1	Campaign Finance
2	Basic Campaign Finance Laws Contribution limits (limiting how much money a person gives to a candidate/committee) Expenditure limits (limiting how much money a person spends independently supporting or opposing a candidate Disclosure rules Public financing laws
3	1974 FECA Amendments Contribution limits - individual $1,000 limit Expenditure limits - individual $1,000 limit Disclosure reports for those collecting contributions or making expenditures Created voluntary public financing system for presidential candidates Created the Federal Election Commission
4	Buckley v. Valeo – First Amendment challenge to 1974 FECA Amendment Supreme Court: Upheld contribution limits Struck down expenditure limits Upheld disclosure rules (but created a big loophole) Upheld public financing plan
5	Focus Limits on contributions / expenditures Disclosure rules Public financing FEC-related issues
6	Why did the Court uphold contribution limits? Court said “exacting scrutiny” (like tough “strict scrutiny” standard) Contribution limits held to have little effect on rights of speech and association (act of contributing was symbolic / amount not important)
7	"Government had a strong interest..." Government had a strong interest in contribution limits: prevented at least the “appearance of corruption” What is “corruption” (how do you prove it?) Is it only quid pro quo? What is “appearance of corruption” (how do you prove it?)
8	Why Did The Court Strike Down Expenditure Limits? Court appeared to apply strict scrutiny Unlike contribution limits, expenditure limits would prevent most people from participating in election-related spending. (Core of the First Amendment)
9	"Preventing corruption is subjective" Preventing corruption is subjective. How do we know that truly independent spending would actually help a candidate? The Court also rejected an equality rational (level the playing field) as foreign to the First Amendment”
10	Evading the Law FECA individual expenditure limit applied to spending “relative to” a clearly identified candidate for office. Court said this term was too vague, (someone could go to jail for violating the law without knowing what the law required)
11	Vagueness Fix Created Loophole To solve the vagueness problem, the Court construed the term “relative to” to mean only spending that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office. Words such as “Vote for,” “Vote against,” etc.
12	"An ad saying “Call..." An ad saying “Call Bush and tell him what you think of his lousy Medicare plan,” or “Call Kerry and tell him to stop being weak on defense,” the advertisement would not be covered.
13	"Expenditure limits didn’t serve national..." Expenditure limits didn’t serve national interest.
14	The Court Previously Had Struck Down Expenditure Limits Corporations / unions prohibited from making contributions or expenditures supporting or opposing federal candidates. Applied only to contributions and expenditures funding express advocacy
15	"Corporations and unions began spending..." Corporations and unions began spending money on sham issue ads, intended to influence elections, but avoided words of express advocacy
16	"Individuals limited to $25,000..." Individuals limited to $25,000 per year to candidates, parties, and committees involved in federal elections, could give more for things other than express advocacy (voter registration, and sham issue ads)
17	"Contributions to parties for these..." Contributions to parties for these activities became known as soft money contributions Not subject to the same “hard money” limits contributed to fund express advocacy
18	Ramification of the Supreme Court’s vagueness in Buckley The Court applied a similar construction to the FECA’s disclosure rules, meaning no disclosure not required if someone ran ad that did not use express advocacy
19	Disclosure Problem In 2000 New York Republican primary, George W. Bush and John McCain ran for the presidential nomination. A group, “Republicans for Clean Air,” gave $2 million in NY television ads criticizing John McCain’s environmental record, but avoiding words of express advocacy. No disclosure required
20	Follow the Money The ads were paid for by Sam Wyly and his brother (Texas businessman - Longtime supporter of George W. Bush)
21	"Buckley - contribution limits are..." Buckley - contribution limits are generally constitutional but expenditure limits aren’t
22	The Corporate / Exception Buckley did not consider old laws prohibiting corporate contributions and expenditures in federal elections Similar prohibition had been in place for unions since 1947 Corporations and unions could set up separate PACs subject to special rules
23	1996 Abuses Changes in the campaign finance regime
24	Rise of Soft Money / Sale of Access Parties began courting corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to fund “issue ads.” Access to elected officials in return Examples: Democrats’ Lincoln Bedroom and Republicans’ Team 100.
25	Rise of “Issue Advocacy” Spending Annenberg studies show issue ad spending from $100 million in 1992 to over $500 million in 2000.
26	Congressional response: McCain-Feingold (BCRA) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), supported mostly by Democrats Passed in 2001, signed by President Bush
27	BCRA Main Features Ban on soft money by parties or elected officials (even on the state and local level)
28	Election-related speech / Issue Speech - “Electioneering Communications:” TV/radio ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of general election Featuring candidate for federal office Targeted at the relevant electorate
29	Less Vague but Too Broad The new electioneering communications provision less vague than Buckley Too broad: Applied to sham issue advocacy but also genuine issue advocacy
30	“Electioneering Communications” Changes Law Corporations, unions, and organizations taking corporate or union money cannot fund sham issue advocacy
31	"Everyone engaged in electioneering communications..." Everyone engaged in electioneering communications must disclose identity—(no more anonymity)
32	McConnell v. Federal Election Commission Court upheld all of the soft money limitations applied to political parties (An ad that says “I believe in the values of George W. Bush. Vote for me,” would have to be paid for with money raised according to federal law.
33	"The court held that the..." The court held that the soft money rules were justified to prevent corruption
34	"Limits on the activities of..." Limits on the activities of states and local parties needed to prevent parties from going around the new limits on national parties.
35	Upholding Electioneering Communications Only Justice Thomas dissented, raising concerns about the First Amendment costs of compelled disclosure of this information
36	527s Bush successful in raising $2,000 individual contributions / has raised over $150 million to spend in the primary season
37	"Republicans have more supporters with..." Republicans have more supporters with $2,000 to donate Fundraisers use bundling system: Pioneers (pledge to raise at least $100,000); Rangers at least ($200,000)
38	"Democrats can no longer depend..." Democrats can no longer depend upon a few wealthy individuals, corporations, or unions to provide large soft money. Rise of new independent, 527s (named after a provision of the tax code)
39	527 Funding Democratic-leaning 527s (including Moveon.org voter fund, Media Fund, Americans Coming Together) getting big donations from George Soros and others.
40	Should Contributions to 527s be Limited? Should 527s be treated as “political committees?” PACs may not accept contributions from individuals over $5,000, but 527s can.
41	527s: The Constitutional Question 527s don’t make contributions to candidates. / Don’t sell access to candidates. Unconstitutional to limit George Soros’s independent spending Why is it constitutional to limit the independent spending of a 527 that takes his money?
42	Caution On soft money and issue advocacy provisions, the Court split 5-4 One Justice could easily lead to disclosure of only campaign finance laws, but no limits on contributing or spending.