Soft and Hard Money in Contemporary Elections


Book Description

The Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C. presents the full text of "Soft and Hard Money in Contemporary Elections: What Federal Law Does and Does Not Regulate," a January 10, 1997 report written by Joseph E. Cantor. The U.S. Library of Congress originally published the report as part of its Congressional Research Service report series.




Soft Money Hard Law


Book Description

"For the first time in more than a quarter century, Congress has passed and the president has signed into law a major reform the of the way political campaigns are financed. Effective November 6. 2002, the law shuts down much 'soft money' raised and spent by political parties and outside groups. The law also will affect how political campaigns are funded, how political advertising is conducted, how laws are enforced, and how nonprofits and political parties conduct voter registration and other grassroots activities."--Book description.







Money Rules


Book Description

The role of money in the US electoral process has become more and more controversial in recent years. Following the Buckley ruling and other legislation in 1996, candidates and political parties are free to raise virtually unlimited soft money, making money perhaps the most significant factor in a campaigns success. In Money Rules , Anthony Gierzynski theorizes that, under our current system of financing elections, our political process has tilted too far in favor of political freedom , at the expense of political equality . Gierzynski examines the historical roots of the campaign finance dilemma, demonstrates its effects on the local, state, and national levels, and projects the long-term outcomes for American politics.




Soft and Hard Money in Contemporary Elections


Book Description

Financial activity in federal elections is governed by federal statutes, which have evolved under the influence of various court rulings. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, as amended, imposes limitations and prohibitions on money from certain sources and requires public disclosure of money raised and spent in federal elections. Based on the Supreme Court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, federal law generally does not impose mandatory limits on campaign spending by candidates or groups.1 While federal law regulates some types and sources of campaign money, other types and sources are exempt from coverage. Also, there are wide differences in what federal law allows in federal elections and what 50 state statutes allow in state elections. Money that is outside the federal regulatory framework, but raised and spent in a manner suggesting possible intent to affect federal elections, is known as soft money. The omissions from federal regulation and disparities between federal and state laws have created confusion about current practices. This report examines the major types of financial activity in elections and what are often labeled as loopholes in federal law. In the 107th Congress, both the House-passed Shays-Meehan (H.R. 2356) and the Senate-passed McCain-Feingold (S. 27) bills would ban the raising of soft money by national parties and federal candidates or officials, and would restrict soft money spending by state parties on what the bills define as federal election activities. Both bills would also regulate certain communications now considered to be "issue advocacy" and thus outside the purview of federal election law, designating them instead as "electioneering communications," subject to disclosure requirements and, for specified entities, a prohibition on their financing with treasury funds.







Voting with Dollars


Book Description

divdivIn this provocative book, two leading law professors challenge the existing campaign reform agenda and present a new initiative that avoids the mistakes of the past. Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres build on the example of the secret ballot and propose a system of “secret donation booths” for campaign contributions. They unveil a plan in which the government provides each voter with a special credit card account containing fifty “Patriot dollars” for presidential elections. To use this money, citizens go to their local ATM machine and anonymously send their Patriot dollars to their favorite candidates or political organizations. Americans are free to make additional contributions, but they must also give these gifts anonymously. Because candidates cannot identify who provided the funds, it will be much harder for big contributors to buy political influence. And the need for politicians to compete for the Patriot dollars will give much more power to the people. Ackerman and Ayres work out the operating details of their plan, anticipate problems, design safeguards, suggest overseers, and show how their proposals satisfy the most stringent constitutional requirements. They conclude with a model statute that could serve as the basis of a serious congressional effort to restore Americans’ faith in democratic politics./DIV/DIV




More Soft Money Hard Law


Book Description

On December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued its decision upholding most of the provisions of the new federal campaign finance law that Congress enacted, among other purposes, to restrict the use of "soft money" in federal elections. The Court's decision followed the publication by the Federal Election Commission of scores of new rules and also "advisory opinions" clarifying and expanding upon the provisions of the new statute. With these developments, the Presidential and Congressional elections of 2004 will proceed under a host of new campaign fundraising, advertising and other restrictions.More Soft Money Hard Law provides a current account of the changes in the law, with special attention to the new rules of the Federal Election Commission and the impact of the Supreme Court decision. This is the followup edition of an earlier volume, Soft Money Hard Law, and it has been fully revised to reflect the new developments. New examples are provided to clarify the effect of particular provisionis, and a new and expanded Appendix includes the relevant Commission rules, along with excerpts from the Supreme Court decision.




Campaign Finance and Political Polarization


Book Description

An illuminating perspective on the polarizing effects of campaign finance reform




Super PACs


Book Description

The passage of Citizens United by the Supreme Court in 2010 sparked a renewed debate about campaign spending by large political action committees, or Super PACs. Its ruling said that it is okay for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want in advertising and other methods to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. This book provides a wide range of opinions on the issue. Includes primary and secondary sources from a variety of perspectives; eyewitnesses, scientific journals, government officials, and many others.