Campaign Finance Reform

It is generally known by those who follow politics that money is it’s mother’s milk and money often leads to winning elections which leads to power and power corrupts.
Over my life there have been dozens of attempts at campaign finance reform and all have failed. It reminds me the old adage that the smartest lawyers work for the private market where the big money is and the not so smart work for the government. No matter what kind of scheme the government comes up with the private sector finds a way around it. Most advocates of reform often say that openness is the secret to getting rid of corruption in campaign finance but McCann Feingold did just that and it was struck down by the courts. This bill brought out a rarely used portion of the IRS called section 527 which stated that donors could contribute any amount but they had to be identified as to name and amount.
There are no upper limits on contributions to 527s and no restrictions on who may contribute. There are no spending limits imposed on these organizations; however, they must register with the IRS, publicly disclose their donors and file periodic reports of contributions and expenditures.
Prior to McCann-Feingold soft money (money which comes from organizations and groups rather than political campaigns and parties) contributions could be made without government oversight but that changed with passage of the bill …..see above quote.
The Court then stepped in and declared the bill unconstitutional saying it limited free speech since according to The Court limiting money limits speech. This is based on the premise that the constitution provides that no limit shall be placed on freedom of speech which includes not only oral speech but written or otherwise and the otherwise in todays world means TV ads and that means lots of money.
Elected officials often say that contributors do not affect their votes and that is likely true in most instances. If the official feels particularly strong about an issue the money will not interfere with the vote but on many other issues it may. Big contributors have access and on issues with which the official is not familiar and not interested in the influence can determine a vote. Money----access-----votes.