Campaign Finance Reform & MEDIA

1. Campaign Finance Reform & MEDIA • 1972: FECA Laws enacted-contribution limits, disclosure statements, public money for Presidential elections • 1972: WATERGATE…Nixon’s CREEP-Congress rewrites FECA in response to the corrupt nature of Nixon’s re-election campaign • 1976: Buckley v. Valeo…upholds restrictions on “hard money”—basically can spend all you want, but contribute only so much (1st Amendment Rights) • Soft money explodes due to nature of Buckley v. Valeo…if advocating for candidate then must be direct money, but if the ad does not specifically mention candidates spending was unlimited • Bill Clinton in 1988 spent “soft-money” so well that there were investigations, but no charges… “Soft-money” is hard to track and control…it will get worse….. • 1990s: A group of congressmen start to attack campaign finance laws (VIDEO: Interest grou`ps focus on “Calling the Other Candidate” instead of advocating for the Vote for/against a candidate • 2002: McCain (R) & Feingold (D) put together the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform…limited soft-money advertising…couldn’t show ads 30 days prior to primary election and 60 days before general election—try to eliminate “electioneering”… • 2003: McConnell v. FEC—upheld most of major provisions of McCain/Feingold...Rehnquist Court resists urge to link campaign donations to Freedom of Speech…loophole is found using tax code-527s sprung up around the 2004 election • 2006: Randall v. Sorrell-Vermont law of mandatory spending was unconstitutional…Roberts Court…first time Court had struck down a contribution limit law • 2007: Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC—Roberts Court expands 1st Amendment connection to campaign finance by basically gutting McCain/Feingold…strike down the provision that limited soft money ads prior to an election (throw out the 30/60 day rules of McCain/Feingold) • 2010: Citizens United v. FEC—Political speech used in the media is protected by 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech (Hillary: The Movie—group made a movie against Hillary & showed it around the election)…5-4 decision Roberts Court; decision written by Kennedy….allowed the explosion of contributions by unions, corporate groups to outside interest groups thus the creation of SUPER PACs…(1907 ban on corporations giving directly to candidates/parties still in effect)….McCain/Feingold Law violated corporations/unions 1st amendment rights… • Mitch McConnell (R) said, “Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some, but for all.” • Justice Stevens wrote in the dissent, “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.” • Independent political organizations known as "super PACs" are the wild cards in this year's election, the product of a series of court rulings, including the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January 2010. A total of 44 super PACs have spent $78.3 million — 57% of which has been spent opposing candidates.—3/21/12----http://graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-superpac-spending/