Campaign finance is a controversial topic and finance reform has been highly debated in the halls of congress. One of the the most prominent reforms proposed is the elimination of soft money, or the contribution of funds that avoid present government regulations or limits. People sidestep such regulations by donating to party affiliates instead of directly to campaigns or candidates. The supporters of this reform argue that campaigns are too dependent on money and the anonymity does not allow for accountability. The McCain-Feingold finance reform act was an early attempt to limit soft money, however the majority if the regulations were lifted or loosened. Opponents of such elimination claim that soft money allows for people to participate in politics without fear of backlash from their peers, and the removal of soft money would be an infringement on freedom of speech.
Another proposed campaign finance reform is raising limits on individual contributions to campaigns. This means that individuals would be able to donate more directly to campaigns rather than to PACs or third party affiliates. Proponents of this idea say that it would allow for more transparency and accountability, as well as providing a path for people to donate large sums without going the soft money route. Those against, however, state that such large contributions feed into the money orientated campaign game that is based on monetary funds rather than political merits. It would also allow an individual to "buy" a politician with large campaign contributions.
No comments:
Post a Comment