TITLE

Who should pay for political campaigns?

AUTHOR(S)
Greene, Wade
PUB. DATE
January 1974
SOURCE
Columbia Journalism Review;Jan/Feb1974, Vol. 12 Issue 5, p24
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
This article comments on several issues about political reform campaigns in the U.S., as of 1974. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of Delaware has given a disturbing account of the way campaign financing routinely tends to corrupt the electoral process. And Biden is now a prominent member of a congressional movement to overhaul the election finance system. The U.S. Senate has been in the forefront of the movement. In August 1973, the Senate passed a bill that would limit campaign contributions and spending, a measure known informally as the Clem Stone Benefaction Control Act. Of the several major campaign finance measures being considred by the U.S. Congress, one would remove a two-year-old limit on media spending by federal candidates, one would repeal the 40-year-old equal time provision for campaign broadcasting, and one would require broadcasters to set aside large blocks of prime time for campaigning by both presidential and congressional candidates. Reformers have traditionally tended to aim their fire in three directions: setting ceilings on campaign spending; limiting the source and size of contributions; and requiring disclosure of information about spending and contributions. Spending limitations, first tried on a state level in 1893 in California and Missouri, have been so full of loopholes in both state and national laws as to be virtually meaningless. Limiting the sources and size of contributions has been hardly more effective. As for disclosure, requiring candidates and election organizations to tell where their money comes from and goes has long been viewed as an effective complement to or even an alternative to outright ceilings and prohibitions. To combat ineffectuality, reformers say that, at a minimum, more rigorous enforcement of existing laws is needed.
ACCESSION #
16262045

 

Related Articles

  • Introduction: Money, Politics, and Equality. Rosenkranz, E. Joshua; Hasen, Richard L. // Texas Law Review;Jun99, Vol. 77 Issue 7, p1603 

    Discusses the interplay of money, politics and equality in the United States. Reasons for the exploration on how campaign finance may regulate political equality; Reasons for the avoidance of using the term political equality in stating the goal of campaign finance regulations.

  • Politics and money: Search for dirt isn't the point. Harwood, Richard C. // Christian Science Monitor;9/29/97, Vol. 89 Issue 213, p19 

    Opinion. Discusses fundamental questions central to the issue of money and politics. Why citizens in the United States are indifferent to the Congressional hearings on campaign finance; The dissatisfaction, disillusionment and disengagement that most citizens feel; The need to determine which...

  • Dialing (and Redialing) for Dollars. SHRIBMAN, DAVID // Fortune;5/12/1997, Vol. 135 Issue 9, p36 

    Opinion. Discusses the irony in politicians publicly claiming they are for campaign reform and then privately seeking more funding. The new political atmosphere surrounding political fundraising; The cultural questions; The public's attack on how Washington, D.C. politicians work.

  • Eyes on the Prize.  // New York Times Upfront (Teacher's Edition);10/30/2000, Vol. 133 Issue 5, p3 

    Presents classroom strategies on helping students understand the role of money in politics in the United States. Reasons why people donate large amounts of money to political candidates; Debate on whether large campaign donations are the equivalent of bribery; Online information on how much...

  • Money and Institutional Power. Ansolabehere, Stephen; Snyder Jr., James M. // Texas Law Review;Jun99, Vol. 77 Issue 7, p1673 

    Claims that the volume of interest group contributions to political campaigns for an elected office is proportional to the power of that office in the United States. Framework for thinking about money in elections that points to the proposal; Evidence of the pattern from the Senate and...

  • The Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Reform. Issacharoff, Samuel; Karlan, Pamela S. // Texas Law Review;Jun99, Vol. 77 Issue 7, p1705 

    Discusses the influence of money on elections in the United States. Functional relationship between political spending and political success; Patterns of campaign spending on media advertising; Evaluation on how money corrupts the political process; Proposal for changes in campaign regulations.

  • THE WEEK.  // National Review;4/19/1985, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p12 

    Discusses issues related to U.S. politics and government as of April 1985. Long-term systematic problems on Secretary of Labor Bill Brock; Supreme Court's ruling that the $1,000 campaign spending limit cannot be constitutionally applied to political action committees.

  • EVANS & NOVAK. Novak, Robert // Human Events;2/11/2002, Vol. 58 Issue 6, p9 

    Presents an update on U.S. politics and government as of February 2002. Response of the Democrats to the economic policies of U.S. President George W. Bush; Hurdles faced by the campaign finance bill sponsored by Representatives Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.).

  • Campaign Finance Is Not the Reform We Need. Sowell, Thomas // Insight on the News;3/18/2002, Vol. 18 Issue 10, p46 

    Criticizes the campaign finance reform legislation in the U.S. Reasons for the popularity of campaign finance reform; Information on sectors that hold interest in the legislation; Relationship between business and politics; Discussion on suggested solution other than the legislation.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics