Skip to main content

Are there campaign finance rules that could avoid the hydraulic "money-shift" tendencies that go along with campaign finance regulation?Can...

After the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold) was passed, which banned soft money donations to political parties, many critics felt that it only succeeded in shifting money through what is often figuratively called a hydraulic process to other cracks. According to Raymond J. La Raja and Brian F. Schaffner, authors of Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail (please see the link below), there is no way to stop this flow of money. The authors state,




When well-intentioned reformers pass laws that limit contributions, the amount of money in politics does not change significantly, but its flow migrates. In other words, the rules do not necessarily create effective 'dams' that block money from entering politics, but instead expand or carve new 'canals' that channel its flow in other directions."



Therefore, experts often feel there is no way to stop the hydraulic "money-shift" tendencies that accompany campaign finance rules. 


As of now, individual contributions to a candidate can be limited under Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules. For example, an individual can only give $2,700 to a federal candidate per election. Several cases have put the question of whether individual campaign contributions are protected by the First Amendment before the Supreme Court. In 2010, the court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that nonprofit corporations should not be subject to individual campaign contribution limits. These same rights also apply to for-profit corporations, unions, and other types of associations. 


As it is difficult to stop the flow of money into campaigns, many people believe campaign finance rules should be dropped entirely. In addition, many people believe that it is a First Amendment right to be able to donate as much money as one wants to a campaign or issue. I believe full disclosure of who is giving how much to which campaign would end a lot of corruption in campaigns. For example, the blog Open Secrets, in partnership with the Boston Globe's Spotlight Team, recently found out that Boston lawyers gave thousands of dollars to a Montana Senator and then received "bonuses" for these amounts from their law firm (see the story in the link below). Cases like this show rules that make it mandatory to reveal who is contributing to what (and where the money really comes from) would make the political process more transparent. 


PACs and 527s have also been criticized for being destructive to the democratic process. PACs, or political action committees, can channel money to political candidates. While corporations can't contribute directly to PACs, they can sponsor a PAC and ask for employee donations. 527s can receive unlimited donations from individuals and corporations and can run political ads. They are also tax exempt. An example of a 527 was Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which was against Kerry's Presidential campaign in 2004. These entities still allow a lot of corporate and individual money to be channeled into political campaigns, and it's not always clear where the money is really coming from.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more