modern campaign finance regulation in the united states begain in 1971.
modern campaign finance regulation in the united states begain in 1971.
when did modern campaign finance regulation in the united states begin?
1971
in 1971, congress passed the federal election campaign act (feca), instituting various campaign finance disclosure requirements for federal candidates (those running for the house, the senate, the president and the vice president), political parties, and political action committees. in 1974, congress passed amendments to the feca establishing a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement, including public financing of presidential campaigns and the creation of a central enforcement agency, the federal election commission. the new regulations included limits on campaign finance, including caps on (1) individual contributions to candidates, (2) contributions to candidates by “political committees” (commonly known as political action committees, or pacs), (3) total campaign expenditures, and (4) independent expenditures by individuals and groups "relative to a clearly identified candidate."
campaign finance in the united states
in "faulty assumptions", smith laid out a case against campaign finance regulation, arguing that efforts to regulate money in politics had been based on a series of incorrect beliefs about the effects of money in politics, and that as a result reform efforts had failed to accomplish their objectives and had made many of the problems of money in politics worse. "faulty assumptions," and later articles by smith, have been cited in numerous recent supreme court decisions striking down campaign finance laws on constitutional grounds, including "citizens united v. federal election commission." in 2010 "the new york times" called smith the "intellectual powerhouse" behind the movement to deregulate campaign finance. the importance of "faulty assumptions" lay in its blending of existing political science research with legal and constitutional theory. before "faulty assumptions", most legal scholarship on campaign finance had followed a narrative that assumed the corruptive and anti-egalitarian effects of large campaign contributions and spending, and had then focused on the creating a legal regime to control those effects and justify regulation against first amendment claims recognized by the supreme court in "buckley v. valeo". at the same time, these articles largely ignored a growing literature in political science based on empirical studies of campaign spending and regulatory regimes. smith's contribution was to bring these two arms of scholarship together, blending the growing body of empirical data to the constitutional and legal principles laid out elsewhere. the result was to challenge the very foundation of campaign finance reform in both politics and constitutional law. smith's analysis forced proponents of reform to rethink many basic assumptions, or at least to justify them against his critique.
bradley smith (law professor)