U.s. Federal Campaign Finance Reform Proposal - 1630 Words

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that†¦show more content†¦However, it is not money they seek; rather favors and special privileges earned by donating the supplies and monetary funds necessary for the candidate to win. Albeit to some, these favors may be menial, but to others, it could mean permission to adjourn laws that may pertain to them. A corporation, for instance, may have inspectors and officials turn a blind eye to human and workers’ rights violations. Likewise, similar campaign finance proposals began to start limiting the regulation of campaign financing, however, the next notable campaign act Congress enacted did not happen until the latter portion of the 20th century. Before 1971, political figures still had leeway in the financing of their campaigns. However, Congress tightened down on campaign financing, and began to restrict the permissible activities candidates could expedite in, beginning in 1971. The first component of the bill demanded that all candidates running to fully disclose their full campaign finance report (Appendix 4). Before this, candidates could, for the most part, receive and spend contributed campaign money any way they seemed fit for the success of their campaigns, though previous acts had heightened the stipulations of this money. Furthermore, this act enacted restrictions on the permissible amounts of money candidates could spend on advertisements (appendix 4). Although advertisements had not