What are the Arguments Against Campaign Finance Reform

                                                            Source: Odyssey.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is how institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices. My research question to help me study the economic principle is what are the main arguments as to why current campaign finance laws should not change. The article ‘Do We Really Need Campaign Finance Reform?’ published in Time, demonstrates this economic principle by highlighting some of the reasons why we don’t need changes in campaign finance law such as past Supreme Court decisions and limits on civil liberties if these persist. 

 First, the Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs the Federal Election Committee ruling on the amount Super PACS are allowed to donate has set a strict precedent on how campaign donations are seen. The majority ruling stated that PACS and companies should be seen as individuals exercising their first amendment rights when donating, thus stating that the should not have any limits on their donation ability as they are entitled to the same rights as individual donors. Changing laws would go against this decision and then would face judicial review where it can be seen as unconstitutional. 

Second, current reform proposals target specific companies and once again raise the issue of how campaign donations are seen constitutionally. The most current attempt at campaign reform is the DISCLOSE Act, which proposes that companies who have strong business ties to foreign nations are prohibited from donating to campaigns. While some see this as a measure to protect against foreign influence in our elections, others see this as the prevention of First Amendment rights much like the Citizens United vs the Federal Election Committee case. This also spans deeper into the argument of just how far the government can interfere with private business as many argue that this regulation prevents companies from having the freedom to spend their products as they see fit.

 Third, many see the attempts to reform campaign financing as a lost cause as there will be much difficulty finding a bipartisan solution. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed and was seen as both a victory and an attack on democracy. The bill failed once before in 1998 and barely passed the threshold in the Senate to end a filibuster in 2002 as well as both President Bush and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert showing disdain for the reforms. While some celebrated McCain and Feingold efforts, many came on the attack against the two senators. Through several watchdog groups disputing the bill and the Citizens United case, the original intent of the bill is no longer being served. This is important into understand opposition to reform because the key area of reform for Super-PACS was attempted in this bill and still legally shutdown, leading many to believe that this key problem will never be addressed. I believe that while campaign finance reform is necessary, it also is very hard to maneuver.

Many aspects of the DISCLOSE Act I don’t fully agree with and it doesn’t even address PAC donations because regulations of PACS have been decided against in the Supreme Court already. If there was not set precedent for deciding on campaign finance reform, I believe that PACS would have been regulated a long time ago, but now it seems impossible to do.

 In my next blog post I will give a synthesis post detailing the key factors of campaign finance reform and how they relate to the economic principle of how institutions create the ‘rules of the game’.