1. Campaign Finance 527, PAC, SuperPAC ads http://www. fec
Objective: To better understand campaign finance and its influence on political campaigns
November 15, 2017

2. I. Federal Election Campaign Acts, 1971-1974
Established FEC-regulate elections
Candidates-disclose??
Must disclose contributions $ expenditures
Pres. candidates-receive fed. Subsidies (tax check-offs)
Accept fed. Money=spending limitations…
$84 million in 2008 general election (McCain excepted/Obama did not – first major candidate to not accept)
Must raise at least $5,000 in 20 states

3. II. Effects of Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
I. FECA 1971, 1974…
Contribution limitations:
$1000 per candidate, per election
PACs: $5000 per candidate, per election, no overall cap
II. Effects of Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Court upheld limits on campaign contributions
Courts struck down limits on the amount individuals could contribute to their own campaigns(1st amendment-free spend)
Perot-$60 million 1992
Romney-$44 million 2008

4. III. Campaign Reform Act, 2002 (McCain-Feingold Bill/BRCA)
Regulates soft money to NATIONAL political parties (Soft $=???)
Soft Money =undisclosed, unlimited donations to parties for party building activities (Now all money to the parties is regulated and capped by the FEC)
Limits soft $ to STATE political parties-$10,000 (restricted to):
Voter registration, get out the vote drives
Doubles “hard money” to $2000 (goes up with inflation-$2700 in 2015/16)
Hard Money =disclosed, limited donations to candidates
No change on PAC limits ($5,000)

5. IV. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010
BRCAbanned corps/unions from “electioneering communications”
60 days of gen. election and 30 days of primary (unions/corps.)
SCOTUS ruled:
Allowed corps/unions to air ads explicitly supporting or opposing a federal candidate (ISSUE ADVOCACY ADS WERE BANNED FROM DOING THIS PRIOR)
Eliminated the bans on electioneering communications
Kept rule that bans corps/unions from donating directly to candidates
Can say vote for or against
THEREFORE…SUPERPACS

6. V. Analysis
No subsidies for congressional campaigns incumbency advantage
Minor parties5% of pop. Vote in previous election in order to receive subsidies
Parties are weakened even moreCandidate centered campaign vs. party centered campaign ($ goes to candidate)
Growth of PACs and candidate dependency
Cost of campaigning has risen (MEDIA – 250,000 to over 3 million for Super Bowl) More time spent fundraising

7. V. Analysis No limitations on independent expenditures
“527s”engage in political activities, receive unlimited contributions, spent on voter mobilization and issue advocacy ads, no money to candidate
(CANNOT SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST)
They also may not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a specific federal candidate, although 527s are quite free to portray federal candidates in such a way that there is little doubt as to the message.
PACSengage in political activities, contributions to candidates are limited, can be given to candidate (Realtors PAC), report to FEC (CAN SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST)
SUPERPACSengage in political activities, contributions cannot go to a candidate, contributions from individuals are unlimited, report to FEC, (CAN SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST)