1. Campaign Finance
Hannah Ashkinaze

2. The United States Congress has debated a variety of campaign finance reforms over the last decade. These proposals have included the following:
Eliminating soft money
Limiting independent expenditures
Raising limits on individual contributions

3. Select one of the listed proposals and do all of the following:
A) Define the proposal.
B) Describe an argument that proponents make in favor of the proposal.
C) Describe an argument that opponents make against the proposal.

4. Select one of the listed proposals and do all of the following:
A) Define the proposal.
B) Describe an argument that proponents make in favor of the proposal.
C) Describe an argument that opponents make against the proposal.

5. Eliminating Soft Money
The prohibition or regulation of campaign contributions to political parties or to party building activities.

6. B) An argument in favor is that soft money is sometimes used to circumvent hard money (contributions to individuals), and the elimination of soft money would level the playing field.
Other possible answers:
Less “buying of influence”
More transparency
Decreases overall costs

7. C) An argument against the prohibition/regulation of soft money is that it violates the First Amendment (freedom of speech). In the ruling Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that setting limits on campaign contributions was unconstitutional.
Other possible answers:
Party money is not direct contribution to individual (less influence)
Weakens political parties
Weakens grassroots participation

8. Limiting Individual Expenditures
A) Limiting money spent by individuals and groups not directly affiliated with the candidate or the party.

9. B) Limiting individual expenditures can lessen “buying influence” of candidates, and level the playing field for different interests.
Other possible answers:
Lessen negative campaign ads
Lets candidates control their own campaigns
Can be used to circumvent limits on hard money.

10. C) C) An argument against the prohibition/regulation of soft money is that it violates the First Amendment (freedom of speech). It also violates the ruling Buckley v. Valeo, when the Supreme Court ruled that setting limits on campaign contributions was unconstitutional.
Other possible answers:
Party money is not direct contribution to individual (less influence)
Weakens grassroots participation