Finance reform has definitely had an impact on nomination and campaigning. For one, our nomination process has changed dramatically. We started out nominating our Presidential candidates through a caucus system, which was basically a bunch of male political leaders getting together and deciding who the candidate was going to be. From there, we moved on to party conventions, which failed to represent parties as a whole, which is why we moved onto primaries, giving more voice to the people and allowing them action in nominating the Presidential candidates.
Moving to primaries, however, has influenced campaign finance. In order to run a substantial campaign, a tremendous amount of money must be raised or given. Because early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire are so important, it is critical to have that money raised right off the bat. And those who have a competitive candidate in their party must spend even more money in the first two primaries to ensure the nomination.
How this money is received though, is regulated by the FECA, and these campaign finance rules and election rules do sometimes work together. For example, in order for a candidate to receive matching funds from the government, they must receive at least 10% of the vote in two executive primaries. Also, since the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries are held so early, more money is spent on advertising in those two states, so primaries do affect campaign finance. However, the regulation of money in campaigns seems kind of unrealistic, since such copious amounts are necessary in order to run a successful campaign.
That being said, where this money comes from is well regulated. There are limits on all kinds of contributions, individual, self-finance, and PACs. The only kind of money that was not really regulated was soft money, which the McCain-Feingold Bill banned National Party Committees from raising.
I really do not think the influence of factions can be purged from American elections. Although soft money is not allowed to be raised by National Party Committees, the majority of advertising comes from soft money, which would not exist if we did not have factions. Although supporters of a candidate may not mention his/her name in an ad, it’s obvious which party they support, and they use this soft money to provide advertising for their party’s candidate. No matter what, parties are always going to influence elections.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is it still true that the most of advertising is funded by soft money. How has the reform process affected partisanship in the general public?
ReplyDeleteI like how you talked about the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Two states, which are mostly rural states, tend to have a lot more attention and money spent on them when they don't necessarily reflect the nation. I also agree with you that factions cannot be completely purged in elections. They will always have an effect on elections.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to agree on the fact that the government is doing its job on regulating the campaign money that is being contributed. It has affected people and groups to limit their amounts in donations. Because of this, the parties are both able to have the same advantage in raising money, which is a huge issue since more money leads to a greater chance at winning within an election.....
ReplyDelete