Campaign Finance Reform
Is Big Money an Ethical Issue in Elections
BUSINESS 1040
August 8, 2015
Authored by: Matthew Bowcut
Campaign Finance Reform
Is Big Money an Ethical Issue in Elections
Introduction
Campaign finance reform has been a politically divisive issue for almost as long as there
has been politics. The fight for campaign finance reform can be boiled down into two main
arguments, to reduce corruption and promote equality. This paper will take readers through a
history of campaign finance reform, legal decisions by the Supreme affecting campaign rules and
the problems Americans face having a system that allows for candidates to receive large
contributions from special interest groups, industry and lobbyists. Our style of governance
depends on voters having a voice as to who they elect; unfortunately that voice can be silenced
by large amounts of money poured into campaigns. It is time for politicians to remember they
work for their constituencies’ not large corporations, special interest groups or whoever has the
most money.
History of Campaign Finance Reform
The history of campaign finance reform is a long one, I have highlighted a few of the
Campaign Finance Reform | 8/8/2015
most important ones below gathered from Jamie Fuller’s article “from George Washington to
1
Shaun McCutcheon: A brief-ish history of campaign finance reform”

In 1867 Congress passed a naval appropriations bill that made it illegal for government
officials to solicit money from naval yard workers. This marks the first law attempting to
regulate campaign finance

In 1907 The Tillman Act was passed making corporate contributions to federal
candidates illegal.

In 1943 the Smith-Connelly Act was passed preventing unions from donating to federal
candidates.

1947 The Taft-Hartley Act passed that banned corporations and unions from making
independent donations in federal campaigns. And as long as candidates promised not to
use their primary money in the general election or collect private donations, they could
campaign with publicly funded money.

1971 Revenue Act allowed for people to donate a small amount to the Presidential
Election Fund on their tax forms. The Federal Election Campaign Act was also passed.

In 1976 the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Federal Election
Campaign Act in the Buckley v.Valeo case saying the provisions violated the First
Amendment. Caps on campaign spending, as well as candidate and family contributions
to their own campaign were lifted. Corporations and Unions were allowed to campaign
for issue advocacy as long as they did not use the word “elect”.

1992 President George H.W. Bush vetoed a bill that would have provided partial public

2012 For the first time neither presidential candidate accepted public financing.

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in McCutcheon v FEC that aggregate contribution limits
infringed on First Amendment rights.
The history of campaign finance reform shows that there have been genuine attempts to
keep big money out of political races but most attempts have eventually been overturned by
the Supreme Court.
Campaign Finance Reform | 8/8/2015
funding for congressional candidates.
2
The Supreme Court and Campaign Finance
In Buckley v Valeo the Supreme Court held that restricting independent campaign
expenditures violated the first amendment right to free speech. According to Senator Udall
the Supreme Court “conflated money with speech and ensured that our nation’s policymakers
will often be elected based on their abilities to raise money or the size of the personal
fortunes, rather than the quality of their ideas or dedication to public service” (Udall 236).
In Citizens United the Supreme Court gave the same first amendment rights to
corporations and other large organization that individual people have. This according to
(Udall) “opened the door to an unregulated influx of special interest campaign dollars”.
(Udall) Contends that this new source of funding will undoubtedly add new risks of
corruption in the political process and make politicians more beholden to the special interest
groups than the constituency they represent.
Citizens Untied paved the way for the Super Pac which since then have started campaigns
for certain agendas. Super Pac’s are not allowed to coordinate with any candidates or the
agendas they advocate and they must disclose their donors. This does not go far enough in
Campaign Finance Reform | 8/8/2015
educating voters as to what information they actually receive is from the candidate or if it is
3
from a special interest group pushing for that candidate to further their own agenda. The
American public is not in favor of what Citizens United has allowed for large corporations
and special interest groups to do, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll
conducted in 2010 eighty percent of Americans were opposed with sixty five percent being
strongly opposed to allowing unions and corporations to spend as much money as they
wanted to help candidates win campaigns (as cited in Udall 236).
What is Unethical About the Current Campaign Finance System?
According to (Strauss 1369) corruption is “understood as the implicit exchange of
campaign contributions for legislators’ votes or other government action”. In Justice
Kennedy’s dissent of McConnell v FEC he states “only a single definition of corruption has
been found to identify political corruption successfully and to distinguish good political
responsiveness from bad- that’s quid pro quo”(cited in Udell 240). While both of these
definitions are saying the same thing they are both very limited and narrow. Proving that
funds were used in a campaign to elect an official in return for favors is extremely difficult.
The bigger issue was noted by the Supreme Court in McConnell v FEC when it noted
concern that “officeholders will decide issues not on the merits or the desires of their
constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial
contributions valued by the officeholder” (cited in Udall 241).
This is what I see as the huge ethical issue in campaign finance. Many politicians today
are career politicians and the same as anyone else they have a desire to keep their job. The
current political environment has made it nearly impossible for politicians to run successful
whether or not they are really willing to commit career suicide and vote against the interests
that helped them get elected or stay in office. It seems apparent to me and from what polling
suggests with the approval rating of congress being at its lowest ever, a large portion of the
country believes that our elected officials are not always voting on their beliefs or the beliefs
of their constituency.
Another issue is the amount of time politicians spend fundraising, (Penniman) asserts that
politicians spend half of their time fundraising. When Rep Jim Himes (D-CT) was asked
Campaign Finance Reform | 8/8/2015
campaigns without large sums of money and support from PAC’s. This begs the question of
4
how he felt about political fundraising he answered “it’s appalling, it’s disgusting, it’s
wasteful, and it opens the possibility of conflicts of interest and corruption. It’s unfortunately
the time we live in”(cited in Penniman).
Campaign finance is a divisive issue that generally falls along party lines. Democrats
have historically been more in favor of some campaign finance regulations while the
Republican Party has generally worked to de-regulate campaign finance. Recently
Congressional Republicans have begun to try to remove the finance laws limiting the amount
of money a political party can spend to support a candidate while in consultation with that
candidate. Senator Udall (D-N.M.) said in a statement “ We should shine a light on the flood
of money from the ultra-wealthy flowing into our system of government, unfortunately
today’s bill would only remove one of the few dams left trying to control that flood”(cited in
Blumenthal)
Conclusion
With Congressional approval numbers sitting around 16 percent one can easily assert that
the American public is tired of the way business is being conducted in Washington. Both
Campaign Finance Reform | 8/8/2015
sides of the aisle have become entrenched and unwilling to work through problems which
5
will require both sides making some concessions. Big money in campaigns has added to this
problem as many legislators are unwilling to give any ground on certain issues for fear of
losing the support of the industry or special interest group the issue affects. Campaign
elections have become more about satisfying the will of a few wealthy donors or corporations
than running to represent the people and issues in their district. Utah has been somewhat
sheltered from this problem as far as national campaigns go, but if you live in a state such as
Ohio you are guaranteed to be bombarded with media from outside groups attempting to
influence your voting not because they care about issues in your community but because they
are counting on the votes from that official on the matters they care about elsewhere. One
thing is definite with campaign finance laws, they will continue to change with time and the
political make up of our legislature.
Resolution
To resolve the issue of campaign finance laws both parties are going to have to be willing
to sit down and make concessions to determine what the future of campaign finance will
look like, while being the most ethical and equal for all candidates involved. The days of
outright banning contributions from unions, special interest groups and corporations are gone
and will not be able to return without Constitutional Amendment which is not likely to
happen. That being said the American people and the officials we elect can strive to put
limits on different types of contributions and require more transparency to ensure our elected
Campaign Finance Reform | 8/8/2015
officials are still working for the American people.
6
Works Cited
Blumenthal, P. (2015, July 23). Republicans Are About to Gut Campaign Finance Rules Even
Further. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
Fuller, J. (2014, April 3). From George Washington to Shaun McCutcheon: A Brief-ish History
of Campaign Finance Reform. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
Penniman, N. (2015, July 22). Politicians Spend Half of Their Time Fundraising and A Growing
Number of Former Politicians Has Had Enough. Retrieved August 1, 2015.
Strauss, D. (1994). Corruption, Equality and Campaign Finance Reaform. JSTOR, 94(4),
1369-89.
Udall, Tom. "Amend the Constitution To Restore Public Trust in the Political System: A
Practitioner's Perspective on Campaign Finance Reform." JSTOR 29, no. 1 (2010):
Campaign Finance Reform | 8/8/2015
235-52.
7