Pros And Cons Of Campaign Finance Reform

Over the last few decades, the United States Congress has debated numerous campaign finance reforms. Debated proposals have included limiting independent expenditures, raising limits on individual contributions, banning all private campaign contributions, and creating a public financing campaign system. In many of the debates, compelling arguments exist for both the proponents and the opponents. Generally, arguments are predicated upon constitutional concepts, Supreme Court rulings, standard policy, logic and reason, and personal perspectives.

Limiting independent expenditures is circumscribing the money spent by individuals and groups such as 527s – types of U.S. tax-exempt organizations organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code – and super PACs – types of independent political action committees which may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals, but are not permitted to contribute to or coordinate directly with parties or candidates – for candidates and parties that the individuals and groups are not directly affiliated with. Proponents have several viable arguments in favor of the proposal. One of the cogent

One of the arguments made by proponents is that creating a public financing system would minimize the socioeconomic demarcation line of political influence between the wealthy and the poor. Additionally, this would augment the U.S.’s overall political participation, specifically voter turnout – currently only 60% compared to the international average of 70% – because if a broader spectrum of people felt that they could make a difference, then there would be greater participation in the political