Elections play a key role in American democracy by allowing citizens to choose their political leaders. Over time, campaign spending has risen dramatically from $175 million in 1960 to over $6 billion in 2004, outpacing voter turnout. Various reforms have attempted to regulate campaign finance by limiting certain contributions and expenditures, but the Supreme Court has found some restrictions as violations of free speech rights. The most recent reform, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, banned unlimited "soft money" donations but still allowed loopholes like 527 groups to influence elections through unlimited spending.
4. Estimated Spending Voter Turnout Spending/Voter
Year
1960 $175 million 68.8 million $2.25/voter
1964 $200 million 70.6 million $2.83/voter
1968 $300 million 73.2 million $4.10/voter
1972 $425 million 77.7 million $5.47/voter
1976 $540 million 81.6 million $6.62/voter
1980 $1.2 billion 86.6 million $13.87/voter
1984 $1.8 billion 92.7 million $19.42/voter
1988 $2.7 billion 91.6 million $29.48/voter
1992 $3.2 billion 104.4 million $30.65/voter
1996 $4.0 billion 96.5 million $41.45/voter
2000 $5.1 billion 105.4 million $48.39/voter
2004 $6.0 billion 120.2 million $49.92/voter
4
7. Challenge to the FECA
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) : The Supreme Court ruled that limiting campaign contributions limited protected speech
and was therefore unconstitutional.
The Court DID allow limitations on direct contributions to candidates. ( HARD MONEY )
The Court did NOT allow limitations on how much candidates could spend on their own campaigns or how much
they could contribute to themselves.
The Court did NOT allow limitations on money spent on behalf of a candidates. (
s
SOFT MONEY )
The LOOPHOLE that was created: SOFT MONEY
Soft money was unregulated so PACs began to raise and spend soft money in record breaking
amounts: issues ads, direct mailings, get out the vote drives.
1980: $19 million in soft money | 1996: $260 million | $500 million in 2000
7