In 2020, candidates are running for positions in the United States’ federal government, including the House of Representatives, the Senate, the presidency and numerous positions at state and local levels.
But how do candidates achieve their desired positions? The answer is through publicity.
Like many young voters, Senior Sri Ganesh has been bombarded by campaign advertisements in the media. “I have seen many ads from Theresa Greenfield and Joni Ernst on YouTube,” Ganesh said. Campaign advertisements are intended to influence voters to vote for certain candidates. These advertisements are paid for by donors. Multiple court cases have been conducted based on the regulation of donations.
Government teacher Joe Youngbauer described how money can interfere with the results of an election. “Campaign ads have become a major and unavoidable part of elections. Americans are inundated with ads, mailings and phone calls pushing a particular candidate. Many ads are attacks on a candidate’s opponent and rarely inform voters about the candidate’s ideas, beliefs or perspectives,” Youngbauer elucidated.
The impact of money on politics, however, proves difficult to mitigate without infringing on the free speech of outside groups.
Regulations deemed by the Federal Election Commision (FEC) as constitutional have been put in place in attempts to increase the fairness of elections. Federal law limits campaign contributions to presidential and congressional candidates. It also requires candidates to report all the money their campaigns receive and spend.
In order to further the fairness of the elections the FEC was established in April 1975, with the purpose of regulating and administering campaign finance law. It is an independent regulatory agency possessing authority over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency.
However, McCutcheon vs Federal Election Commission of 2014 made it possible for donors to donate as much as they desire to candidates and Political Action Committees (PACs). PACs are groups who attempt to elect or defeat certain candidates. They contribute to and raise funds for campaigns. Their donations are protected by their first amendment rights.
The protection of PACs has sparked immense controversy. Some individuals believe this can lead to corruption and election outcomes being swayed too much by money.
Youngbauer explained the way democratic elections are intended to function. “In its purest form, democracy and the power of voting are supposed to represent an individual’s personal opinions and preferences on viable candidates for elected offices,” Youngbauer said. Ideally, elections are based solely on merit, but often money interferes, swaying elections’ outcomes.
Youngbauer granted a solution to this problem. “The Supreme Court has upheld the ability of outsiders to contribute big money to political campaigns. The most possible avenue I see in regulating big money contributions would be through corporations,” Youngbauer stated. “If federal courts found that corporations do not have the same rights as individuals, there could be a possibility that contributions to campaigns by corporations could be limited.”
An abundance of PAC money comes from corporations. Limiting contributions made by corporations would make it more complicated to donate to PACs, in turn, potentially leveling the playing field for candidates.
The complication with campaign finance reform is balancing groups’ first amendment rights, while preserving the fairness of elections. If deemed as an issue, America’s people and politicians could work together to preserve the fairness and integrity of America’s electoral system.
