Upgrade to remove ads
Only SGD 41.99/year
-
Flashcards
-
Learn
-
Test
-
Match
-
Flashcards
-
Learn
-
Test
-
Match
The 2014 report by Tokaji and Strause describes something called, the "new" soft money.
Terms in this set [4]
What was the "old" soft money and in what way does the "new" soft money resemble it? [hint: start by defining both]
i. Nonfederal Funds ["soft money"]: Funds
that are not subject to the limitations or prohibitions of the Act.
ii. Old soft money: the national parties sought to undo contribution limits that were dedicated to generic party activities [seeking out the vote, building the party, etc.], as opposed to supporting a candidate. Under FECA, it was established that unlimited amounts of money can be contributed to a political party for the purpose of generic party activities. This money is known as soft money. This resulted in billions flowing
to political parties.
iii. McCain-Feingold Act [BCRA of 2002] banned soft money AND electioneering communications [on behalf of corporations and unions]. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [BCRA or McCain-Feingold Act] was primarily designed to address two perceived problems:
• Increased flow of soft money through political parties, used to influence federal election campaigns. So this act banned soft money.
• Proliferation of issue ads, designed to influence federal elections
while evading the longstanding restrictions on contributions and expenditures. So this act prohibited corporate and union electioneering communications.
iv. New soft money: unlimited amount of money flowing to PACs [and other outside groups] in the form of independent expenditures [outside spending]. There has been a dramatic increase in contributions in the form of independent expenditures.
v. However, the ban on corporate-funded electioneering was struck down in Citizens United and the
ban on soft money was eliminated in McCutcheon v. FEC.
How is the "new" soft money affecting political campaigns?
According to Tokaji and Strause , outside spending [new soft money] has altered the political landscape. Key findings:
i. There are four basic types of outside groups in contemporary congressional elections [one of which are PACs]
ii. Outside groups engaged in independent spending do much of
the dirty work in congressional campaigns, running negative ads, while at the same time making it more difficult for candidates to maintain message discipline
iii. Members of Congress see independent spending as a threat for those who refuse to toe the line of outside groups.
iv. There is a high degree of cooperation between outside groups and congressional campaigns, generally through publicly transmitted signals, even as campaign professionals and outside organizations tread carefully to
avoid coordination as defined by federal law.
In what way does the hydraulics analogy used by Issacharoff and Karlan help understand the "new" soft money?
ii. Most of the legal-academic debate about campaign finance begins with Buckley and its progeny and focuses on whether or not and to what extent additional regulation comports with the First Amendment.
iii. But they ignore the central lesson of the
post-Watergate experience: political money is a moving target. By political money we mean the money that individuals and groups wish to spend persuading voters, candidates, or public officials to support their interests.
iv. Their account is hydraulic in two senses:
• Political money, like water, has to go somewhere.
• Political money, like water, is part of a broader ecosystem. Understanding why it flows where it does and what functions it serves when it gets there requires thinking
about the system as a whole.
v. This article takes a sharply different tack, heeding Deep Throat's advice to follow the money:
• Where will political money go if the reformers succeed? Once the dust settles, the current proposals may increase rather than dampen the role of money in politics. Or they may further undermine the capacity of candidates and political parties to shape the electoral agenda. Far from making politics more accountable to democratic control, they may make it less
so.
• How does political money work its way through the system? The calls for reform all stem from the assertion that money corrupts the electoral process. The problem is that political money actually corrupts voters and that money is not necessarily central to corruption.
What are 501[c]4 organizations and how do they relate to disclosure issues raised by the "new" soft money.
i. 501[c][4]: social welfare
organizations. They can engage in political advocacy but that cannot be its primary purpose, has to be less than 50% of its activities. However, they do not have to disclose the names of its donors. So what is the price of anonymity? You can remain anonymous and engage indirectly in independent expenditures, but for a lot of money.
ii. Dark Money: Money that is flowing into 501[c][4]'s, which are then spending up to 49.99% in political advocacy, all without having to disclose its donors.
iii. Super PACs: have to disclose everything. But when they disclose who gives them money, they write the name of the charitable organization 501[c][4]. So you can see where they get the money from but not where the trail of money began.
Citizens United v. FEC [2010]
9 terms
corto_2
Test Bank Chapter 6
53 terms
madelinesegall
GOVT chapter 7 study guide
46 terms
jakemcmichael1
Chapter 11 Test
40 terms
Virginiamsmith
Sets found in the same folderBuckley v. Valeo
24 terms
nanyhernandez099
Money in Politics intro
7 terms
nanyhernandez099
History of Money in politics
6 terms
nanyhernandez099
Question one
5 terms
nanyhernandez099
Other sets by this creatorGRE Data Analysis
108 terms
nanyhernandez099
GRE Word Groupings
69 terms
nanyhernandez099
GRE Vocab MASTER
518 terms
nanyhernandez099
ERD Workshop
10 terms
nanyhernandez099
Other Quizlet setsChapter 16 Economics Test Questions
14 terms
kitkatkaci
2nd Period End of Semester US History Review
15 terms
sarahxgrace
Economics Test 2 *MINKEL*
23 terms
joligutierrez
AP Gov Test 2 Semester 2 pt.2
32 terms
Robert_McCormick99