Money and Politics in the Current Contemporary Congress

2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Gilligan
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
Financial Resources ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
Campaign Finance Reform ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
The Subject

Campaign finance reform is the subject of ongoing public policy debates in many modern democratic societies. In the United States, individuals and interest groups from across the ideological spectrum have proposed or embraced a variety of campaign finance reforms in attempts to alter the electoral landscape. At least one recent presidential candidate highlighted the issue of campaign finance reform which appear to resonate with voters, as part of a broader strategy to secure his party's nomination. Many of these reforms propose to alter the sources and uses of financial resources in Congressional elections.

Electronic Campaign Finance Reform in the American States

2011 ◽  
pp. 624-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. McNeal ◽  
M. Schmeida
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
Campaign Finance Reform ◽  
Municipal Governments ◽  
The Public ◽  
Disclosure Laws

With every new election cycle in the United States, there is a call for campaign finance reform. These regulations have come in a variety of forms, each having the goal of rebuilding trust in the voting system and government in addition to regulating election finance. With an eye toward building trust, beginning in the early 1990s, state (as well as local and federal) campaign finance regulatory agencies started implementing campaign reporting procedures that required either the replacement or augmentation of paper filing systems with electronic systems. It is hoped that these new procedures will make summaries and analyses of contributions and expenditures more easily accessible to the public as well as to government watch dogs such as interest groups and the media. The adoption of these electronic reforms (e-disclosure laws) is representative of a public service trend in the United States. Over the last several years, federal, state, and municipal governments have moved increasingly toward government adoption of electronic government (e-government) practices that “refer to the delivery of information and services via the Internet or other digital means” (West, 2004, p. 2). Each of the 50 states has implemented some type of e-government, and the federal government has created a central portal for federal services (West, 2003). This trend toward adopting e-government has not taken place without comment; it has been accompanied by speculation of the impact to both citizens and government units alike. It has been argued that because e-government can deliver services and information around the clock, it may make government more efficient and transparent to the public (Norris, 2001; West, 2003). It also has been suggested that it will make government more responsive to the public through its ability to provide communication options that are quicker and more convenient for users (Thomas & Streib, 2003). Furthermore, an online presence may reduce government costs and allows the timely update of materials and information more quickly than in traditional distribution methods (Pardo, 2000). Others (Jaeger & Thompson, 2004; Pardo, 2000) argue that e-government has the ability to increase political engagement and to create a more participatory democracy. These benefits may increase the likelihood that Internet-based reforms have a greater likelihood of adoption. Interest groups who campaign for electronic disclosure laws in order to reduce corruption and to increase transparency may find themselves aided by public administrators attracted to the cost-cutting promises of e-government.

Seeds of Cynicism: The Struggle Over Campaign Finance, 1956–1974

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian E. Zelizer
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
Campaign Finance Reform ◽  
Richard Nixon ◽  
Political Events ◽  
Public Interest Groups ◽  
The 1960S

This chapter examines how antecedent political events created a window of opportunity for campaign finance reformers during the period 1956–1974, including a series of scandals such as Watergate. In the 1960s, campaign finance reform emerged from a reform coalition composed of legislators, experts, philanthropists, foundations, and public interest groups. The coalition succeeded in placing campaign finance reform on the national agenda even without widespread public interest or support. It left intact most of the underlying pressures on campaign finance. For example, they did not tackle the declining importance of political parties, leaving high-cost television as the principal medium of political communication. The chapter highlights the tensions that arose over campaign finance that reached a boiling point when President Richard Nixon began his second term in office.

Should campaign finance reform aim to level the playing field?

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 358-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Pevnick
Keyword(s):  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Financial Resources ◽  
Level Playing Field ◽  
Important Goal ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
Campaign Finance Reform ◽  
Playing Field

Many argue that an important goal of campaign finance reform should be to ensure that competing candidates have roughly equal financial resources with which to contest campaigns. Although there are very important reasons to worry about the role that money has come to play in many democracies, this article argues in three main steps that this particular position lacks compelling justification. First, while advocates of such positions often rely on an analogy with much smaller deliberative settings to defend the view that advocates of competing perspectives should be given equal resources, there are differences between such settings and campaigns that undermine the analogy’s appeal. Second, independent arguments – connected to the importance of ensuring that the wealthy do not dominate public debate and preventing corruption – may speak strongly in favor of a generous system of public funding, but fail to provide reason to ensure that advocates of competing positions have access to equal resources. Third, it is impossible to meaningfully level the playing field without objectionably restricting civil liberties. An implication of these arguments is that common criticisms of voucher-based systems of public funding, which hinge on an implicit commitment to the importance of a level playing field, fail.

Campaign Finance Reform and the 1994 Congressional Elections

1997 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald A. Gross ◽  
Todd G. Shields ◽  
Robert K. Goidel
Keyword(s):  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
Campaign Finance Reform

Interest Group Adaptations to Campaign Finance Reform in Canada and the United States

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Boatright
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Party Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
American Interest ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Le Canada

Abstract.The United States and Canada enacted similar campaign finance reforms in the early 2000s. This article draws upon interviews with leaders of the major Canadian interest groups to explore similarities and differences in the responses of Canadian and American interest groups to reform. While groups in both countries shared an increased emphasis on mobilization and communication with members, the Canadian reforms were more effective at removing many groups from political campaigns entirely. This difference is primarily a result of differences in the two nations' party systems and the historical development of interest groups in the two countries.Résumé.Au début des années 2000, les États-Unis et le Canada ont promulgué des lois similaires visant la réforme du financement des campagnes électorales. Cet article est basé sur des entretiens avec les chefs des principaux groupes d'intérêt canadiens. Il étudie les ressemblances et les différences entre leurs réponses à ces réformes et celles des groupes d'intérêt américains. Même si les groupes des deux pays ont tous insisté sur la communication et la mobilisation de leurs membres, les réformes canadiennes ont mieux réussi à éliminer entièrement plusieurs groupes des campagnes électorales. Cette différence s'explique surtout par la structure différente des deux systèmes de partis politiques et par l'évolution historique des groupes d'intérêt dans ces deux pays.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document