By: Jonathan Mangel
Well, just like that, it seems the 2016 presidential election is already rolling. The news is
gobbling up the announcements of presidential hopefuls like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and
Hillary Clinton. While the media and the public engage in the usual political fanfare and debate
over Iowa, New Hampshire, and everything that follows, the election will turn significantly on a
behind the scenes show most Americans don’t seem to be aware of: federal campaign finance.
Most people are familiar with the term, but the mire of federal campaign finance laws is
difficult to wade into. At its core, there are two major sources of campaign finance in
contemporary elections: direct contributions to campaigns from private parties (otherwise known
as “hard money”) and independent expenditures made by private parties on a candidate’s behalf
(known as “soft money”). In the last few years, the rules governing both types of contributions
have changed substantially.
Hard money rules function much more simply than soft money rules. There are limits on
how much money an individual or organization can donate directly to a campaign in any single
donation, and there are limits on how much total money one can donate in individual donations,
an aggregate limit. Last year, the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon v. FEC, which eliminated
the aggregate limit on hard money donations because it did not find such a regulation to further
the compelling government interest of fighting corruption or the appearance of corruption. Now,
individuals or organizations may contribute $2,600 per election per candidate to as many
candidates as they wish. While this opens the door for some backroom money transfers, it does
not open the door for the same kind of spending as the ultra-deregulated soft money system.
The effect of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 brings up a bitter
taste in critics’ mouths to this day. That decision five years ago opened the floodgates to
independent expenditures by corporations, political action committees (PACs), unions, other
organizations, and individuals on advertisements and other campaign-related costs, as long as the
contributor does not coordinate directly with the campaigns they are supporting. In practice
though, collusion and financial support can be organized in more ways than just direct contact,
leading to possible corruption. These possibilities, whether perceived or real, are the heart of
arguments against deregulation of campaign finance.
Whichever side of the argument one falls on, it is undeniable that campaign spending has
increased dramatically in the last few election cycles, especially so after Citizens United. In
2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent a combined total of $2.35 billion. The outside
expenditures, like the ones at issue in Citizens United, accounted for $550 million. The cost of
running for federal office has gone up. The perceived (if not real) influence of private entities on
elections and policy has gone up. As the 2016 presidential election cycle gets started, let’s make
sure public awareness of America’s overly-complex and possibly dangerous campaign finance
system goes up too.
gobbling up the announcements of presidential hopefuls like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and
Hillary Clinton. While the media and the public engage in the usual political fanfare and debate
over Iowa, New Hampshire, and everything that follows, the election will turn significantly on a
behind the scenes show most Americans don’t seem to be aware of: federal campaign finance.
Most people are familiar with the term, but the mire of federal campaign finance laws is
difficult to wade into. At its core, there are two major sources of campaign finance in
contemporary elections: direct contributions to campaigns from private parties (otherwise known
as “hard money”) and independent expenditures made by private parties on a candidate’s behalf
(known as “soft money”). In the last few years, the rules governing both types of contributions
have changed substantially.
Hard money rules function much more simply than soft money rules. There are limits on
how much money an individual or organization can donate directly to a campaign in any single
donation, and there are limits on how much total money one can donate in individual donations,
an aggregate limit. Last year, the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon v. FEC, which eliminated
the aggregate limit on hard money donations because it did not find such a regulation to further
the compelling government interest of fighting corruption or the appearance of corruption. Now,
individuals or organizations may contribute $2,600 per election per candidate to as many
candidates as they wish. While this opens the door for some backroom money transfers, it does
not open the door for the same kind of spending as the ultra-deregulated soft money system.
The effect of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 brings up a bitter
taste in critics’ mouths to this day. That decision five years ago opened the floodgates to
independent expenditures by corporations, political action committees (PACs), unions, other
organizations, and individuals on advertisements and other campaign-related costs, as long as the
contributor does not coordinate directly with the campaigns they are supporting. In practice
though, collusion and financial support can be organized in more ways than just direct contact,
leading to possible corruption. These possibilities, whether perceived or real, are the heart of
arguments against deregulation of campaign finance.
Whichever side of the argument one falls on, it is undeniable that campaign spending has
increased dramatically in the last few election cycles, especially so after Citizens United. In
2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent a combined total of $2.35 billion. The outside
expenditures, like the ones at issue in Citizens United, accounted for $550 million. The cost of
running for federal office has gone up. The perceived (if not real) influence of private entities on
elections and policy has gone up. As the 2016 presidential election cycle gets started, let’s make
sure public awareness of America’s overly-complex and possibly dangerous campaign finance
system goes up too.