Is U.S. Campaign Finance Reform Dead or Just MIA?

Politicians do not often like to talk about campaign finance, as it is perhaps the clearest link between the special interests they claim to ignore and the bank accounts that get them elected. Because of that, the history of campaign finance reform in the United States is spotty, at best. The first successful attempt to regulate campaign finance came in the 1970s and included a pair of bills, namely, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1972 and an amendment to that bill in 1974 referred to as the Federal Election Commission Act (also FECA). The first of those bills required candidates to disclose all sources of campaign expenditures and contributions, in hopes that the transparency would lead to less clout among special interests. The amendment in 1974 introduced limitations on contributions, making $1,000 the maximum allowed contribution from individuals and $5,000 the maximum contribution from Political Action Committees (PACs).

For many years, thereafter, politicians in both parties gave lip service to reforming a broken system, but not until 2002 did anyone actually do anything about it. The 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, technically referred to as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), revised the legal limits on expenditures and prohibited so-called "soft money" or unregulated contributions. During his run for the presidency in 2008, John McCain, a sponsor of the 2002 bill, sought to create even tougher restrictions, but was largely bet with apathy by voters and disinterest from fellow politicians. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck a blow at campaign finance reform when it decided that corporate funding of political broadcasts in elections cannot be limited due to protection under free speech provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, possibly set back U.S. politics more than any other single act in recent history, and likely helped to perpetuate a corrupt system where lawmakers are, in essence, for sale.

2010, however, promises to be a year in which some right-minded people will fight back, and a new bill has entered Congress that seeks to limit the effects of moneyed special interests on U.S. elections. The "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act," also referred to by the acronym "DISCLOSE" appears to be the best attempt at taking U.S. politicians' votes off the auction block and back firmly in the hands of the American people.

A brief look at the new bill reveals some of the most interesting provisions, including preventing both government contractors and recipients of TARP funds from spending money on elections, preventing organizations from closely coordinating activities with politicians during elections and strengthening rules regarding identification of funding groups for advertisements. Here are some of the details:

Title I, Section 101.BAN PAY-TO-PLAY

• Prevent Government Contractors from Spending Money on Elections. Government contractors would be barred from making campaign-related expenditures, defined to include independent expenditures and electioneering communications. This is an extension of an existing ban on contributions made by government contractors. Before Citizens United, corporations could not make such campaign-related expenditures. A $50,000 contract threshold will be included to exempt small government contractors.

• Prevent Corporate Beneficiaries of TARP from Spending Money on Elections. Corporations that received bailout funding from the federal government should not be permitted to use taxpayer money to influence elections. This section would prohibit bailout beneficiaries from making campaign-related expenditures. Once that money is repaid, however, the restrictions would be lifted.

Title 1, Section 103. PREVENT ORGANIZATIONS FROM COORDINATING THEIR ACTIVITIES WITH CANDIDATES AND PARTIES

• The legislation ensures that corporations and unions are not allowed to coordinate campaign-related expenditures with candidates and parties in violation of rules that require these expenditures to be independent.

Title II, Subtitle B, Section 214. ENHANCE DISCLAIMERS TO IDENTIFY SPONSORS OF ADS

• Require Leaders of Corporations, Unions, and Organizations to Identify that they are Behind Political Ads. If any covered organization (corporation, union, section 501(c)(4),(5), or (6) organization, or section 527 organization) spends on a political ad, the CEO or highest ranking official of that organization will be required to appear on camera to say that he or she "approves this message," just like candidates have to do now.