Campaign Cost

By Hillary Hoppock
September/October 2016

New forms of campaign funding are changing the role of money in U.S. politics.

Money is a necessity in democratic politics. Election candidates must have funding for their campaigns. In turn, there must be oversight and effective regulation of the financing of those campaigns to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.

The three most common methods of regulation in the United States are disclosure and reporting requirements, setting contribution limits to candidates’ campaigns and providing means for public financing of elections.

In recent history, U.S. presidential candidates have relied on donations from private individuals, national party committees, candidate committees and public funding to cover the costs of communicating with voters as well as expenses on staff, travel and campaign management. However, new sources of campaign funding surfaced during the 2012 election cycle, contributing to an exponential growth in election campaign financing. In the 2016 presidential elections, it is expected to exceed $1 billion (Rs. 6,800 crores) per candidate.

In 1975, the U.S. Federal Election Commission was established as an independent regulatory agency to disclose campaign finance information, enforce provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, like limits and prohibitions on contributions, and oversee public funding of presidential elections.

“It is about transparency and accountability to the American public with the unlimited contributions and expenditures of Super PACs [political action committees] and outside spending groups, many of which do not disclose their donors,” says Ellen L. Weintraub, commissioner of the U.S. Federal Election Commission.

Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs cannot coordinate their spending with a candidate or contribute directly to that candidate. However, they can spend an unlimited amount of money on advertisements and other efforts to support the candidate.

A January 2016 TIME magazine article on campaign finance reform noted that while some political analysts see corruption in unrestricted spending, others see an equal playing field.

In 2010, the political landscape for campaign finance in the United States changed significantly with the U.S. Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Until that time, the U.S. Federal Election Commission regulations prohibited labor unions, corporations and other associations from spending money on independent expenditures and electioneering communications that advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly-identified candidate for federal office. 

A January 2015 USNews.com article titled, “How Citizens United Changed Politics in 5 Years” says, “The justices’ ruling said political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate.… Most advocates say the Supreme Court made a good-faith effort to promote transparency and prevent coordination in its Citizens United ruling.”

This ruling changed the campaign finance system, exempting Super PACs, which are presumed to be independent of the candidate, from U.S. Federal Election Commission filing and disclosure requirements.

Weintraub explains, “In a federal election [2015-16], an individual citizen’s contribution to a candidate is limited to $2,700 (Rs. 1,83,300 approximately).” A presidential candidate also has to adhere to restrictions on spending caps for using public funding through the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, implemented in 1973 to level the playing field in presidential elections. “Meanwhile, a super political action committee or 501c-outside organization can accept unlimited contributions from a single individual,” she adds.

For Weintraub, disclosure is key in the world of campaign finance. “It’s not so much the staggering amount of money, but where the money is coming from.” According to her, one option might be asking each of the 130 million U.S. citizens who voted in the 2012 election cycle to donate $100 (Rs. 6,800 approximately) to a presidential candidate fund, potentially “resulting in $13 billion (Rs. 88,000 crores) in the system—non-corrupting, legal, transparent and raised by U.S. citizens.”

Weintraub adds that it’s about engaging and empowering citizens. “Democracies are large and complicated, with a wide range of constituents. It’s essential to involve citizens, to get their participation for it to work.”

Hillary Hoppock is a freelance writer, former newspaper publisher and reporter based in Orinda, California.

Disclosure

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs (political action committees) to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Candidates must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must identify individuals who give them more than $200 (Rs. 13,000 approximately) in an election cycle. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200 per election cycle to any individual or vendor.

Reports filed by registered political committees (such as candidates’ campaigns, party committees and PACs) are available for inspection and copying in the U.S. Federal Election Commission’s Public Records Office. The commission makes the reports public within 48 hours after their receipt. Visitors may access the commission’s computer database, which contains helpful indexes on several types of campaign finance activities (large contributions, PAC contributions, etc.).

Source: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Disclosure