Campaign finance
From Free net encyclopedia
Campaign finance refers to the means by which money is raised for election campaigns. As campaigns have many expenditures, ranging from the cost of travel for the candidate and others to the purchasing of air time for TV advertisments, they often spend a great deal of time and effort raising money to finance their cause.
Campaigns vary in their techniques for doing this. Some smaller campaigns, given their relatively low fundraising needs, will raise little to no money. Larger campaigns, such as campaigns for President of the United States, will raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
Campaign contributions are often provided by lobbyists, corporations, trade unions, and other special interest groups. These interests often expect something in return (such as specific legislation being enacted or defeated) and some have come to equate campaign finance with political corruption and bribery. These views have led some governments to impose restrictions on fundraising sources and techniques in the hope of eliminating perceived undue influence being given to monied interests.
Democratic countries have differing views on what is legal and what types of donations to political parties and campaigns are acceptable. For instance, the United States has a fairly liberal view of campaign contributions, and the campaigns of many American politicians are funded by a variety of sources. Some other countries take a more restricted view.
Several disciplines, such as economics, public policy, public choice theory, and collective action theory attempt to understand the dynamics of the political processes.
Contents |
Campaign Finance Techniques
Campaigns often spend a great deal of time and effort on political fundraising. Especially in the early stages, candidates will often call or meet with large donors in an attempt to win their financial support. Campaigns will also often solicit campaign donations through direct mail and the Internet.
One of the best known fundraising techniques is the process of holding dinners (often referred to as chicken dinners after a common meal served at the events) that feature speakers such as the candidate or other well-known figures. Those in attendance typically would pay an entry fee, sometimes as large as $1000.
Alternatives to the Current System
The controversy over campaign finance has led to several alternatives being proposed.
In the United States, citizens could presumably require major media broadcasters with public airwave licenses to air advertisements at no charge. The broadcasters are operating on what is legally public property. When the Federal Communications Commission was established in the 1930s, specific frequencies were licensed to broadcasters with the agreement that they would serve the "public interest". Whether this requirement can be interpreted to require all broadcasters to give political groups and candidates air time has often been debated; thus far it has only been interpreted to mean that all broadcasters must sell political air time on an equal basis to all buyers at the same rates or in the alternative, not to sell political advertising at all, meaning that they cannot accept advertising from one candidate but not others or charge discriminatory rates in an effort to influence the outcomes of elections. Opponents of the practice of mandating free air time state that it unfair to broadcasters to require them to give away the only means they have of raising the money necessary for them to continue to stay in business, advertising, and that no fair, effective mechanism can be structured so as to determine which candidates are "mainstream" and hence presumably worthy of free air time and which are "fringe" candidates or perennial candidates with little or no actual public support. Proponents of mandating free air time note that broadcasters are already mandated to carry a certain amount of public-affairs programming and carry a certain number of public service announcements, and that such a mandate could logically be viewed as merely an extension of this. Many of them further state that most of the opponents also happen to be well-funded groups and interests who have little trouble raising the amount of funding required under the present system.
See also
- Campaign finance reform
- Hatch Act of 1939
- Hard money (politics)
- No-bid contract
- Pacific scandal
- Soft money
- Australian campaign finance
- Election promise
Further reading
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Goodliffe, Jay Template:Cite web Extensive list of articles on Money in Politics
- Template:Cite book New York mayoral candidate who lost to Bloomberg.
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite video