Hannah Ashkinaze
The United States Congress has debated a variety
of campaign finance reforms over the last
decade. These proposals have included the
following:
 Eliminating soft money
 Limiting independent expenditures
 Raising limits on individual contributions

Select one of the listed proposals and do
all of the following:
A) Define the proposal.
 B) Describe an argument that proponents
make in favor of the proposal.
 C) Describe an argument that opponents
make against the proposal.


Select one of the listed proposals and do
all of the following:
A) Define the proposal.
 B) Describe an argument that proponents
make in favor of the proposal.
 C) Describe an argument that opponents
make against the proposal.

a)
The prohibition or regulation of
campaign contributions to
political parties or to party
building activities.
B) An argument in favor is that soft money
is sometimes used to circumvent hard
money (contributions to individuals),
and the elimination of soft money would
level the playing field.
Other possible answers:
• Less “buying of influence”
• More transparency
• Decreases overall costs
C) An argument against the
prohibition/regulation of soft money is that it
violates the First Amendment (freedom of
speech). In the ruling Buckley v. Valeo, the
Supreme Court ruled that setting limits on
campaign contributions was unconstitutional.
Other possible answers:
• Party money is not direct contribution to
individual (less influence)
• Weakens political parties
• Weakens grassroots participation
A) Limiting money spent by
individuals and groups not
directly affiliated with the
candidate or the party.
B) Limiting individual expenditures can lessen
“buying influence” of candidates, and level
the playing field for different interests.
Other possible answers:
• Lessen negative campaign ads
• Lets candidates control their own campaigns
• Can be used to circumvent limits on hard
money.
C) C) An argument against the
prohibition/regulation of soft money is that it
violates the First Amendment (freedom of
speech). It also violates the ruling Buckley v.
Valeo, when the Supreme Court ruled that
setting limits on campaign contributions was
unconstitutional.
Other possible answers:
• Party money is not direct contribution to
individual (less influence)
• Weakens grassroots participation