The Power of Money in Campaign Finance

According to Barkley 's decision, expectations for soft money and PAC reform have been lost, but there is still hope. The Supreme Court supported voluntary public financing of the presidential election. Public funds are considered a great step forward as they require candidates to restrict expenditure at the federal level. There is also a "coin" in the political movement, which is strictly regulated by the Federal Election Committee. Hard money is quite contrasting with soft money. That is, individuals or PACs will donate to political parties for federal elections or federal elections.

Opponents to campaign and finance reform often argue that money is a form of speech. According to this argument, the financial regulation campaign is an unconstitutional act of infringing freedom of expression. But using one person's money is equivalent to directly expressing the view that expressing your opinion that all citizens have the same voice. According to our current campaign finance system, the size of the citizen's voice varies according to the size of the bank account. Stricter donation restrictions are not specific to campaign funds. For example, the standard antitrust law prohibits companies from buying too many competitors or accumulating excessive market power, which can adversely affect consumers and other market participants There is sex. If the Antimonopoly Act could limit the expansion of the company's market power, the expenditure restrictions on the accumulation of political power seems to be significantly different.

Efforts to regulate campaign funds, especially "federal election campaign law", are based on erroneous assumptions of the role of money in politics and false belief that the process becomes more fair to some extent by reducing or reducing funds It is. , More levels of the field. In fact, expenditure on political campaigns is not extravagant, just every few years per eligible voter only a few dollars. Efforts to control political landscapes often have serious negative consequences, including the merger of incumbents and the killing of new alternative political options, as there is no a priori correct distribution of political advantage, including money. FECA and its domestic counterpart organizations restricted grassroots political activities and strengthened the power of campaign experts and insiders. Generally, campaigns for fiscal regulation will help political processes more open and less democratic.