Do Campaign Finance Laws Make a Difference?

• Author: Drage, Jennifer
• Position: Brief Article

States' experiments with campaign finance reform do affect elections, although no one seems to agree on how much and whether the effect are positive.

The role of money in politics is always controversial, but lately the debate has been hotter than ever. Over the past decade, states have experimented extensively with reforming the laws that govern the role of money in campaigns. Contribution limits, electronic filing and disclosure, and public financing all have been touted as cures for what their proponents believe ails the American electoral system a lack of competition in many races, the voters' disgust with high-spending, negative campaigns, the fear of corruption that lurks in the public's mind when candidates rely on large contributions from a few individuals or from large corporations, and the apathy and cynicism that seem to result from all of this. Are any of these reforms working as they are intended to? Have they increased competition, reinvigorated the public's interest and faith in government, and removed the threat of corruption? In other words, to what extent have campaign finance laws really affected state elections?

In the mid-1990s, low contribution limits were all the rage. Between 1994 and 1996, a number of states, including Arkansas, California Colorado Missouri Montana and Oregon passed laws via the citizen initiative that set low limits on the amounts that could be contributed to candidates. Because most of these laws failed to withstand judicial scrutiny, they never had the chance to affect elections.

The limits in Arkansas, California and Oregon never went into effect during an election before they were tossed out by the courts. Colorado's limits passed by Amendment 15 in 1996, stayed in effect long enough to be tested through the 1998 elections (although they've since been invalidated by a federal court and replaced by the legislature with more generous amounts). Montana's while currently under challenge, were in effect for both the 1996 and 1998 elections. An appeal of California's limits is currently pending but a decision isn't likely to come in time to affect the 2000 elections. Missouri's limits, ranging from $250 to $1,000 per election plus adjustments for inflation, were passed in 1994 and immediately challenged. The case is finally coming to a close, however, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in January 2000 that upheld most of the limits. Litigation is still pending on limiting contributions to candidates by corporations, but most other contributions are limited for the 2000 elections.

SO DO LIMITS WORK?

So do contributions limits have an effect on statewide and legislative races? Pete Maysmith, program director of Colorado Common Cause, says they did in Colorado in 1998. Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, as the sponsors of Amendment 15, firmly believe that strong campaign finance reform is necessary to help restore citizen confidence in the electoral system because massive, unregulated contributions have the potential to corrupt. And "potential" is an important perception among citizens is that candidates and lawmakers are...