Campaign Finance Reform

To be granted a subsidy for the government, a presidential candidate must meet all the eligibility requirements and once the funds have been advanced, there are spending limits to be adhered to. For the non-federal offices, races are governed either by the local law or by the state law. More than half of the U. S states permit some level of union and corporate contributions. On the other cases, some states have put limits on individual contributions, which are below the national limits. However, the issue of regulating campaign financing “was not a major issue of concern up to the early 20th century” (Rowen). The issue was prompted by 1896’s presidential election during which the custom of sourcing funds from corporations as well as a new age of campaign advertising. Earliest forms of corrupted democracy existed and they included vote buying.

Since candidates along with the political parties could print, own ballots and bribe voters to fill and submit them. The government had to assume the responsibility of printing ballot boxes in 1896 (Rowen). Based on the findings on the above research by as presented by Jones, it is evident that campaign finance reform is required so that the public can have faith in the entire political system. “People who contribute huge amounts of money towards political campaigns expect the elected officials to be responsive” (Jones). According to Jones, those who do not contribute to the political campaign reported that they consider that the elected officials would be less responsive to them when they approach them with a need. About 63 percent of the Americans now feel that most leaders would not give them a hearing ear if they approached them with an issue (Jones).

This further stresses the suggestion that a larger portion of the public has lost faith in elected leaders and that they do not feel that they have the "people's power". If a limit is put on the amount that corporations and individuals spend on political campaigns, officeholders and candidates will be able to spend most of their time in finding solutions if governing rather than fundraising. On the other hand, if a public financing system is developed, the public will have a voice, as there will be no big figures or big money spenders claiming that a certain policy should be followed. Super PACs and any other vessels for corporate intervention in political should be eliminated (Tucker 497). For individual donors, the campaign finance law distinguishes between ‘small’ and ‘large’ donors. The distinction is that large donors refer to those who are able to contribute over $200 (Levitt 217).

Those who oppose the idea of campaign finance reform claim that placing limits on political campaign spending limits political speech. They tend to argue that “every dollar spent on campaigns directly increases the magnitude of speech” (Smith). However, the truth that money cannot be speech and limit on spending money on campaigns cannot be a limit on one’s freedom of speech. Money is a great way to amplify speech since spending finances in election-related contexts enables individuals to express themselves, hence facilitating political speech. However, money itself cannot be an equivalent of the political speech. com/polyarchy/2018/8/21/17764362/campaign-finance-reform-optimism. Accessed 30 Nov 2018. Jones, Bradley. Most Americans Want To Limit Campaign Spending".  Pew Research Center, 2018, www. Confronting the impact of Citizens United.  Yale L. Pol'y Rev. Rowen, Beth. Campaign-Finance Reform: History And Timeline".

Tucker, Anne. Flawed assumptions: a corporate law analysis of free speech and corporate personhood in Citizens United.  Case W. Res. L.