Jump to content

Campaign finance in the United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SocraticPrince (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 31 March 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels.

According to a study conducted regarding the 2000 election season, the majority of money spent in Federal campaigns came through a money loophole that allowed unlimited spending on the behalf of candidates.[1] Non-candidate spending made on the behalf of the candidate is made by political action committees and 527 organizations. Provided the independent expenditure groups were operated in accordance with the law, contributions to these groups was legal and unlimited. To help campaign contributors ensure that their donation would be spent towards electing a specific candidate, independent expenditure groups made their intention clear by their literature, actions, or association with current or former associates.[2] According to Mark Hertsgaard, the richest four percent of the population provide nearly 100 percent of all individual contributions.[3]

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court opened the door for organizations to make unlimited donations via independent expenditure groups.[4]

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent federal agency created in 1974 by amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to enforce FECA.

Public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits. The system is designed so that the Democratic or Republican candidates for President of the United States routinely qualify for funds, while excluding most other party candidates.

Races for non-federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. Some states have limits on contributions from individuals that are lower than the national limits, while four states (Missouri, Oregon, Utah and Virginia) have no limits at all.[5]

Campaign finance is a controversial issue, pitting concerns about free speech against concerns about corruption and inequality on the part of those who favor existing or further restrictions.

History of Federal Campaign Finance Reform

Early History of Campaign Finance Reform

For most of the history of the United States, federal election campaigns were relatively unregulated. The first federal legislation dealing with campaign finance was the 1867 Naval Appropriations Bill which aimed to stop the practice of shaking down naval yard workers for political donations.[6] In 1883, the Civil Service Reform Act aka Pendleton Act applied the Naval Appropriation Act to all government workers. The Hatch Act prohibited contributions to federal candidates from federal workers and contractors and limited individual contributions to $5,000 per year.[6] The Tillman Act and Federal Corrupt Practices Act sought to limit more broadly the influence of money on the campaigns, but these were largely ignored.[6]

Federal Election Campaign Act

Main article: Federal Election Campaign Act

In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates (those running for the House, the Senate, the President and the Vice President), political parties, and political action committees (PACs).

In 1974, Congress enacted a set of comprehensive amendments to FECA. These amendments included limits on (1) individual contributions to candidates, (2) contributions to candidates by “political committees” (commonly known as Political Action Committees, or PACs), (3) total campaign expenditures, and (4) independent expenditures by individuals and groups "relative to a clearly identified candidate." The amendments also created an independent agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), to monitor donations and spending on federal campaigns and to enforce the provisions of FECA. FECA also created the current system for public financing of campaigns.

The constitutionality of the FECA was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In Buckley, the Court upheld the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. The Court held that limitations on donations to candidates were constitutional because of the compelling state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. However, the Court also held that caps on the amount campaigns could spend and caps on independent expenditures were an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech under the First Amendment. In addition, Buckley also held that the disclosure and reporting requirements of FECA could only apply to expenditures authorized or requested by a candidate or expenditures for communications that “expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.”

Beginning in the late 1970s, parties successfully petitioned the FEC to be allowed to spend soft money on non-federal party building and administrative costs. Soon, this use of soft money expanded to voter registration, get out the vote, and issue advertising. For example, a wealthy individual could give a large contribution in soft money to a political party. The party could then spend this money on political ads. These ads could not explicitly or expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate (such as "Vote for Smith", "Elect Smith", "Send Smith to Congress", "Vote Against Doe", or "Defeat Doe"), but they could use the names of candidates ("Bill Smith is an honest man who stands up for the people; John Doe is a chronic liar who's taken money from special interests and advocated cutting Social Security. Call John Doe and tell him how you feel about this."[citation needed])

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Main article: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

In 2002, Congress further attempted to reform federal campaign financing with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The BCRA, sometimes called the "McCain-Feingold" Act, amended the FECA in several respects. First, it prohibited the use of corporate and union treasury funds to pay for "electioneering communications"—broadcast or cable advertisements clearly identifying a federal candidate—within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Second, it prohibited national political party committees from soliciting or spending any soft money and prohibiting state and local party committees from using soft money for activities that affect federal elections. The law also included a "stand by your ad" provision requiring candidates to appear in campaign advertisements and claim responsibility for the ad (most commonly with a phrase similar to "I'm John Smith and I approve this message.")

This law was also challenged in the Supreme Court, but its core provisions were upheld by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. However, in McConnell, the Court also interpreted the “electioneering communications” provisions of BCRA to exempt “nonprofit corporations that [1] were formed for the sole purpose of promoting political ideas, [2] did not engage in business activities, and [3] did not accept contributions from for-profit corporations or labor unions.” Thus, non-business, non-profit political organizations could run electioneering advertisements provided that they did not accept corporate or union donations.

Furthermore, the BCRA did not regulate "527 organizations" (named for the section of the tax code under which they operate). These nonprofit organizations are not regulated by the FEC, provided that they do not coordinate with candidates or expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a specific candidate. After the passage of the BCRA, many of the soft money-funded activities previously undertaken by political parties were taken over by various 527 groups, which funded many issue ads in the 2004 presidential election. The heavy spending of key 527 groups to attack presidential candidates brought complaints to the Federal Elections Commission of illegal coordination between the groups and rival political campaigns. (In 2006 and 2007 the FEC fined a number of organizations, including MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for violations arising from the 2004 campaign. The FEC's rationale was that these groups had specifically advocated the election or defeat of candidates, thus making them subject to federal regulation and its limits on contributions to the organizations.)[7]

The reach of the “electioneering communications” provisions of the BCRA was also limited in the 2007 Supreme Court ruling Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. In Wisconsin Right to Life, the Supreme Court stated that the restrictions on “electioneering communications” applied only to advertisements that “can only reasonably be viewed as advocating or opposing a candidate.” Thus, if there was any reasonable way to view an advertisement as an “issue ad,” it would be exempt from the BCRA’s restrictions.

Citizens United and SpeechNow

Campaign finance law in the United States changed drastically in the wake of two 2010 judicial opinions: the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC. According to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report, these two decisions constitute “the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades.” [8]

Citizens United struck down, on free speech grounds, the limits on the ability of organizations that accepted corporate or union money from running electioneering communications. The Court reasoned that the restrictions permitted by Buckley were justified based on avoiding corruption or the appearance of corruption, and that this rationale did not apply to corporate donations to independent organizations. Citizens United overruled the 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, in which the Supreme Court upheld that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections.

Two months later, a unanimous nine-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided SpeechNow, which relied on Citizens United to hold that Congress could not limit donations to organizations that only made independent expenditures, that is, expenditures that were “uncoordinated” with a candidate’s campaign. These decisions led to the rise of “independent-expenditure only” PACs, commonly known as “Super PACs.” Super PACs, under Citizens United and SpeechNow, can raise unlimited funds from individual and corporate donors and use those funds for electioneering advertisements, provided that the Super PAC does not coordinate with a candidate.

Efforts to Strengthen Campaign Finance Laws

Developments after ‘’Buckley’’

In 1986, several bills were killed in the U.S. Senate by bipartisan maneuvering which did not allow the bills to come up for a vote. The bills would impose strict controls for campaign fund raising. Later in 1988, legislative and legal setbacks on proposals designed to limiting overall campaign spending by candidates were shelved after a Republican filibuster. In addition, a constitutional amendment to override ‘’Buckley’’ failed to get off the ground.

In 1994, Senate Democrats had more bills blocked by Republicans including a bill setting spending limits and authorizing partial public financing of congressional elections. In 1996, bipartisan legislation for voluntary spending limits which rewarded those who comply, and which banned soft money, was killed by a Republican filibuster.[6]

The Reform Party, founded by Ross Perot, made campaign finance reform a central issue in its platform, and when Perot ran for president in 1992 and 1996 he strongly argued for it. Oddly enough, most political scientists believe that campaign finance laws hindered Perot's efforts to establish the Reform Party on a permanent basis.[citation needed]

In 1997, the McCain-Feingold bipartisan bill sought to close soft money and TV advertising expenditures but the legislation was defeated by a Republican filibuster. Several different proposals were made in 1999 by both parties. The Campaign Integrity Act (H.R. 1867) proposed by Asa Hutchinson (R - Arkansas) put a ban on soft money and raised hard money limits. The Citizen Legislature & Political ACT (H.R. 1922) sponsored by Rep. John Doolittle (R - CA) would repeal all federal freedom ACT election contribution limits and expedite and expand disclosure. H.R. 417 Campaign Reform Act Shays-Meehan Bill, sponsored by Christopher Shays (R - CT) and Martin Meehan (D - MA), banned soft money and limited types of campaign advertising.[6]

Campaign finance again became a major issue in the 2000 presidential election, especially with candidates John McCain and Ralph Nader. Organizations in favor of campaign finance reform included many public interest groups, such as Common Cause, Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, and Democracy Matters. Opposition came from a coalition of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Competitive Politics (both of which argue that campaign finance reform would harm free speech) and the National Rifle Association, National Right to Life Committee, and other organizations.

Developments after ‘’Citizens United’’

The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections. The bill would also impose new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would require the sponsor of the ad to appear in it and take responsibility for it. Obama argued that the bill would also reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.[9][10]

Disclosure laws helped shed light on who was paying for elections. However, not all money was disclosed in the 2010 election cycle and this undisclosed money was termed "dark money".[11] In 2012 the Boston Globe repeated the same term "dark money" and described money flowing from tax-exempt non-profits in the form of interest advocacy groups as "social welfare".[12]

Hard money and soft money

Political money in the United States is often divided into two categories, "hard" money and "soft" money.

"Hard" money is contributed directly to a political candidate running for elected office. It is regulated by law in both source and amount, and disclosures are made to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) (maximum $2500). However, the structure of the FEC, which causes it to regularly vote 3 against 3 and take no action, renders it ineffective and subjected to regulatory capture.[13]

"Soft" money, also called an independent expenditure, is contributed to non-candidate groups. Historically, "soft money" referred to contributions made to political parties for purposes of party building, get out the vote campaigns and other activities not directly related to the election of specific candidates. Because these contributions were not used for specific candidate advocacy, they were not regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold) prohibited unregulated contributions to national party committees. "Soft money" also refers to unlimited contributions to organizations and committees other than candidate campaigns and political parties (except, where legal, to state and local parties for use solely in state and local races). Organizations which receive "Soft money" contributions are often called "527s", for the section of the tax code under which they operate. The term is generally used to refer to independent, nonprofit political organizations that are not regulated by the FEC or by a state elections commission, and are not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs. Such organizations can legally engage in political activity, but funds from "soft money" contributions may not be spent on ads promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate.

Soft money raised between 1993–2002

Party 1993–1994 1995–1996 1997–1998 1999–2000 2001–2002
Democratic Party 45.6 million 122.3 million 92.8 million 243 million 199.6 million
Republican Party 59.5 million 141.2 million 131.6 million 244.4 million 221.7 million
Total contributions 105.1 million 263.5 million 224.4 million 487.4 million 421.3 million[14]

Bundling

Another consequence of the limitation upon personal contributions from any one individual ($2400 for each election, with a total of $4800 for a primary and general election as of 2009[citation needed]) is that campaigns seek out "bundlers", people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community, and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns often recognize these bundlers with honorary titles and, in some cases, exclusive events featuring the candidate.

Bundling has always existed in various forms, but has become more important with the enactment of limits on contributions at the federal level and in most states in the 1970s.[15] EMILY's List, for example, was involved in early bundling-like activities. Bundlers grew in importance again after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited soft money contributions to political parties.[16]

Bundling became organized in a more structured way in the 2000s, spearheaded by the "Bush Pioneers" for George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. One infamous former "bundler" was Democratic Party supporter and apparel manufacturer Norman Hsu, who achieved a prominent role as one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's "HillRaisers" for her 2008 presidential campaign.[16] Hsu was then found to be a fugitive from an early 1990s fraud charge; in such cases, campaigns usually return or donate to charity the contributions that the person in question gave, but are left with the thorny question of whether to return all the other contributions that bundler gave. In some cases, including Hsu's, bundlers are suspected of having donated their own money under others' names (to circumvent the individual contribution limit) or of having coerced employees or others to make contributions with their own money, both of which are illegal. But most bundlers operate legally and help to reduce the time and cost of fundraising for the candidates and their campaigns.

During the 2008 campaign the six leading primary candidates (three Democratic, three Republican) had listed a total of nearly two thousand bundlers.[16]

Current provisions of federal campaign finance laws

Disclosure

Current campaign finance law at the federal level requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Federal candidate committees must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must provide the names, occupations, employers and addresses of all individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures to any individual or vendor. The Federal Election Commission maintains this database and publishes the information about campaigns and donors on its web site.

Similar reporting requirements exist in many states for state and local candidates and for PACs and party committees.

Increasingly, political committees on all levels are required to electronically file campaign finance statements.

Most political advertising, including all advertising that specifically advocates the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office, is required to identify the source of its funding. In elections for national office (Congress and president/vice-president), television ads from a candidate must feature a shot of the candidate's face and have the candidate personally identify himself/herself, saying, "I approved this message." The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act added this rule in the belief that candidates would not engage in negative campaign advertising if they had to personally claim responsibility for the ad's content. As of 2007, little empirical research has been done on its effects, but no one has reported a noticeable effect on the tone of campaigning.[citation needed]

Independent expenditures

The Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) held that expenditures made independently of a candidate's campaign could not be limited under the Constitution. If expenditures are made in "coordination" with a campaign, however, they may be regulated as contributions.

Corporate, union, wealthy activity

Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals. In the case of unions, this consists of union members and their families. For corporations, the restricted class consists of managerial employees and stockholders and their families. For wealthy individuals funds may come directly from their personal bank account or via foundations they have set up. Funds may be used to support federal candidates and political committees, either through independent expenditures or through contributions to candidates. A PAC used to be limited to receiving a maximum contribution of $5,000 to a candidate committee per election. However, this has largely been skirted by claiming the PAC isn't directly associated with a particular candidate and funding into these types of PACs or Super PACs as they have come to be know is unlimited.

Because of the Supreme Court's decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations and labor unions can now use the funds from their general treasuries to run advertisements for candidates in national elections. The Supreme Court decided that any laws prohibiting corporations and labor unions from using these funds were prohibiting first amendment rights.[17]

Additionally, over half the states allow some level of direct corporate contributions or spending in state and local races.

Political party activity

Political parties are active in federal elections at the local, state and national levels. Most party committees organized at the state and national levels as well as some committees organized at the local level are required to register with the FEC and file reports disclosing their federal campaign activities.

Party committees may contribute funds directly to candidates, subject to the contribution limits. National and state party committees may make additional "coordinated expenditures", subject to limits, to help their nominees in general elections. National party committees may also make unlimited "independent expenditures" to support or oppose federal candidates. However, since 2002, national parties have been prohibited from accepting any funds outside the limits established for elections in the FECA. State party and local committees are also subject to restrictions on the funds they may spend in connection with an election in which a federal candidate is on the ballot.

Party committees must report with the FEC once their federal election activities exceed certain dollar thresholds specified in the law.

Table of federal donation limits

It is a federal crime to evade the following donation limits through a straw donor scheme.

To each candidate1 To national party committee2 To state, district & local party committee2 To any other political committee2 Special Limits
Individual may give $2,500 $30,800[Note 1] $10,000[Note 2] $5,000 $117,000[Note 1] overall biennial limit;
National Party Committee may give $5,000 No limit $5,000 $43,100[Note 1] to Senate candidate per campaign[Note 3]
State, District and Local Party Committee may give $5,000[Note 2] No limit $5,000[Note 2] No limit
PAC (multicandidate)[Note 4] may give $5,000 $15,000 $5,000[Note 2] $5,000 No limit
PAC (not multicandidate)[Note 4] may give $2,500[Note 1] $30,800[Note 1] $10,000[Note 2] $5,000 No limit
Authorized Campaign Committee may give $2,000[Note 5] No limit No limit $5,000 No limit

Table footnotes

  1. ^ a b c d e f g indexed for inflation
  2. ^ a b c d e combined limit
  3. ^ This limit is shared by the national committee and by the national Senate campaign committee
  4. ^ a b A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributors which has been registered for at least 6 months and, with the exception of state party committees, has made contributions to 5 or more candidates for federal office.
  5. ^ A federal candidate's authorized committee(s) may contribute no more than $2,000 per election to another federal candidate's authorized committee(s).

Source:[18]

Public financing of campaigns

See also: Campaign finance reform in the United States § Current proposals for reform

At the federal level, public funding is limited to subsidies for presidential candidates. To receive subsidies in the primary, candidates must qualify by privately raising $5000 each in at least 20 states. For qualified candidates, the government provides a dollar for dollar "match" for each contribution to the campaign, up to a limit of $250 per contribution. In return, the candidate agrees to limit his or her spending according to a statutory formula.

From the inception of this program in 1976 through 1992, almost all candidates who could qualify accepted matching funds in the primary. However, in 1996 Republican Steve Forbes opted out of the program. In 2000, Forbes and George W. Bush opted out. In 2004 Bush and Democrats John Kerry and Howard Dean chose not to take matching funds in the primary.[citation needed]

In 2008, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and Republicans John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul decided not to take primary matching funds. Republican Tom Tancredo[19] and Democrats Chris Dodd,[20] Joe Biden[21] and John Edwards elected to take public financing.

By refusing matching funds, candidates are free to spend as much money as they can raise privately. In 2008, Barack Obama pledged to seek public financing for the general election, but later reversed himself in order to avoid fundraising limits.[22]

In addition to primary matching funds, the federal government subsidizes the presidential nominating conventions of the major parties (the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention). Based on the performance of their party in past elections, candidates may be offered the opportunity to accept government funds for the general election. If they accept the government funds, they agree not to raise or spend private funds or to spend more than $50,000 of their personal resources. No major party nominee turned down government funds for the general election from 1976, when the program was launched, until Barack Obama did so in 2008,[23] or for General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance Funds (GELACs), which pay for attorneys and closeout costs but are not supposed to pay for campaigning or advertising.[24] The only party other than the Republicans and Democrats to receive government funding in a general election was the Reform Party, which qualified for government subsidies in 1996 and 2000 on the basis of Ross Perot's strong showing in the 1992 and 1996 elections.

The presidential public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check-off on individual tax returns (the check off does not increase the filer's taxes, but merely directs $3 of the government's general fund to the presidential fund). The number of taxpayers who use the check off has fallen steadily since the early 1980s, until by 2006 fewer than 8 percent of taxpayers were directing money to the fund, leaving the fund chronically short of cash.[25]

A small number of states and cities have started to use broader programs for public financing of campaigns. One method, which its supporters call Clean Money, Clean Elections, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a fixed amount of money. To qualify for this subsidy, the candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions. The candidates are not allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding. Candidates who choose to raise money privately rather than accept the government subsidy are subject to significant administrative burdens and legal restrictions, with the result that most candidates accept the subsidy. This procedure has been in place in races for all statewide and legislative offices in Arizona and Maine since 2000, where a majority of officials were elected without spending any private contributions on their campaigns. Connecticut passed a Clean Elections law in 2005, along with the cities of Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico.

A 2003 study by the GAO found that "It is too soon to determine the extent to which the goals of Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing programs are being met."[26]

In recent years, the movement for "Clean Elections" appears to have stalled. Proposition 89, a California ballot proposition in November 2006, sponsored by the California Nurses Union, that would have provided for public financing of political campaigns and strict contribution limits on corporations, was defeated. In 2008, the non-partisan California Fair Elections Act passed the legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger signed it, but the law does not take effect unless approved by voters in a referendum in 2010. A proposal to implement Clean Elections in Alaska was voted down by a two-to-one margin in 2008.,[27] and a pilot program in New Jersey was terminated in 2008 amid concern about its constitutionality and that the law was ineffective in accomplishing its goals. In 2006, in Randall v. Sorrell, the Supreme Court held that large parts of Vermont's Clean Elections law were unconstitutional. In 2008, the Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission suggested that a key part of most Clean Election laws—a provision granting extra money (or "rescue funds") to participating candidates who are being outspent by non-participating candidates—is unconstitutional. On the basis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission, in late 2008 a federal court in Arizona found the "rescue funds" prosivions of Arizona's Clean Elections law unconstitutional in McCommish v. Brewer.[28] In a suit brought by the Green Party of Connecticut, a federal court ruled Connecticut's law was unconstitutional in August 2009.[29] An appeal is pending as of October 2009.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Unregulated soft money now partys for most party electioneering ads, Brennan Center, lead author Craig Holman, March 28, 2001
  2. ^ What is a 'Super PAC (Political Action Committee)'?, By Brett Williams, Feb 03 2012
  3. ^ The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World by Mark Hertsgaard (campaign finance on page 165) ISBN 978-0-374-70632-6
  4. ^ "Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws". National Public Radio.
  5. ^ National Conference of State Legislatures (2010-01-20). "Contribution Limits: An Overview". Retrieved 2010-07-24.
  6. ^ a b c d e "CAMPAIGN FINANCE Historical Timeline" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  7. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_organization#2004_election_controversy
  8. ^ "State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress". Journalist's Resource.org.
  9. ^ "DISCLOSE Act Faces GOP Filibuster In Senate". Huffingtonpost.com. 2010-07-27. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  10. ^ "DownWithTyranny!: GOP Filibuster Succeeds In Blocking Campaign Finance Reform". Downwithtyranny.blogspot.com. 2010-07-28. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  11. ^ No, super PACs are not good for Democracy, by Elias Isquith, February 21, 2012
  12. ^ Ruling allows major political donors to hide identities, Boston Globe, February 15, 2012, by Brian C. Mooney
  13. ^ CREW Sues the Federal Election Commission over Case Dismissals, OMB Watch, August 17, 2010
  14. ^ Bardes, Steffen W. Schmidt, Mack C. Shelley, Barbara A. (2009). American government & politics today (2009-2010 ed., alternate edition. ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. p. 360. ISBN 978-0-495-56871-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ "Emily's List: Where we Come From". EMILY's List. 2007.
  16. ^ a b c David D. Kirkpatrick (2007-08-31). "Use of Bundlers Raises New Risks for Campaigns". The New York Times.
  17. ^ Liptak, Adam (2010-01-22). "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  18. ^ Table taken from the FEC website on 2 April 2011.
  19. ^ FEC.gov, Tancredo certification.
  20. ^ FEC.gov, dodd eligible.
  21. ^ "Biden cert". Fec.gov. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  22. ^ Murray, Shailagh; Bacon Jr, Perry (2008-06-20). "Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
  23. ^ "Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election". Blogs.abcnews.com. 2008-06-19. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  24. ^ Van, Don (2000-09-28). "The 2000 Campaign: fund-raising; Republicans Call Gore Solicitation Misleading". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  25. ^ Taxpayers elect not to pay for campaigns, USATODAY
  26. ^ "GAO-03-543 Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  27. ^ Anchorage Daily News.
  28. ^ Goldwaterinstitute.org McComish v. Brewer opinion.
  29. ^ Campaignfreedom.org "Green Party v. Garfield".

Further reading

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States&oldid=484900530"