The article published in The Hill titled “Congress can Protect Midterm Elections with DISCLOSE" demonstrates this economic principle by showing what steps Senators are currently taking to reform campaign finance and what implications it could have. Although the DISCLOSE Act brings more transparency to candidates funding, I believe does not do enough to change key problems with current campaign finance laws because it doesn't address how much PACS can receive or force them to disclose their sources.
One step that is currently being taken to reform campaign finance is the DISCLOSE Act which was proposed by Senator Chuck Schumer in 2012. Though introduced in 2012, the act has recently gained more attention as more members of congress are concerned about foreign influence in elections, even more sense there was possible collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia. The DISCLOSE Act proposes three major changes to campaign finance law. The first change is to require organizations who spend $10,000 on ads must release after the donation is processed, this would make candidates more transparent to voters as they are deciding who to elect. Secondly, all US companies who have strong foreign interests are not allowed to contribute to campaigns as that could lead to a foreign power influencing U.S. politics, an already large problem in the minds of Americans.
Some of the main arguments in support of the DISCLOSE Act is how it will restore America's confidence in politicians and elections as well. Sponsor of this act, Senator Schumer believes that the American people have lost faith in elections and politicians since the controversial election of George W Bush in 2000 and allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia have only heightened these fears. In addition to the immediate disclosure of campaign donors, the prevention of foreign influenced companies donating to campaigns also relieves the fears of the public in terms of their democracy being threatened by international interests. Finally, real time donation lists keep the electorate more informed and thus can help shape stronger political decisions that voters won’t regret after Election Day when donor lists are often released.
There are also many opposed to the DISCLOSE Act who argue it is dangerous for democracy and doesn’t address the key problem with campaign finance law. First some argue that preventing American companies from donating even though they have strong foreign interest disenfranchises them from the political process and restricts their ability to use their profits as they see fit. To simply state it many believe that the government has no right to restrict how companies choose to spend their money. Secondly, the biggest issue with campaign finance law is the ability of PACS to donate unlimited amounts of money, not the people who make donations. PACS are able to donate unlimited amounts to campaigns as long as the funds are deemed as a “party building measure” rather than a campaign donation. Those opposed to the DISCLOSE act argue that any form of campaign finance reform should address this issue and be the forefront of the bill.
I agree with this point because while the DISCLOSE act does good in limiting outside influences and promotes transparency, PACS need to be regulated in campaign finance and I believe that this issue is more important than the ones the DISCLOSE Act address. Also, the DISCLOSE Act should limit the amount of money PACS can take in order for the law to be effective.
In my next blog post I will research the question: What repercussions could arise from changing campaign finance law?
No comments:
Post a Comment