Though political finance reform might not be one of the most exciting issues within political campaigns, it can be an important and even intriguing concept to explore. For instance, the question of free speech plays a huge role in the funding of a political campaign. The symbolic gesture of donating $5 to a political campaign doesn’t seem to ruffle many feathers, but how about $5,000 or even $5 million? Where do we draw the line? Of course there are loopholes to get around the regulations such as 527 groups and the like, but is that ethical? Should 527′s be seen as just another form of free speech or an unfair advantage to those willing to pay the most?
The ramifications of political finance reform get at not only our 1st amendment rights, but also cross the new realm of social media. In class we discussed an article on new forms of media, such as Twitter, an whether or not they made any difference in political campaigns or organization. It turns out that while there is a limit on spending for television and print media, the internet is fair game for campaign supporters in terms of internet commercials. Seeing as how utilizing the internet is increasingly important for a campaign, should the internet be looked at as fair game, or yet another means of political communication that should be regulated? I think a discussion of these issues would broaden our understanding of the importance of funding for the success of a campaign and how it relates, if at all, to the freedom of speech.
This post raises some good thoughts. In my opinion campaign finance laws should be reformed. The laws in place currently do not cater to the type of campaigns that we see in today’s world. Any candidate has the ability to raise vast sums of money, and spend vast sums of money. In my opinion the laws are in place to make sure there is an even playing field for candidates to advertise and fundraise. With todays networks of donors, and political insiders, both major parties have access to virtually equal and and an unimaginable amount of resources. Because I view both major parties as equally able to acquire and spend funds, I think there should be no limit on what a campaign can spend on tv and print advertisement and no further regulations for internet advertising.
One law i do agree with is the individual giving cap for people donating to campaigns. If a person wants to go through PAC’s and 527′s so be it, but individuals giving directly should have a limit. If a person donates a ludicrous amount of money directly to a candidate it causes many more problems pertaining to who owes who what. Also, It further complicates the finances of completed (lost or won) campaigns. Since extra campaign money must go to a PAC until it is next used, or donated to other campaigns there is a lot of money floating around in PAC’s bouncing from candidate to candidate. In other words, after a campaign, there is little way to tell where your money is or who it is helping.
Overall campaign finance law needs to be reformed and simplified to fit the needs of campaigns today.