Campaigning for an Election

Election campaigns for public office are expensive. Candidates need money for support staff, advertising, travel and public appearances. Unless you are independently wealthy, most have to finance their campaigns with contributions from individuals and businesses and other organizations. Today, state and federal laws set limits on campaign contributions; create conditions for disclosure of contributions, and imposing record keeping requirements for candidates seeking elective office. (Ronald p.19)

Before 1974, most election campaigns were financed by companies and small groups of wealthy donors. In 1972, for example, insurance executive W. Clement Stone contributed more than $ 28 million directly to committee for re-election campaign of President Richard M. Nixon. These contributions raised concerns of undue influence in selection of candidates available and in subsequent legislation. Many in Congress felt need to limit influence of money in political campaigns in order to restore public confidence following Watergate scandal, the series of events that led to accusations of abuse of power and obstruction Justice against activities of Nixon campaign.

In 1974, Congress made sweeping changes to Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) (2 USCA § § 431-456 [1996]). As amended, FECA limited contributions to candidates and political parties, candidates' personal expenses, spending of campaign for federal office, and spending by independent groups not directly associated with campaign the candidate. Law also created the list in case of federal tax forms allowing taxpayers to contribute the dollar to the presidential campaign fund, and devised the formula for payments from fund. (Spencer p.15)

James L. Buckley, who ran for New York Senate, and other candidates for federal office FECA challenged in federal court. In 1976, Supreme Court annulled law limits spending in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed 2d 659 (1976). According to high court, setting mandatory limits on amount of money the candidate can spend on the campaign violated First Amendment. However, Court upheld act of disclosure requirements, limits on private contributions, and provision of public funding of presidential candidates qualified.

FECA has been subject of further litigation. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Committee Colorado Republican Federal Campaign against Federal Election Commission, 518 U.S. 604, 116 S. Ct. 2309, 135 L. Ed 2d 795 (1996), overruled spending limits under FECA requires political parties to be considered independent expenditure, i.e. expenditure which was coordinated with congressional campaign of the candidate. 1996 case did not resolve question whether federal provision that limits expenditure of political parties for spending done in coordination with the candidate's campaign violated First Amendment. (Daniel and Hasen p.43-45)

Debate on campaign finance is framed initially by decision of Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 912, 46 L. Ed 2d 659 (1976). Court held that provisions of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), 2 USCA § § 431 to 456, which sets binding limits on amount of money the candidate can spend on the campaign, violated First amendment. Although Court upheld FECA provisions that establish disclosure requirements, limits on private contributions and ...