Pros And Cons Of The Campaign Conundrum

The Campaign Conundrum Is the United States regressing into an oligarchy in which legislative representatives side with the rich instead of their constituents? One critical component of a representative democracy is the way in which elections and campaigns are run. Campaign finance reform is a heavily debated topic that has become increasingly relevant in light of the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commision (FEC) Supreme Court decision to lift restrictions on soft money, which is money that isn’t directly connected with a campaign, in an effort to protect the First Amendment rights of unions and corporations. This decision nullified much of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The BCRA established limits on soft money contributions,

As mentioned previously, the case led to a national decrease in regulation. This decrease in regulation becomes even more relevant in a discussion of how candidates abuse the law, as opposed to how corporations abuse the law (Graham). Loopholes began to emerge immediately following Citizens United due to the ambiguity between national and state law. For example, Colorado was penalized in a “state Integrity investigation for having a loophole that allows corporations to donate directly to political parties. That practice is expressly forbidden in state law, as are corporate donations to candidates” (Schrader). Moreover, candidates are now less likely to choose to raise money in traditional ways. Candidates are finding new and innovative ways to sidestep the law in an attempt to utilize many of the loopholes that exist and have yet to be resolved. For example, Colorado representative Jared Polis raised “well over $1000 in Bitcoin contributions in less than 24 hours since his site went live” (Fitzpatrick). The contributions continued to rise and although Bitcoin contributions have always been legal up to $100 under the FEC, Bitcoin fluctuates wildly and the value of Bitcoin skyrocketed over the contribution limit. Congressman Polis, whether with or without intent, had violated FEC regulations by receiving these contributions. The FEC and state regulation of campaign finance exist to keep campaigns fair and equitable so voters can clearly determine who to vote for. When candidates are able to out raise their competitors by avoiding the law, the whole purpose is undermined (Graham). This ambiguity and lack of regulation for such a critical democratic institution has caused Colorado candidates to actively pursue loopholes as they