1
Campaign Finance Reform & MEDIA 1972: FECA Laws enacted-contribution limits, disclosure statements, public money for Presidential elections 1972: WATERGATE…Nixon’s CREEP-Congress rewrites FECA in response to the corrupt nature of Nixon’s re-election campaign 1976: Buckley v. Valeo…upholds restrictions on “hard money”—basically can spend all you want, but contribute only so much (1 st Amendment Rights) Soft money explodes due to nature of Buckley v. Valeo…if advocating for candidate then must be direct money, but if the ad does not specifically mention candidates spending was unlimited Bill Clinton in 1988 spent “soft-money” so well that there were investigations, but no charges… “Soft-money” is hard to track and control…it will get worse….. 1990s: A group of congressmen start to attack campaign finance laws (VIDEO: Interest grou`ps focus on “Calling the Other Candidate” instead of advocating for the Vote for/against a candidate 2002: McCain (R) & Feingold (D) put together the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform…limited soft-money advertising…couldn’t show ads 30 days prior to primary election and 60 days before general election—try to eliminate “electioneering”… 2003: McConnell v. FEC—upheld most of major provisions of McCain/Feingold...Rehnquist Court resists urge to link campaign donations to Freedom of Speech…loophole is found using tax code- 527s sprung up around the 2004 election 2006: Randall v. Sorrell-Vermont law of mandatory spending was unconstitutional…Roberts Court… first time Court had struck down a contribution limit law 2007: Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC—Roberts Court expands 1 st Amendment connection to campaign finance by basically gutting McCain/Feingold…strike down the provision that limited soft money ads prior to an election (throw out the 30/60 day rules of McCain/Feingold) 2010: Citizens United v. FEC—Political speech used in the media is protected by 1 st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech (Hillary: The Movie—group made a movie against Hillary & showed it around the election)…5-4 decision Roberts Court; decision written by Kennedy….allowed the explosion of contributions by unions, corporate groups to outside interest groups thus the creation of SUPER PACs…(1907 ban on corporations giving directly to candidates/parties still in effect)….McCain/Feingold Law violated corporations/unions 1 st amendment rights… Mitch McConnell (R) said, “Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some, but

Campaign Finance Reform & MEDIA

  • Upload
    alden

  • View
    72

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Campaign Finance Reform & MEDIA. 1972: FECA Laws enacted-contribution limits, disclosure statements, public money for Presidential elections 1972: WATERGATE…Nixon’s CREEP-Congress rewrites FECA in response to the corrupt nature of Nixon’s re-election campaign - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Campaign Finance Reform & MEDIA

Campaign Finance Reform & MEDIA• 1972: FECA Laws enacted-contribution limits, disclosure statements, public money for Presidential elections• 1972: WATERGATE…Nixon’s CREEP-Congress rewrites FECA in response to the corrupt nature of Nixon’s re-election campaign• 1976: Buckley v. Valeo…upholds restrictions on “hard money”—basically can spend all you want, but contribute only so much (1 st

Amendment Rights)– Soft money explodes due to nature of Buckley v. Valeo…if advocating for candidate then must be direct money, but if the ad does

not specifically mention candidates spending was unlimited– Bill Clinton in 1988 spent “soft-money” so well that there were investigations, but no charges… “Soft-money” is hard to track and

control…it will get worse…..• 1990s: A group of congressmen start to attack campaign finance laws (VIDEO: Interest grou`ps focus on “Calling the Other Candidate”

instead of advocating for the Vote for/against a candidate• 2002: McCain (R) & Feingold (D) put together the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform…limited

soft-money advertising…couldn’t show ads 30 days prior to primary election and 60 days before general election—try to eliminate “electioneering”…

• 2003: McConnell v. FEC—upheld most of major provisions of McCain/Feingold...Rehnquist Court resists urge to link campaign donations to Freedom of Speech…loophole is found using tax code-527s sprung up around the 2004 election

• 2006: Randall v. Sorrell-Vermont law of mandatory spending was unconstitutional…Roberts Court…first time Court had struck down a contribution limit law

• 2007: Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC—Roberts Court expands 1st Amendment connection to campaign finance by basically gutting McCain/Feingold…strike down the provision that limited soft money ads prior to an election (throw out the 30/60 day rules of McCain/Feingold)

• 2010: Citizens United v. FEC—Political speech used in the media is protected by 1 st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech (Hillary: The Movie—group made a movie against Hillary & showed it around the election)…5-4 decision Roberts Court; decision written by Kennedy….allowed the explosion of contributions by unions, corporate groups to outside interest groups thus the creation of SUPER PACs…(1907 ban on corporations giving directly to candidates/parties still in effect)….McCain/Feingold Law violated corporations/unions 1 st amendment rights…– Mitch McConnell (R) said, “Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some, but for all.”– Justice Stevens wrote in the dissent, “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the

Nation.”– Independent political organizations known as "super PACs" are the wild cards in this year's election, the product of a series of court

rulings, including the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January 2010. A total of 44 super PACs have spent $78.3 million — 57% of which has been spent opposing candidates.—3/21/12----http://graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-superpac-spending/