1. HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DOES CORPORATE FUNDING HAVE ON ELECTIONS By: Kiyah Copeland

2. Subtopic 1…..................................CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS & LIMITS………………...…..……..Slide 3 Source 1 Source 2 Source 8 Source 9 Subtopic 2……………….........……...…..EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITS....................................................Slide 7 Source 2 Source 3 Source 5 Source 7 Source 8 Subtopic 3………………………………….PROLEMS & SOLUTIONS...................................................Slide 12 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6 Source 7s Table of Contents

3. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS & LIMITS The following sources allow me to compare election years in total amounts spent and raised and allow me to evaluate each source for each candidate. Open Secrets, the FEC’s Presidential Campaign Finance, and Mike Ludwig’s “Big Money Breakdown: Why 2012 Is the Most Expensive Election Ever” allow me to examine the 2012 election. Open Secrets, and the “Contribution Limits Overview” by the National Conference of State Legislatures allow me to breakdown cost variable by state while the two of those as well as the FEC’s “Presidential Campaign Finance” allows me to break contributions down by state. Both Open Secrets and the FEC allow me to compare candidates for election years 2008 through the current election.

4. Open Secrets by Open Secrets This source allows me to compare the amount of money raised by and donated to each presidential candidate from the election of 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016. I am able to view each individual source of funds for each candidate. This source breaks down contributions by state, sector, industry, spending, debt, etc. This source also includes total funds raised by congressional races. This will be my main reference to numbers for the listed election year because of its detail. This source gives me concrete numbers to provide for when I argue whether or not the total cost of elections is made mainly up of large contributions.

5. Big Money Breakdown: Why 2012 Is the Most Expensive Election Ever by Mike Ludwig This source focuses on the 2012 election comparing the amount of money raised by Obama and Romney. The article discusses the fund sources of Obama and Romney and we find that Obama, who raised 62 percent more than Romney, heavily relied on small donations while Romney relied heavily on large donations. This information allows me to argue whether or not external contributions are truly needed during campaigns.

6. Contribution Limits Overview by National Conference of State Legislatures Though other numbers aren’t provided, I can see the nation average limit, the average maximum and minimum, and the national median for governors, senate, and house representatives. This allows me to determine how important campaign funding seems to those in power. I can also see which states hold the highest and lowest limits and evaluate why that is and what type of influence it has on said state.

7. Presidential Campaign Finance (’08-‘16) by The Federal Election Commission This source allows me to view a summary of contributions and expenditures for each candidate from the 2008, 2012, and the current (up to March) Presidential election. Using this source I can argue the relationship between party and dependence of contributions as well as whether or not large contributions are necessary.

8. EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITS The case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission is said to be ineffective by the National Conference of State Legislatures. This case ended with the intent of further limiting campaign contributions but failed. The Pew Research Center in its article “Perceptions of Elected Officials and the Role of Money In Politics” argues that the reason for this is because states are constantly changing limit policies making them ineffective. Authors Drew Desilver and Patrick van Kessel in their article agree that contribution limits aren’t that limiting. In their article “As More Money Flows Into Campaigns, Americans Worry About Its Influence” PACs are able to avoid spending limits as long as they don’t expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. John Craig and David Madland argue whether or not contribution limits are even relevant enough to prevent contributors from engaging in “illegal strategies” in their article “How Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Can Lead to Inefficient Economic Policy”. Desilver and van Kessel also describe the increase in “funnel funds”, an idea also expressed in Mike Ludwig’s “Big Money Breakdown: Why 2012 Is The Most Expensive Election Ever”, in PACs especially since the more recent ban of dark money.

9. As More Money Flows Into Campaigns, Americans Worry About Its Influence by Drew Desilver & Patrick van Kessel This article discusses loopholes and how the campaign structure isn’t all that limiting, allowing corporations to donate large amounts of money falsely. None of the analysis includes the so-called 527 organizations, tax-exempt groups that engage in political activities and report to the IRS rather than the Federal Election Commission since Federal contribution and spending rules don’t apply to 527s, so long as they don’t expressly advocate for a candidate’s election or defeat. With that being said, at least 527 organizations are avoiding contribution limits and benefitting heavily. Independent expenditures, however, can expressly advocate for a candidate’s election or defeat. They can be made both by political party committees and by outside groups so long as they are not made in direct coordination with a candidate. This was the result of a 2002 law that banded “soft money.” Since then, parties have dramatically increased their independent expenditures since these super-PACs can raise an unlimited amount of money from corporations, individuals, and unions and spend and directly advocate for or against a candidate.

10. Big Money Breakdown: Why 2012 Is the Most Expensive Election Ever by Mike Ludwig This source discusses how Republicans benefit from “Dark Money.” The majority of contributors are nonprofit groups that are not required to reveal their sources and are often tax exempt. While super-PACs are required to reveal their sources, these “dark money” nonprofits can funnel funds and report the name of the nonprofit to the FEC rather than the original source. This article also argues whether or not single candidate super-PACs, or independent PACs, are any different from super-PACs.

11. How Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Can Lead to Inefficient Economic Policy by John Craig & David Madland This article could be used to argue whether or not limits are relevant enough to stop lobbyists and corporations from contributing large amounts. More and more individuals fight/compete for larger pieces of the pie and spend more and more money. These contributors are more likely to “engage in illegal strategies”. This article also reinforces the idea that businesses that are more likely to make contributions or lobby are also those with the highest payoffs from favorable policy decisions.

12. Perceptions of Elected Officials and the Role of Money In Politics by Pew Research Center While states have contribution limits, they are constantly changing them because they consequently effect states with low contribution limits more so than states with higher limits. The effect of these limits is larger in more professional legislatures (where candidates spend more time campaigning, are better paid, or are more likely to face quality challengers).

13. Contribution Limits Overview by National Conference of State Legislatures This source provides me with a breakdown of state allowance of corporate donations to campaign spending. This source shows the ineffectiveness of the recent case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. I can use this source as a reference as to how much each state values corporate funding of campaigns. This source also addresses how states that party contributions and PAC contributions. This source also documents individual, state party, PAC, Corporate, and Union candidate contributions for each state. This source also documents other limits, in the form of programs, by certain states including public financing, clean election programs, and matching fund programs. This allows me to argue how some states are more lenient when it comes to donations while others are more restricting, especially those that include the before mentioned programs.

14. PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS John Craig & David Madland essentially argue that the main goal of contributors is to have influence in policy making in their article “How Campaign Contributions & Lobbying Can Lead to Inefficient Economic Policy. Contributors compete for this influence rather than creating something of benefit. Hacker & Loewentheil, authors of “How Big Money Corrupt the Government”, too argue that money equal policy making and discuss its advantage by the super rich. A writer of the Chicago policy review, Jose Rafael Espinosa in his article, “Money And Polarization: How Campaigns Limits Are Both A Solution And A Problem”, agrees with the others that [contributors] want to create favorable policies. To solidify this argument, a survey done by Pew Research showed that most people believe that money had too strong of an influence in politics, and idea also shared by Drew Desilver and Patrick van Kessel in their article “As More Money Flows Into Campaigns, Americans Worry About Its Influence”, and laws that limit campaign spending could curb such role. Authors Desilver and van Kessel believe that there is a general discouragement of good candidates in their article. This idea was reinforced by a poll done by The Pew Research (data illustrated in the article “Perceptions of Elected Officials and the Role of Money In Politics”) where voters expressed the popular opinion that the cost of campaigning discouraged good candidates. Espinosa argued in his article that limits on contributions will increase the time candidates spend campaigning which would likely bring what he called “quality challengers”.

15. As More Money Flows Into Campaigns, Americans Worry About Its Influence by Drew Desilver & Patrick van Kessel This source provides data on how voters view the influence of money in the government. It covers questions like whether or not the cost of campaigning discourages good candidates and whether or not voters believe that money has a strong influence on politics. This article also addresses the fact that even though voter turnout is higher in presidential elections than it is in mid-term elections, the cost of campaigning follows similar trends. Spending increases, and will continue to, while voter turnout has decreased over the last decade or so. Less turnout will create even more problems.

16. How Big Money Corrupts The Economy by Jacob S. Hacker & Nathan Loewentheil There is a clear gap between the [super] rich and the poor; this gap is the root of many problems of today. Money is taken from the poor, and instead of getting put back into circulation to help the poor by putting it toward education infrastructure, and job training, it is given to the super rich. This causes even more problems for the poor because the super rich have the most influence when it comes to people in power and their policies. Money taken from the poor is given to policy makers or aspiring policy makers and is given back to the super rich in the form of priority interests. The primary reason for lobbying is to maintain if not grow profits of corporations. This source also brings up possible solutions starting with adjusting the supply and demand of political money.

17. How Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Can Lead to Inefficient Economic Policy by John Craig & David Madland This source talks about corporations seeking income through special government favors known as rent-seeking and its effect on the economy. Rent seekers are seen as those that compete for influence rather beneficial/innovative contributions and maintain this strong influence especially when it comes to decision making. This article stresses the direct relationship between campaign contributions and policy outcomes. It argues that most policies influenced by the corporations are either useless, inefficient, or harmful to the economy in some way.

18. Perceptions of Elected Officials and the Role of Money In Politics by The Pew Research The poll shows that most people agree that there should be limits on campaign spending. Many believe that this high cost of campaigning discourages good candidates from running which is why the people often get stuck with untrusting candidates. This source compares these shared ideas between parties as well as education levels in some cases. Most people also believe that new laws would help curb the role of money in politics.

19. Money And Polarization: How Campaigns Limits Are Both A Solution And A Problem by Jose Rafeal Espinosa This article also argues that campaign limits will decrease polarization. It was found that raising contribution limits for individual donations polarizes legislators in office, while increasing PAC limits leads to greater moderation. Campaign contributors on average are more ideologically extreme than voters which causes this polarization. PACs are interested in gaining access to legislatures in office to create favorable policies which is why increasing their limit would help with moderation. This article also mentions that limiting campaign contributions will increase the time candidates spend campaigning which will make them more likely to face “quality challengers”. More individual donors will have space to contribute If moderation by candidates as well as corporations is allowed.