In this article, Joel M. Gora examines the much debated Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which, in legitimizing money spent to influence elections as a constitutionally protected form of speech, upheld a bevy of speech-stifling campaign finance regulations, including federal limits on campaign contributions to candidates. In his analysis, Gora notes that the effect of these contribution limits has been to aid the incumbency advantage in elections. In addition, Gora finds fault with the failure to raise federal contribution limits since they were originally enacted then-25 years prior, completely neglecting inflationary market trends. This article continues by extensively highlighting the manner in which campaign finance laws have consistently failed to achieve their goals. Since its publication in 1999, Gora has concluded that the easing of restrictions on political parties is the best route to a more efficient and effective political system. Furthermore, although he offers support for a moderated system of taxpayer financed campaigns in this article, Gora has since reversed his opinion and no longer supports taxpayer financed elections due to their ineffective and partially unconstitutional nature. Nevertheless, this powerful review of the Buckley v. Valeo decision illuminates the negative consequences it has had on political participation in American elections.
Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contributions & Limits, Enforcement, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Contribution Limits, Enforcement, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Contributions & Limits, Enforcement, Jurisprudence & Litigation
Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? Or, Do Donors Support Candidtes Who Value the Same Things that they Do?
Despite all the work on how campaign donations influence a politician’s behavior, the nagging question of whether contributions alter how a politician votes or whether these contributions constitute support for like-minded individuals remains unresolved. By combining past campaign contributions literature with work on politicians intrinsically valuing policy outcomes, the authors offer a simple test that examines how politicians’ voting patterns change when they retire and no longer face the threat of lost campaign contributions. If contributions are causing individual politicians to vote differently, there should be systematic changes in voting behavior when future contributions are eliminated. In contrast, if contributors donate to candidates who intrinsically value the same policies, there should be no changes in how a politician votes during the last period. After testing 661 congressmen, who served in the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1990, the authors strongly reject the notion that campaign contributions buy politicians’ votes. Their estimates demonstrate a remarkable degree of stability in voting patterns over time, thus lending support to past work emphasizing that it is costly for ideological politicians to alter their positions.
In the wake of recent reports of questionable campaign finance practices have come ever more draconian proposals to “reform” the campaign finance system. Those proposals pose a disturbing threat to the individual political freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. Under current precedents, none of them could survive a First Amendment challenge.
Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contributions & Limits, Enforcement, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Political Committees & 527s, Research, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Jurisprudence & Litigation
In this article David Mason explains soft money and the constitutional protection for political speech that prevents Congress from limiting it by legislating what can and cannot be done or said and how much money may be spent doing so.
This article first appeared in the Essays in Public Policy series published by the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, in 1997. In Political Money: The New Prohibition Annelise Anderson addresses whether or not we are spending too much on political campaigns and whether either expenditure limits or contribution limits are desirable or effective in accomplishing the purposes they supposedly serve. Rather than increase limits on spending and contributions, she recommends abolishing them but strengthening campaign finance reporting requirements and the speed with which data are made available to the public.
This study challenges the orthodoxy that political money must be limited. The author first outlines the current law of political money and proposals for reform, and then critically examines reformers’ arguments by examining the political and constitutional theories that refute them. She concludes by noting that the best way to resolve the anomalies in the current campaign finance landscape may be to eliminate contribution limits entirely.
This research first clusters campaign activities in Louisiana state legislative elections into five clusters: direct attempts to persuade voters, obtaining the support of other elites, attempts to increase turnout, seeking endorsements from other political officials, and fund raising. Indices created from these clusters are then compared to the situational factors of incumbency and competition as predictors of election outcomes. Data are surveys of candidates for the Louisiana legislature in which they were asked about the conduct of their campaigns and their relative emphasis on various activities. Incumbency was by far the best predictor of what percentage of the vote a candidate obtained, and in open seat contests, expenditures and competition best predicted outcome. Overall, the campaign activities had very little relationship to outcome when controlling for situational factors. Variations occurred between the House and Senate races with implications for challengers” strategies and campaign financing.
The lobbying group Democracy 21 has come out in favor of an "Office of Public Integrity" to "clean up " Congress. This office will be "independent," "must receive adequate resources" (whether Congress will be able to control its budget is unclear) and "should have a professional, nonpartisan staff led by a publicly credible, professionally experienced individual."
CCP Executive Director Steve Hoersting has a little warning tale, posted at RedState.
To hear the tale, click here.
Filed Under: Blog