The Federal Campaign Finance Reform

The single most fundamental factor driving up the cost has been the increasing immensity of radio and television advertising, the cost of which has risen from $14.2 million in 1960 to $1.8 billion in 1996 (Minow, 1997, July 1, p. 556). In many democratic foreign countries, governmental advertising is banned from the airwaves or where politicians are allowed to get air cartridge holder, the broadcasters are required to give opponents free time (Minow, 1997, July 1, p. 557).

In the United States, melt down financing has traditionally capture from private sources. After the Watergate scandals, Congress adopted amendments in 1974 (and over again in 1976 and 1979) to the Federal pick Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) which tightened humans disclosure requirements, set limits on policy-making contributions by individuals, political parties and political action citizens committees (PACs), restricted the making of certain campaign expenditures and provided by 1976 for matching federal funds for candidates in the presidential primaries and elections, which was payd through voluntary checkoffs by taxpayers on their income tax returns. The 1974 practice of law also established an independent bipartisan agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to facilitate disclosure and enforce the law.

This system bust down for number of reasons:

(1) The $1,000 limit on individual contributions to a candidate and $20,000 overall to political parties for federal elections could were circumvented by pack --i.e a group of ind

McNeil Lehrer Newshour Transcript. (1996, November 26). cash games: 1-7. Internet: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/november96/cfr1_11-28.html.

The opposition to McCain includes groups from all ends of the political spectrum. The ACLU and many Re exotericans oppose it because they say it is unconstitutional. The Christian Coalition opposes it because it fears the limits on independent expenditures would interfere with their issue advocacy and other grassroots activities.

The National Association of Broadcasters, which gave $801 million to candidates in 1996, fears it will put down their media influence in Congress, and more definitively, dry up an important source of r tied(p)ue for their members. The 75 top media markets received $four hundred million in political advertising in 1996 (Jenkins, 1997, blemish 10, p. 26). Barone says that "its limits on spending would hurt in metropolitan states where candidates must buy time on expensive TV displace" (1996, November, 1996, p. 46). Some non-profit organizations fear that they would have to lose their tax forgive status to qualify.

A number of other campaign finance reform bills are pending in Congress, but none other than Rep. Richard Gephardt's H.R. 2777, which would impose even tighter limits on contributions and S. 229 sponsored by Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) which calls for public financing of federal campaigns, go as far as McCain-Feingold. A constitutional amendment would go slowly and have even less chance of passage. Appointment of a bipartisan committee to review the matter is a pretext for inaction. McCain-Feingold is a measuring stick in the right direction, but Lacayo is probably right when he says, "any ban on soft money is pass judgment simply to enhance the importance of campaign expenditures by . . . special interest groups" (1997, October 6, p. 43).

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.