Pros And Cons Of Federal Campaign Finance Reform

Throughout roughly the last one hundred years of U.S. history, one significant way lawmakers have attempted to address corruption within the government has been by implementing stricter regulations on the campaign finance system, while opponents of these regulations have argued they do not prevent corruption and have characterized them as limitations on freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. From this, we see the problem is a tension between Congress’s authority to regulate and maintain fair and democratic elections and a disproportionate focus on freedom of speech.

After examining current federal campaign finance laws, one would assume the United States has always had relatively weak laws in this field; however, that is not the

This was the first major piece of federal policy that acknowledged the dangers of big money influence on elections. The Tillman Act led to the passage of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act in 1910, which was the first major reform in federal campaign finance policy in US history. The FCPA required federal candidates to disclose financial information as well as set limits on spending for all congressional candidates (Jamie, 2014). This piece of legislation was crucial in the broader context of the federal government acknowledging the influence of money in elections; however, it was largely ineffective due to weak penalties as well as little enforcement as a result of enforcement being left in the hands of Congress (Jamie,

United States brought the issue of placing limits on campaign spending before the Supreme Court for the first time (Jamie, 2014). In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that Congress did not have the authority to regulate primary elections or political parties and thus, limitations on campaign spending were struck down. Despite the Newberry v. United States ruling, Congress amended the FCPA in 1925 to again include spending limits in federal elections as well as a ban on corporate contributions to federal elections. In 1941, United States v. Classic resulted in the Supreme Court upholding spending limits in federal elections. The Court stated that the constitutional right to vote did extend to primaries (Jamie, 2014).

On paper, the United States had considerably rigorous campaign finance laws, but these laws were largely ineffective because they lacked significant penalties and also lacked strict enforcement. Nevertheless, these regulations were the official law of the U.S. federal government and acknowledged the significant influence that money can have on