The Problem

The well-intended reform of 1974 and its similarly intended modification by the Supreme Court two years later, have had unexpected impacts on our current system of campaign finance. Indeed, they have created problems of their own. We will examine some of these ramifications in detail below. Out of this somewhat confused collection of constitutional and unconstitutional reforms, comes our current system of campaign finance regulations.

Fuel for the reform debate abounds. It seems a new scandal brings itself to light every day about a candidate’s vote being "bought" or even the course of an entire piece of legislation being changed in seeming response to a sudden infusion of special interest money.

As stated above, the Federal Campaign Regulations Act of 1974 came in answer to greater public awareness and contempt of illegal financing of campaigns.

Before the sanctioning of PACs in the early 1970’s, corporations and unions were generally prohibited from donating to campaigns. Money from large special interests, however, was often funneled in stuffed envelopes.....one of the key Watergate revelations was the pernicious influence of large corporate payoffs made under the table. But the national parties and the local political machines remained the dominant force in the control of campaign funds. (Isaacson, 236)

One of the unintended results of the campaign finance reforms was the rise of PACs. While corporations often made illegal contributions to campaigns, now they make legal ones! They can get around the limits by way of soft money or issue ads. (Addressed below)  The graphs below illustrate the dramatic increase in the number of PAC's as well as the increase in donations made by them since FECA.

By diminishing the role of parties, PACs tend to make elected officials more narrow in their allegiances. This lessens the chance for broad coalitions that balance competing interests. (Isaacson, 236)

Candidates no longer have to rely on parties as their sole source of funding and consequently they tend to "go it alone" outside of their party interests and form coalitions instead with the interest groups that pick up the tab at election time. This process has been particularly exacerbated by the rise in the media, which allows candidates to go straight to the constituents instead of going first through the party elite for approval. This combination of weakening party cohesion and the immense expense of campaigning provides for undue dependence on PACs by candidates for their political survival!

This lack of party cohesion serves to strengthen the candidate / PAC relationship and now instead of party machine elite determining policy from above, we have interest group elite determining it. Instead of rich people and corporations funding races either under the table or through party contributions, we have narrow interest groups "buying influence" over legislation and legislators. Limits on individual and PAC contributions directly to a candidate or campaign overseen by an understaffed and powerless FEC, do not constitute effective control. Unlimited "soft money" given to the parties ostensibly to fund "party building" activities, inevitably ends up going directly to a campaign. The rise in "issue advertising" which increasingly names specifically which candidates to vote and not vote for cannot help but seem disingenuous as they claim their lack of involvement in a campaign. Past attempts at reform have definitely altered the situation, although perhaps without improving it. Corruption with another face is still corruption.

Following will be some examples of the common problems associated with our campaign finance system. These are given as some of the reasons for increasing the severity of reforms. One glaring and recent example of a minority special interest with money influencing the system was the airline passenger rights controversy. Groups such as Common Cause work to uncover such corruption and open it to the public. The passenger rights bills were brought to Congress as a result of worsening problems such as passengers getting "bumped" from flights they had paid for, excessive flight cancellations, and excessive wait times (sometimes for hours on the runway without adequate food or restrooms).

Members introduced several passenger rights bills, and held hearings placing the spotlight on airline mistreatment of passengers. But when the time came for stronger consumer protections, airline passengers were left at the gate, as the airline industry wrote its own ticket in Congress. Using well-timed, large political contributions and intensive lobbying, the airlines successfully fought back attempts to establish federally-mandated passenger rights, persuading Congress to allow them to set their own voluntary guidelines for improved service. (Common Cause.org)

It appeared that a quick infusion of airline PAC money into the system turned the tide on reform.

Link to the Common Cause investigation on this topic for further details as well as an audio clip.

Even Congressmen themselves have denounced the system as corrupt. For example, former Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire comments about the subtle ways money can influence a legislator’s behavior: "The PAC payoff may come in a colleague not influenced,…a speech not delivered,..in hiring a key staff member for a committee who is sympathetic to a PAC" (DiClerico&Hammock, 120)

These manifestations of influence are difficult to measure and therefore perhaps more pernicious.

Former Congressman Michael Barnes comments:

As I spoke to political consultants, they all said I should not even consider running for the Senate if I weren’t prepared to spend 80-90% of my time raising money…That’s an absolute outrage because the candidates should be talking about the issues and meeting with constituents and voters…one night when we were voting on the issue of regulations affecting the funeral industry that were, in my view, eminently reasonable. The funeral industry was opposed to this regulation. The evening it was voted on; a rumor swept across the floor of the House that anybody who voted against the regulation would get $5,000….I was standing next to a guy who, as he put his card in the machine, said, "You know, I was going to vote against the industry on this thing, but what the hell, I can use the $5,000. (DiClerico&Hammock, 121)

These certainly seem to be convincing testimonials as to the existence of major problems in the system. The causes of these can be debated, but most can agree that a candidate spending the vast majority of the day campaigning does not serve their interests as constituents.  Moreover, the thought that the simple dangling of money in the faces of representatives could make them change their votes so quickly and easily is disturbing.

Possible Solutions and Analysis  -  home