Political Cartoons: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)1Burton Part: I History & Current Questions on Campaign ReformWithout continued efforts toward Campaign Finance Reform, American elections are at risk to undue influence by major corporations. The public perception of corruption in our old andcurrent elections system is a threat to our democratic system. Although the Supreme Court has made great effort to balance the interest our greatest ideal “freedom with speech” with fair elections free from gross influence by the narrow interests of corporate America. Sadly, the courthas in effect sided with corporations by the creation of loopholes in their rulings on reform laws. These loopholes have allows money to flow into our elections, and this perception of corruption turns voters off to the electoral progress. In his powerful 1963 essay “Strength to Love” Martin Luther King Jr., stated “All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.” Although talking about the tactics of non-violence as a means to achieve equal rights for Blacks, King’s statement can be applied to Congress’s attempt to regulate the influence of money on elections in the United States. Such efforts have been observed congressional action for over a century. The first bill to address limits on contributions was the Tillman Act of 1907. The act prohibited monetary contributions to national political campaigns by corporations. The passage marked the “golden age” for the Progressive Movement, which fought for better working and living conditions for average workers. In addition, progressives felt that government was not addressing common concerns of the people, because of the power of contributions in federal elections by big business on governmental policy. Theodore Roosevelt was elected in part because of his support for the Progressives; he called on Congress to take action on curving such power. However, the language of the Act provided no enforcement method and did not require disclosure on the origins of contributions. To address the shortcomings of the Tillman Act, Congress passed the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 .Not only were limits placed on campaign spending for political parties in federal elections, but full public disclosure of spending by the parties were required. However, the Act did not force candidates to disclose, and there were few penalties which were rarely enforced. In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Classic (1941) upheld the Acts' spending limits in federal elections. The court limited its ruling, however, by concluding that the congressional power to regulate extended only in cases where state law made primaries and nominations part of the election and/or whenever the primary effectively determined the outcome2Burtonof the election (Bauer 2004). The Act would remain the nation's primary law to regulate campaign finance in federal elections until 1971 when congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act.As the decades passed, Congress renewed its determination to regulate money in politics in the 1970's. Suspicions of financial abuses broke into outright criminal charges against President Richard Nixon with the Watergate scandal which in turn prompted Congress to strengthen campaign finance regulations by passing the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) and its 1974 Amendments. The backdrop for such bill was due to the wide-spread discontent and distrust of government in part because of the Vietnam War. To ensure enforcementsomething the previous reforms lacked, an eight-member Federal Election Commission was set up to oversee enforcement of the law. Political contributions by individuals and groups were limited. Independent spending by individuals or groups “relative to a clearly identified candidate” was limited to $1,000 per election (FEC). Expenditures by a candidate in an election were limited according to which office was being sought. A public financing system of elections both in primary and general elections were set up. The final major aspect of the law requires Political Committees were required to keep records on contributions and expenditures and to disclose them publicly. When ruling on the FEC, the Supreme Court remained badly split in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), they upheld limitations on political contributions but overturning restrictions on campaign spending. In effect, the Court allowed for unlimited independent expenditures, as long as the candidate or his/her agents did not coordinate efforts. The problem with the Court’s logic is that is difficult to prevent coordination between interest groups and candidates, therefore providing a loophole for corporate money to flow into our elections. By the 2002, Soft money provided more than half the Democrats funds, compared with only 17 percent in 1992; for Republicans, the percentage rose from 16 percent to more than 40 percent (Jost 2002). Moreover 60 percent ofthat money came from only 800 individuals and organizations (O’ Brien 2008). Soft-money resources by the major political parties rose from $86 million in the 1992 elections to over $495 million in the 2000 election (Jost 2002). What is soft money? Any political contribution which ismade in a way to avoid current regulations, for example donations to political action committees (PACs’) is referred to as soft money. Such contributions are often limited for "party building" and "get out the vote efforts". The increase use of "issue ads" which do not clearly support any3Burtonone identified candidate has now become a common way for political parties to get their messageout while avoiding spending limits.In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) with the leadership of Senator Russ Feingold and John McCain seek to correct the loopholes. The “McCain-Feingold Law” placed limits on the amount of soft money, which could be spent by political parties, office holders or candidates in any federal election. In addition, the act prohibited corporations and unions from using their general funds for “issue ads” and other “electioneering communications”aimed at influencing federal election results. Congress passed the BRCA in 2002, and President Bush signed the bill into law. David O’Brien called BCRA, as being the “most comprehensive reform of campaign finance in over a quarter of a century (O’ Brien 2008).” The