Campaign Finance Reform

            Since the United States is a country based off of the principles of democracy, its elections are essential parts of the country’s existence. A person trying to get elected to a position in the United States must have the means to get his or her voice heard due to the fact that the country is so vast. However, the U.S.’s capitalistic society mandates that money is a factor in every campaign. Everything costs money: advertisements on television, advertisements in newspapers, segments on radio stations, campaigning products, wages for campaign employees, etc. Because of this, the rich dominate the political system and thus the policies that are made. Campaign finance reform is thus an essential step in this country’s judicial endeavors because it equals the playing field for those who wish to run for office and it lessens corruption. Furthermore, objections towards campaign finance reform are meritless when one examines them in full context.

            First off, campaign finance reform helps to level the playing field so that a person can get elected based on his or her merit rather than the amount of money that the candidate has. Dr. Minch, a professor at Truman State University, says “candidates of enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources” they have. Though these third party candidates may have great ideas, their ideas are not equally expressed due to their lack of funding. For example in New Jersey, a candidate must raise a minimum of $340,000 in order to take part in the televised gubernatorial debate (Public). Because of this, the average citizen is not exposed to the full panel of options that they have to vote for and moreover, many are unaware of the existence of other candidates all together. Furthermore, certain states, along with the federal government, provide a public financing option, which means that if a candidate reaches a certain threshold in funds, the government will match a certain amount of the money candidates are put at a higher disadvantage because their rich counterparts are able to access this government aid but they themselves aren’t. Campaign finance reform will therefore be beneficial to America because it will allow the everyday individual who has great ideas to run a campaign that is supported by the necessary funds to let his or her platform be known. Reform will also, as Dr. Minch points out, lead to more turnover in politics because fresh political faces and ideas will be introduced via every election. This turnover will in essence allow for the better shaping of this country (Minch). All in all, campaign finance reform is beneficial to the United States because it allows a greater amount of variety and ideas to manifest and it gives those new ideas the ability to be implemented by giving individuals a greater ability to successfully carry out a campaign.

            Second, campaign finance reform will lessen the amount of corruption that plagues this nation. Because finance reform has the ability to limit the amount of money that large corporations and special interest groups donate to campaigns, individual contributions become just as important to candidates as the large organizations’ donations (Minch). Furthermore, since via campaign finance reform large organizations are limited in the extent of their donations, candidates will have a lesser obligation to vote in a manner that will please these corporations and consequently, will lessen pay-to play. Corruption with respect to pleasing campaign supporters is a very serious issue considering Governor Richardson of New Mexico was recently under investigation due to a pay-to-play violation (Koppel). Furthermore, a study done by Dr. MacKenzie and Professor Westley of George Mason University and Jacksonville State University, respectively, showed that 77% of Americans believe that politicians raise money in an unethical and corrupt manner (Mackenzie). Therefore, not only do Americans believe that there is corruption due to unregulated campaign financing, but history provides evidence of individuals who have engaged in illegal pay-to-play activity. Campaign finance reform is not damaging, but rather necessary to clean American politics. Furthermore, when laws are implemented to regulate campaign financing, parties and candidates manage a way around them. This is evident when soft money was banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 because organizations established 527 groups and issue advocacy advertisements to get around the law (Schmidt 192). Therefore, stronger regulation is necessary.

            Many who are against campaign finance reform argue that it is a violation of free speech, however when looked at in full context, this argument is meritless. If anything, reform promotes free speech because it allows those who do not have the means to campaign as loudly as those who are rich to get their voices heard. When one looks at the amount of money raised by each party in the 2008 House election, one can see the huge discrepancy: Democrats had $544,019,454, Republicans had 444,354,007, and all other parties had 4,080,120. When looking at these numbers, it is clear that the two main parties have the ability to out-speak every other party. Logically, campaign finance reform is responsible for promoting free speech, not hindering it, because it gives every individual the equal ability to voice his or her opinion. In sum, cynics of campaign finance reform do not see the big picture, and are therefore arguing a point that is invalid.

            When looking at the pros and cons of campaign finance reform, it is clear that the reform is not only necessary, but beneficial to American politics. It promotes greater participation in politics by individuals, it lessens corruption, and it actually promotes free speech. To shape a better society in the future and to prevent Americans from voting for the lesser of two evils, campaign finance reform is a solution that must be implemented.

Koppel, Nathan. “Corruption Cases Renew Debate on Campaign-Finance Laws.” Wall Street Journal Politics. Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2009. .

MacKenzie, D. W. “The Debate on Campaign Finance.” The Free Market. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Sept. 2002. Web. 25 Oct. 2009. .

Minch, Kevin. “Campaign Finance Reform.” IDEA: International Debate Education Association – Debate Resources & Debate Tools. International Debate Education Association, 17 Sept. 2003. Web. 25 Oct. 2009. .

“Public Financing.” New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. New Jersey, 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2009. .

Schmidt, Steffen W., Mack C. Shelley, and Barbara A. Bardes. Cengage Advantage Books American Government and Politics Today, Brief Edition, 2008-2009 (Thomson Advantage Books). Belmont: Wadsworth, 2008. Print.