Introduction
Campaign finance, also recognized as election funding or political contributions, refers to money raised to support candidates, political groups, public policies, and referendums. Campaign donations may also apply to funds collected from private entities for particular administrative reasons (Butcher, and Milyo 461). At the national level, Congress’s campaign for finance reform is enacted and implemented by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an autonomous government department. National and local statutes regulate races for non-governmental offices. Over half of the states permit a certain standard of corporate and labor movement donations (Butcher, and Milyo 462). Moreover, the need to raise resources to sustain costly election campaigns weakens connections to the democratic system attributed to large donors’ dominance over legislators (Basuki, and Pituringsih 60). Therefore, I agree that the campaign financing system has to be reformed.
Building a Better Campaign Financing System
Campaign financing has become a concern since the early 1970s. However, the Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission lawsuit in the Supreme Court evolved into a significant issue (Basuki, and Pituringsih 63). It sparked a sudden concern about the number of funds being spent on political campaigns, and when this data was used, it made citizens realize the need for systemic change. It is quite evident that the current United States campaign funding structure is disappointing and counterproductive. Those policy changes need to be implemented to regulate the ridiculous money that is spent on nationwide campaigns.
Therefore, amendments need to be enforced simply because the policies which are already in place are ineffective in bringing election funding under control. Without regulatory oversight, the government will be manipulated, and it will make citizens lose confidence in political figures in particular. I also understand that to get funds for their campaign, legislators will concur with the interests which have the most financial resources to get their approval and hence their donations. Thus, it would be tough for a candidate to launch a major campaign without a large amount of money. This will provide individuals and groups with the most funds an upper hand in getting their views accepted. To avert such occurrences, I propose establishing policies that would empower, encourage, and make donor agencies be noticed and acknowledged. The move would place these organizations at the same level as the vested interest funders capable of giving more money to the incumbents. As it is now, the present structure does not regulate the vested interest groups as much as individual donors, which is unjust that the weak voices cannot be heard.
Similarly, I would recommend the creation of a program of expenditure limits. These restrictions would normally be imposed in return for public funding for campaigns or other incentives for candidates (Basuki, and Pituringsih 65). The spending thresholds could put a stop to the ‘arms race’ that sometimes happens as campaigners feel pressured to raise as many funds as possible. Nevertheless, if the volunteer process is to succeed, it should include opportunities for nominee involvement, such as public support or the ability to collect personal finance in larger intervals. Subsequently, the benefits should not be as attractive as they are tempting; if participants are essentially forced to participate, concerns could emerge as to the legality of the framework.
Consequently, I would suggest that corporate entities be directed to set up policy action advisory boards to make an indirect contribution to the campaign. Setting limits on the donation, demanding the submission of the funds’ origin, and the use of the financial resources would also be the right step to take in these reforms. The same would apply to the establishment of a body in charge of taxpayer funding for presidential elections. Another suggestion would aim at changing the structure of political sponsorship, which would be done by prohibiting the use of “soft money” by national party groups. It will also ban “issue advertisements” by independent organizations, which are funded with corporate or union funds (Allen, and Koshima 75). Thus, this would be a significant achievement in regulating and controlling meaningless expenditure of resources.
Full Disclose Act
As a committed reformer, I would expect to see greater oversight of campaign funding and improvements to the existing system in the future. Therefore, establishing a policy that will encourage the Disclose Act’s reinstatement, which would entail complete disclosure of contributions and expenditures from different groups, would go a long way in regulating public resources. Similarly, I would also support the American Anti-Corruption Act, a proposal adopted by the United Republics to limit lobbying and encourage small donors (Allen, and Koshima 76). The legislation aims at placing a $500 limit on activist contributions and offering a $100 tax refund to any person who donates to the campaign (Shapiro, and Zillante 102). It also requires complete transparency of all lobby operations and all campaign funds. Finally, it intends to amend the Federal Election Committee and the IRS and limit the donations of the so-called ‘super PACs.’ The Empowering Citizens Act and the Fair Elections Now Act are two of the works’ reforms (Shapiro, and Zillante 104). They both need to use a donation matching structure to promote small donors.
My Opinion
Therefore, I agree that the framework of campaign finance needs to be reformed. The view that companies have rights to the first amendment is ridiculous. First constitutional rights are granted to the citizens of the country. A business is not an individual, and although it comprises people, those individuals may never have the exact point of view on anything. If an organization supports something, I bet that not every person making up that firm commits to that approval. That is why I agree that the decision of Citizens United should be taken into consideration and reversed. I also align with the implementation of the Disclose Act and the US Anti-Corruption Act. These actions will strengthen the American people’s respective status and strip away the vast amount of control that lobbyists have over the citizens. As a result, the legislators will not be compromised, and all the resources utilized in the campaign will be accounted for. Reform will become inevitable in the next ten years, as the amount of money being spent on elections continues to rise.
Conclusion
The above-proposed amendments show how reform is in the best of intentions to make the campaign funding system less biased and transparent to the United States citizens. Ultimately the country has been taking one step forward and two steps backward, with the reform statute being undermined by various groups and also overturned by the supreme court. Therefore, this shows that even with the best objectives in politics, it is tough to progress when there are those out there who still want to have a clear advantage. However, there is still some hope since numerous reform bodies and individuals strive to ensure the much-needed changes are realized.
Works Cited
Allen, Richard, and Yugo Koshima. “Do Sanctions Improve Compliance with Public Finance Laws and Regulations?”. Public Budgeting & Finance, vol 38, no. 4, 2018, pp. 74-96.
Basuki, Prayitno, and Endar Pituringsih. “Effect of Compliance Regulation and Accountability to the Management of Legislative Election Campaign Funds and Implications on the Transparency of Financial Statements”. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, vol 4, no. 2, 2018, pp. 57-66.
Butcher, Jordan, and Jeffrey Milyo. “Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition? New Evidence from State Legislative Elections”. PS: Political Science & Politics, vol 53, no. 3, 2020, pp. 460-464.
Shapiro, Dmitry, and Arthur Zillante. “Contribution Limits and Transparency in a Campaign Finance Experiment”. Southern Economic Journal, vol 84, no. 1, 2017, pp. 98-119.