I confess I approached this topic with an ignorant bias, with no information or actual research to back-up my ideas. I always assumed that “campaign spending regulation” was a good thing. What I have learned since is that Campaign Spending Regulation is controversial, has very broad applications, is a popular research topic, and has a long history in the United States. This review focuses primarily on the United States, but some examples listed below include the United Kingdom’s homepage for campaign regulation and a study that has applications for more than the US.
To begin with, I had to ask myself what is the goal of Campaign Spending Regulation? The answer depends on who you ask.
Pro-Regulation: The goal of campaign spending regulation is to limit the influence of special interest groups on government and to level the playing field for incumbent and challenging candidates during elections.
Con-Regulation: The goal of campaign spending regulation is to limit free speech and inhibit First Amendment rights while protecting (giving advantage to) incumbent candidates and perpetuating inequality in the US electoral system.
In general, proponents of campaign spending regulation see it as a way of restoring balance to the electoral system and ensuring that the voice of the general voter is as loud as special interest groups. Those against campaign spending regulation view it in the opposite light: it creates imbalance rather than restoring balance, and that it limits the voices of all interests.
The Broad Scope of Campaign Spending Regulation. Campaign Spending Regulation can take on many forms:
Contribution Limits – Limits the mount of money individuals and/or groups can donate to candidates.
Floors on Expenditures – Public money is given to provide a minimum level of TV ads, mailing stamps, radio spots, …etc.
Spending Caps – Limits the amount of money candidates may spend on their campaign.
Matching Funds – Provides candidates with public money that “matches” what the candidate (or opponent) has raised themselves.
Reimbursement – Reimburses candidates with public money after the election, sometimes based on the number of seats won.
Hard Money - Campaign contributions made directly to the candidate, delcared by the candidate and used for the campaign.
Soft Money - Campaign contributions that were made to party committees, not to specific candidates that were often used in ads touting the issues important to the party. Up until the McCain-Feingold Act, this was not illegal, but the soft money contributions were significant and influential.
The History of US Campaign Spending Regulation. This MIT Briefing on Campaign Spending Regulation includes several slides on the history of regulation including charts explaining the impact of Supreme Court Rulings on Congresses attempts at regulation. My favorite quote from this presentation is “Never underestimate the power of unintended consequences”, which is apt advice considering the variety of ways that regulation can affect the electoral system as demonstrated in the study listed below. Federal Election Campaign Laws: A Short History provides more detail on the laws enacted up through the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments. Essentially, there were no campaign finance laws up to the Civial War. There was a series of legislation in the 20 years following the war, again in 1911, and then more specifically in 1971 and 1974. The Supreme Court struck down many of the provisions in these last two acts as unconstitutional.
Recent Legislation Regulating Campaign Spending. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Also called the McCain-Feingold Act, this legislation put restrictions on "soft" money contributions to political campaigns.
Recent Court Cases Involving Campaign Spending Regulation. Judging by the case history, (haha), the Supreme Court continues to interpret limits on some types of campaign spending as an infringement of the 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.
Neutral: Elections: The State of Campaign Finance by Joseph Cantor, a researcher for the Library of Congress, provides an interesting and informative overview from the US government about campaign spending and regulation, why the US is different than some other democracies, the recent history of regulation, the origins of concerns about ineffective regulation, explains Soft money vs. Hard money and the impact of McCain-Feingold legislation.
Con-Regulation: The Cato Institute, 2001 and The Cato Institute, 2004 stated that campaign spending is result of an increased size in government, and that only by reducing the size of government can the US reduce influence peddling – the spending of individuals & groups who seek influence or protection from the government. The complete article, It’s the Spending, Stupid! Understanding campaign Finance in the Big-Government Era by Patrick Basham goes on to say that an increase in government regulation across all areas is what also leads to an increase in the those groups seeking to buy influence or protection.
For additional information, the book Unfree Speech:
The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform by Bradley A. Smith Smith argues for eliminating all regulation because it limits free speech and reduces power of voters.
Pro-Regulation: Campaign Reform Overview was the only somewhat “pro” regulation source I could find on the internet. This site is run by a research organization that specializes in public opinion and states that their surveys show “strong public support for an overhaul of campaign finance laws. Surveys show more than half of Americans say elections are for sale to whoever has the most money, and a majority say high campaign costs discourage good people from running for office.” So I guess those pro-regulation are really the American people in general, who may be disappointed in a political system they view as corrupt. Campaign spending regulation may be one way to end the corruption.
Recent Research in the Field of Campaign Spending Regulation. The study Campaign Spending Regulation in a Model of Redistributive Politics was published in 2004 and uses difference equations and models to predict the effects of campaign spending regulation. The equations are complex and some of the research is very technical, but the conclusions seem to indicate that in most cases (based off of stated assumptions) the various kinds of campaign spending regulation will not level the playing field between incumbents and challenging candidates. Rather, regulation is more likely to disadvantage the challenging candidate. Section 5, page 20 is a good place to start if you want to get to the conclusions.
City of Sacramento Campaign Finance & Regulations is an interesting example of campaign spending regulation at the city level. Sacramento's regulation includes matching funds, voluntary limits on total spending based on type of election, and limits on money from groups and individuals. For the matching funds, the candidate must raise a minimum of $7500 in order to receive matching funds and continues to receive matching funds for every $7500 they raise up to a pre-set limit. A candidate may also receive matching funds if his opponent has raised $7500, even if candidate has not. If a candidate voluntarily agreed to a spending limit – the agreed upon limit may be raised if his opponent spends 75% of the agreed limit. This city code was enacted in 2000 and 2003 and provides practical examples of almost every kind of regulation modelled in the study above.
Summary.
If the point of campaign spending in the first place is to level the playing field between two candidates in an election, in a perfect world, regulation would not be necessary. But since not all campaign spending is created equal, the idea of campaign spending regulation was born to try and equalize the perceived advantages of the candidates. The solutions create new conundrums rather than providing a simple way out of the problem:
If there is no restriction on campaign contributions, then special interest groups may run amok, playing the candidates for favors later.
If there is regulation, it appears that in general it will favor the incumbent candidate, which harldy seems democratic.
If there are unlimited public funds to finance all campaigns equally, will there be an increased risk of waste fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars? (private jets for campaigning candidates?) Who decides what is appropriate?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
Is the Cato Institute is on to something in suggesting the only way to fix the problem is to reduce the size of government?
Why do you think there are so few explicitly "pro-regulation" websites availale?
If there are, please share - I had trouble finding more than two!
