws is, again, the landmark 1976 Supreme Court ruling, Buckley v. Valeo. Although the court ruled that campaign contribution limits were acceptable, it indicated that they must not be so low as to prevent a candidate from geting his message across.

The Buckley Valeo decision has proven an obstacle to enacting effective campaign finance reform, and many activists are pushing to get it reconsidered, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly turned down cases that would allow it to reconsider its 1976 decision.

A Supreme Court decison in Jaunuary 2000, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, was the court's first ruling on campaign contributions and free speech since Buckley v. Valeo. In it the court essentially reaffirmed Buckley vs. Valeo, by allowing state limits to campaign contributions, but not spending, so long as the contribution limit was not "so radical...as to...drive the sound of a candidate's voice below the level of notice, and render contributions pointless." However, the decision did counter a trend whereby federal courts have recently been striking down contribution limits even above the $1,000 (per individual) permitted in Buckley v. Valeo.

RULES:

• Clean Election Laws
  Thus far, four states have passed "clean election" laws, laws that provide public money for state election campaigns if a candidate agrees to strict spending limits. More...
  
  
• Colorado Campaign Contribution Limits
  In 2002, Colorado voters approved Amendment 27 by a 2-to-1 margin to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform for state-level political campaigns. The amendment puts campaign finance reforms into the State's constitution so any changes in the future must be put to the citizenry for a vote. More...
  
  
• Limits on Out-of-State Contributions
  Out-of-state or out-of-district campaign contributions corrupt the political process because an elected official may become more beholden to these contributors than to the community she represents. Alaska and Oregon have adopted limits on out-of-state or out-of-district contributors. Both have been overruled by federal courts as violations of the First Amendment. More...
  
  
• Local Campaign Finance Reform
  Over 80 local governments have passed some form of campaign finance legislation. The National Civic League has compiled a list. Over half of those reforms have been enacted since 1990 and it is likely that there are more reforms out there yet to be discovered. More...
  
  
• Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
  Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC is the first Supreme Court ruling on contribution limits since since 1976, when in the landmark decision Buckley vs. Valeo, said free-speech rights trump any attempt to limit a candidate's spending. In a 6-3 ruling in January 2000, the US Supreme Court upheld Missouri's caps (of $275, $525 and $ 1,075, for respective offices sought). Some experts believe this decision could clear the way for limits lower than the $1,000 federal threshold. More...
  
  
• Buckley vs. Valeo
  The US Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo constitutes a central obstacle to effective campaign finace reform. The ruling does this in two ways: First, equating money with speech, the decision prohibited governments from imposing spending limits on candidates. Second, by acknowledging that, at the same time, large contributions can be potentially corrupting and allowing them to be capped, the decsion created perfect condition for a black market in "soft money". More...