Campaign Reform

Throughout the years the amount of money that presidential candidates spend on their campaigns have tremendously increased. The amount of money that individuals and interests groups put towards these campaigns is a ridiculous amount, and political candidates have began a movement to increase the dependence on the expenses of television advertisements. In the 1970s there were many changes and adjustments to the campaign reform act. Starting in 1971, the Revenue Act was established which is a publicly funded campaign for the presidential candidates. This act stated that the taxpayers could donate to the fund, and they were able to receive a tax deduction from it. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was established as well, and that replaced the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. 1974 was after the Watergate scandal, and the public had began to have less trust in their government. Congress passed four amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 1976 many people including Senator James Buckley challenged the new amendments to the FECA because they believed that the spending limits violated a person’s freedom of speech. Congress amended the FECA in the ruling, so the amendments still limits how much a person can spend per group. Lastly, in 1979 more amendments are added to the FECA, and they tended to make the act weak because there was a law added that individuals could donate an unlimited amount of money. (Rowen). The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was established to help regulate the financing of political campaigns. …show more content…
This act incorporates a few provisions to help stop the use of nonfederal money, which is also known as soft money. The act stops national parties from promoting and squandering soft money, it demands state and other committees to fund specific federal activities with hard money, and limits fundraising by federal and nonfederal candidates. In 2010 the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission was a case dealing with regulating how much organizations spent on campaigns. The courts had decided that it was perfectly fine for labor unions and corporations to spend as much money as they want to help sway people towards a certain candidate. The choice that the courts made about the money did not affect the grants, because it was still illegal for the money to be given straight towards the candidates. (Dunbar). Since the money was not being given towards the candidates it did not cause any need for corruption amongst the people. Personally, I believe that the Citizens United case has done and will do many things for our political process. Since it is the corporations and labor unions that are spending their money for the campaigns they are the ones who are being influenced the most about the candidates. These companies putting their money into …show more content…
Everyone should have their own choice of who they wish to vote for without being swayed one way or the other. My solution would be to have presidential candidates put together their own fundraisers for their own campaigns, and to not only be the face of their campaign but to be the one to influence and reach out to the voters instead of people being influenced simply by a commercial that they saw on the television. Doing so, I believe would make voters feel more connected to their candidates and sway them more one way towards a candidate than the