Campaign Finance527, PAC, SuperPAC ads

Objective: To better understand campaign finance and its influence on

political campaigns

November 17, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/campaign-finance/

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-photo-

charlie-114429739886.html

I. Federal Election Campaign Acts, 1971-1974

1. Established FEC-regulate elections

2. Candidates-disclose??1. Must disclose contributions $ expenditures

3. Pres. candidates-receive fed. Subsidies (tax check-offs)

4. Accept fed. Money=spending limitations…

5. $84 million in 2008 general election (McCain excepted/Obama did not – first major candidate to not accept)1. Must raise at least $5,000 in 20 states

I. FECA 1971, 1974…• Contribution limitations:

– $1000 per candidate, per election– PACs: $5000 per candidate, per election, no

overall cap

II. Effects of Buckley v. Valeo (1976)– Court upheld limits on campaign contributions– Courts struck down limits on the amount

individuals could contribute to their own campaigns(1st amendment-free spend)

– Perot-$60 million 1992– Romney-$44 million 2008

III. Campaign Reform Act, 2002 (McCain-Feingold Bill/BRCA)

• Regulates soft money to NATIONAL political parties (Soft $=???)– Soft Money =undisclosed, unlimited donations to parties for

party building activities (Now all money to the parties is regulated and capped by the FEC)

• Limits soft $ to STATE political parties-$10,000 (restricted to):– Voter registration, get out the vote drives

• Doubles “hard money” to $2000 (goes up with inflation-$2600 in 2013/14) – Hard Money =disclosed, limited donations to candidates

• No change on PAC limits ($5,000)

IV. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010• BRCAbanned corps/unions from “electioneering

communications” – 60 days of gen. election and 30 days of primary (unions/corps.)

• SCOTUS ruled: – Allowed corps/unions to air ads explicitly supporting or opposing a

federal candidate (ISSUE ADVOCACY ADS WERE BANNED FROM DOING THIS PRIOR)

– Eliminated the bans on electioneering communications – Kept rule that bans corps/unions from donating directly to candidates– Can say vote for or against

THEREFORE…SUPERPACShttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-17-2012/colbert-super-pac---

not-coordinating-with-stephen-colbert

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/stephen-colberts-super-pac-ad-mitt-ripper-15371195

V. Analysis1. No subsidies for congressional campaigns

incumbency advantage

2. Minor parties5% of pop. Vote in previous election in order to receive subsidies

3. Parties are weakened even moreCandidate centered campaign vs. party centered campaign ($ goes to candidate)

4. Growth of PACs and candidate dependency

5. Cost of campaigning has risen (MEDIA – 250,000 to over 3 million for Super Bowl) More time spent fundraising

V. Analysis6. No limitations on independent expenditures7. “527s”engage in political activities, receive unlimited

contributions, spent on voter mobilization and issue advocacy ads, no money to candidate (CANNOT SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phqOuEhg9yE8. PACSengage in political activities, contributions to

candidates are limited, can be given to candidate (Realtors PAC), report to FEC (CAN SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST)

9. SUPERPACSengage in political activities, contributions cannot go to a candidate, contributions from individuals are unlimited, report to FEC, (CAN SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST)

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249055/september-15-2009/the-word---let-freedom-ka-ching