Topic 3 Campaign Finance Reform

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Topic 3: Campaign Finance Reform:

Topic 3: Campaign Finance Reform

patronage system:

patronage system

support at polls > merit :

support at polls > merit

1883 Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act:

1883 Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act Sen. George Pendleton, D-OH

merit > support:

merit > support

PowerPoint Presentation:

“The Bosses of the Senate”, 1889

PowerPoint Presentation:

Sen. Marcus Hanna, (R-OH) President McKinley

PowerPoint Presentation:

corporations should give a % of their prosperity to the Republican party who gave them that prosperity

PowerPoint Presentation:

“It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.” 1910

PowerPoint Presentation:

Sen. Benjamin “pitchfork” Tillman, D-SC

Tillman Act of 1907:

Tillman Act of 1907

prohibit corporations and businesses from contributing to national campaigns:

prohibit corporations and businesses from contributing to national campaigns

protect candidates protects corporations:

protect candidates protects corporations

Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910, 1911, 1925:

Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910, 1911, 1925

PowerPoint Presentation:

Sen. Carl Hatch, D-NM An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities The Hatch Act of 1939.

limited federal employees from engaging in campaigns:

limited federal employees from engaging in campaigns

Smith-Connolly Act of 1943:

Smith-Connolly Act of 1943

prohibited labor unions from contributing to campaigns:

prohibited labor unions from contributing to campaigns

PowerPoint Presentation:

Constitutional challenge?

PowerPoint Presentation:

McKinley – Roosevelt v. Bryan - Stevenson 1900 Presidential Campaign

PowerPoint Presentation:

front porch v. stump speech

PowerPoint Presentation:

$6 million

PowerPoint Presentation:

V l l

PowerPoint Presentation:

$25 million

$1 million to $5 million per month :

$1 million to $5 million per month

PowerPoint Presentation:

X

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971:

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

limited personal contributions:

limited personal contributions

report all contributions < $100:

report all contributions < $100

established specific ceilings for media expenditures:

established specific ceilings for media expenditures

required full disclosure of campaign receipts and disbursements:

required full disclosure of campaign receipts and disbursements

Government Accounting Office:

Government Accounting Office

PowerPoint Presentation:

Democratic National Committee Headquarters @ Watergate Hotel June 17, 1972

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974:

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 the amendments

1. limited the money that could be contributed to a campaign:

1. limited the money that could be contributed to a campaign

by individuals and PACs:

by individuals and PACs

individuals = $1K per candidate:

individuals = $1K per candidate

PACs = $5k per candidate:

PACs = $5k per candidate

What’s a PAC?:

What’s a PAC ?

political action committee: :

political action committee: an organization that represent business, labor, or any other interest and exist to raise money to elect/defeat candidates and influence policy

Tillman Act of 1907:

Tillman Act of 1907

Smith-Connolly Act of 1943:

Smith-Connolly Act of 1943

PowerPoint Presentation:

at&t

PowerPoint Presentation:

opensecrets.org

Why do we care about PACs? :

Why do we care about PACs?

2. limited the money that could be spent on a campaign :

2. limited the money that could be spent on a campaign

candidate’s own money:

candidate’s own money

$ from PACs:

$ from PACs

limits on independent expenditures:

limits on independent expenditures

PowerPoint Presentation:

independent expenditure is: a political campaign communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate

3. federal funding of presidential elections:

3. federal funding of presidential elections

PowerPoint Presentation:

( 1974 $1, now $3

PowerPoint Presentation:

28.7% in 1980 6.6% in 2010

Primary Matching Funds:

Primary Matching Funds If $5k in 20 states in $250 increments; and agree to limit spending Then receive 50% of base spending limit.

Nominating Conventions:

Nominating Conventions Major Party < 5% in last election.

General Election Funds:

General Election Funds Major Party < 5% in last election; Can’t raise other funds during general campaign.

2012 public funds:

2012 public funds primary matching funds of $22,810,350 (50 % of $45,620,700); general election grants of $91,241,400; convention grants of $17,689,800.

Retroactive Application:

Retroactive Application

Obama opts out of public funds. updated 6/20/2008:

Obama opts out of public funds. updated 6/20/2008

4. reporting requirements with enforcement :

4. reporting requirements with enforcement

6 ÷ 2 = 3 + 3:

6 ÷ 2 = 3 + 3

What the FECA amendments did not address?:

What the FECA amendments did not address?

soft money:

soft money

PowerPoint Presentation:

soft money: is the money that companies, unions or individuals may give to a political party to support "party-building" activities; such contributions are not regulated by the FEC.

hard money:

hard money money contributed directly to the candidate or the party in small amounts

Buckley v. Valeo, U.S. 1976:

Buckley v. Valeo , U.S. 1976

fec.gov:

fec.gov Site map -> Litigation (under Laws and Regulations) -> Alphabetical Index of FEC Court Cases

PowerPoint Presentation:

V.

1st Amendment Freedom of Speech:

1 st Amendment Freedom of Speech

campaigns = “political speech” :

campaigns = “political speech”

political speech is protected by the 1st Amendment:

political speech is protected by the 1 st Amendment

held as Constitutional:

held as Constitutional

1. limits on contributions to candidates/campaigns by individuals and PACs:

1. limits on contributions to candidates/campaigns by individuals and PACs

2. disclosure and recordkeeping provisions :

2. disclosure and recordkeeping provisions

necessary to safeguard against:

necessary to safeguard against

appearance of improper influence over elections:

appearance of improper influence over elections

Government has a compelling interest in safeguarding the electoral process from corruption or the appearance of corruption:

Government has a compelling interest in safeguarding the electoral process from corruption or the appearance of corruption

these restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve that important purpose:

these restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve that important purpose

no evidence that disclosure would harm a campaign:

no evidence that disclosure would harm a campaign

even for minor and new parties:

even for minor and new parties

no evidence that candidates couldn’t raise sufficient funds in smaller amounts:

no evidence that candidates couldn’t raise sufficient funds in smaller amounts

3. Public financing of Presidential Elections:

3. Public financing of Presidential Elections

struck as Unconstitutional:

struck as Unconstitutional

1. limits on money spent on campaigns by candidates, themselves:

1. limits on money spent on campaigns by candidates, themselves (except for Presidential candidates who accept public funding)

candidates’ personal funds:

candidates’ personal funds

2. limits on independent expenditures by individuals or PACs:

2. limits on independent expenditures by individuals or PACs

3. method of appointing FEC members:

3. method of appointing FEC members must be Presidential nominee with Senate confirmation

Buckley v. Valeo:

Buckley v. Valeo contribution limits limit the issues debated; the depth of the debate; and the audience reached, but , expenditure limits not up to government to decide what is excessive spending; or to level playing field, might increase corruption, and, necessary to serve overriding government interest public confidence in elected officials integrity in electoral system serves no government interest Independent expenditures protected as political free speech under the 1 st Amendment

problems arise:

problems arise

1. soft money:

1. soft money

under FEC rules there is no limit on soft money:

under FEC rules there is no limit on soft money

“political speech”:

“political speech”

1996 Presidential Campaign:

1996 Presidential Campaign

soft money = advertising budget:

soft money = advertising budget

2002 McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act:

2002 McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI)

PowerPoint Presentation:

1995 Op Ed

PowerPoint Presentation:

2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act

1. emphasized hard money should be the backbone of campaigns:

1. emphasized hard money should be the backbone of campaigns small amounts of money from many contributors

2. banned soft money in campaigns:

2. banned soft money in campaigns

by limiting ‘coordinated’ expenditures:

by limiting ‘coordinated’ expenditures spending done by parties on behalf a specific candidate

and by limiting the amount of money PACs can spend:

and by limiting the amount of money PACs can spend

3. creating an electioneering ban (or limiting the amount of $ PACs pay for candidate ads):

3. creating an electioneering ban (or limiting the amount of $ PACs pay for candidate ads)

PACs couldn’t run ads with a candidate in it 30 days of primary/caucus 60 days of general election:

PACs couldn’t run ads with a candidate in it 30 days of primary/caucus 60 days of general election

‘issue ads’:

‘issue ads’

PowerPoint Presentation:

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , U.S. 1990

“corporate form corruption”:

“corporate form corruption”

“issue ads” v. “express advocacy ads”:

“issue ads” v. “express advocacy ads”

sham “issue ads”:

sham “issue ads”

30 days of primary/caucus 60 days of general election:

30 days of primary/caucus 60 days of general election

PowerPoint Presentation:

McConnell v. FEC , U.S. 2003

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, U.S. 2010 :

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, U.S. 2010

“political speech”:

“political speech”

warrants highest 1st Amendment protections:

warrants highest 1 st Amendment protections

electioneering ban:

electioneering ban unconstitutional

limits on independent expenditures:

limits on independent expenditures unconstitutional

Corporations, unions and issue advocacy organizations may now spend unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries on independent political expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate. :

Corporations, unions and issue advocacy organizations may now spend unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries on independent political expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate.

Record keeping and disclosure laws still in effect:

Record keeping and disclosure laws still in effect

PowerPoint Presentation:

“Citizens United Prevails At Supreme Court Dramatic Decision A Huge Victory For 1st Amendment ”

Super PACs:

Super PACs

unlimited spending on campaigns:

unlimited spending on campaigns

raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions and from individuals :

raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions and from individuals

in 2008, .05% of Americans contributed more than $250 to a presidential campaign:

in 2008, .05% of Americans contributed more than $250 to a presidential campaign

donors are anonymous :

donors are anonymous

Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are "independent"; however, a candidate may talk to his super PAC through the media and the super PAC can listen, just like everybody else.:

Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are "independent"; however, a candidate may talk to his super PAC through the media and the super PAC can listen, just like everybody else.

super PAC v. super PAC Priorities USA Action v. Restore our Future:

super PAC v. super PAC Priorities USA Action v. Restore our Future

end of Topic 3:

end of Topic 3 fec.gov opensecrets.org

authorStream Live Help