An eye on campaign tills.

AuthorHubler, Katy Owens
PositionTRENDS

Whether contributing money to a campaign is a First Amendment right or a privilege to be regulated can be debated. But what's undeniable is that political campaigns, at all levels of government, are expensive and only getting more so. Meanwhile, independent spending is skyrocketing. Unlike federal campaigns, which are regulated by the Federal Elections Commission, state races are monitored by the states. The three most common ways states regulate spending are by providing public financing, setting limits on the size of contributions and requiring campaigns to report their funding sources.

With public campaign financing, candidates are limited in what they can receive in contributions from other sources in exchange for receiving the public funds. Thirteen states have public financing programs, and voters in Maine recently approved a ballot measure to increase public funding.

To prevent quid pro quo corruption, several states limit the amount of money a candidate can receive from various entities--individuals, political parties, PACs, corporations, unions. Contribution limits vary, however. For an individual giving to a state senate candidate, for example, the limit ranges from $170 in Montana to $12,532 in Ohio.

The median contribution limit for individuals giving to state legislative candidates is $1,000. Some argue that limiting citizens' right to spend their money on campaigns is a threat to free speech, especially in light of the rising costs of running a campaign. In recent years, states have raised limits and pegged future limits to inflation.

The most active area of campaign finance, though, is with disclosure and reporting regulations. More than half the campaign-related bills introduced last year had to do with reporting and disclosing campaign contributions. And a greater than average 20 percent of them became law. Some of the bills tightened the rules, while others loosened them.

With the rise of independent spending and the idea that political spending is a core element of free speech, some argue that contribution limits and public financing programs are obsolete. For them, increasing transparency--clearly disclosing who's giving to whom--makes more sense. Others point out that tightening disclosure requirements can put a significant burden on a campaign, especially a smaller...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT