Page 165 - Freedom in the world_Neat

the other hand, say the threat is overstated and have opposed voter identification laws on
the grounds that they tend to disenfranchise the poor, members of minority groups, and
the elderly, who are less likely to have photo IDs and are more likely to be Democrats.67

Campaign Finance

It is a widely held view that money in the American political system is pervasive and
problematic, from the consuming race for campaign contributions to the special political
access enjoyed by lobbyists and donors, and that contributions and spending associated
with politics need to be regulated closely. Yet an equally compelling argument can be
made that the amount of money raised and spent in American politics is by itself a red
herring. The more important concern is whether political contributions, or services
provided to candidates and officeholders, oblige the recipients to depart from the proper
performance of their duties.

New policymaking in this area is rare. Indeed, when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,
also known as McCain-Feingold (or Shays-Meehan), was enacted in November 2002, it was
the first major reform of campaign finance law in 28 years. There is widespread unease
about the central role that fund-raising plays in the life of elected officials, and concern
about the fairness of citizen access to officeholders for those without the means to
contribute. But finding a regulatory framework consistent with the Constitution’s First
Amendment guarantees of free speech has proven difficult. The columnist George F. Will, in
keeping with America’s libertarian tradition, regularly decries the “attacks on free speech”
he sees in campaign finance regulation.68 The Supreme Court, which is currently
considered conservative, has acknowledged the validity of viewing campaign donations as
a form of free speech, but in a 2006 decision overturning a Vermont law that had imposed
a $400 limit on contributions to candidates for statewide office, the court upheld the
established principle of permitting contribution limits in the name of thwarting corruption,
or the appearance thereof.
McCain-Feingold bans soft money contributions to national political parties, but permits up
to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties. “Soft money” refers to
contributions to parties and other political organizations that is not directed to any specific
candidate or campaign, meaning it is not subject to older restrictions. The 2002 law also
stops so-called issue advertisements, which advocate positions on specific topics, from
targeting specific candidates. The ads have been seen as an indirect way of aiding certain
campaigns without running afoul of contribution and spending limits. Whether that
provision accomplished its main purpose, to curtail the activities of tax-exempt advocacy
groups (dubbed 527s after the provision in the tax code that covers them), is
disputed.69 Another portion of McCain-Feingold raised the individual contribution limit
from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates (the figure increased
in the 2008 cycle to $2,300 for each candidate in each federal election for individual
donors). A “Millionaire’s Amendment” to the law increases the contribution limits for
candidates facing wealthy opponents, whose personal spending on their own campaigns
remains unrestricted.70 Many advocates assert that the solution to problems associated
with fund-raising is mandatory public financing of federal campaigns, especially since the

Page 165 of 168