Dillon Van Vranken

Professor
Pols-1100-401-Su14
7 August, 2014

Campaign Finances: The Will of the People
How a politician is able to finance his campaign and connect to the people has been a
long fought issue in our country. Where is the line drawn between infringement upon our First
Amendment rights by limiting what and how much we can spend, and allowing our politicians
to be bought out by larger interests and not truly representing the people who elected
him/her? There has been history of political corruption at the will of larger entities. While laws
have been passed to try and help stamp this out, it is an ongoing issue that is not easily fixed as
the court of public opinions sways from decade to decade and generation to generation. As
you will see, there is a history of political maneuvering and creative litigation that has put us in
the place we are now in regards to campaign finances.
To understand how campaign finances operate today, you need to know how the laws
were shaped in the past. Starting with our first Presidents run for a seat in the House of Borges.
After failing to win his local election in 1755, George Washington decided that he needed a way
to connect and sway the local populous in his favor. Washington decided to spend 39 pounds
and 6 shillings to purchase more than 35 gallons of both wine and hard beer cider among other
goods(CITE 1). It is said that Washington gave about 1 quart of rum, beer and hard cider to each
of the 391 voters in his district (CITE 2). Now elected into The House of Burgess, the legislators
passed a law in direct reference to Washingtons campaign. The new law prohibited any person
running for office as well as anyone affiliated with them from giving meat, drink, money,
entertainment, etc. to be elected to office. (CITE 3)
While this was only at the state level it laid the ground for reform that was to take place
throughout the country in the future not only at the state but also the federal level. The first of
the federal laws to take place would be in 1867 as a measure added to the Navy Appropriations
Bill. This stated that it prohibited officers and employees of the federal government from
soliciting money for political campaigns from naval yard workers. (CITE 4) Before this measure
was passed it was common for low ranking members of the military and even civilians to be
strong armed into making campaign contributions.
The next significant step taken in campaign finance reform was The Pendleton Civil
Service Reform Act (1883). This act was a consequence of the assassination of James Garfield in
1881 by Charles Guiteau, who felt that he was due a job in the government for his contributions
and efforts as was the norm of the day. In response to not getting what he thought he was
owed, he assassinates Garfield. (CITE 5) With public outcry already over the nature and
corruption of politics, the assassination was the tipping point. The Pendleton Civil Reform Act
tightened control over what jobs could be given by appointment in the government. It also
made it illegal to fire or demote employees for political reasons if they were covered by the act.
When the bill was introduced roughly 10 percent of the 132,000 government employees were
protected by this Law and deemed Civil Service. That meant the other 90 percent were at the
mercy of party affiliation and power shifts. As of today more than 90 percent of the some 2.7
million government employees are covered by the Law now. (CITE 6)
In the 1896 election between McKinley and Bryant saw a massive upswing in corporate
contributions as the country was experiencing a hard time. The corporations in turn were
looking for more favorable legislation in their favor. Upon winning the election McKinleys
office began a pro big business administration. Theodore Roosevelt who was McKinleys Vice
President was disgusted by this practice. In 1901 William McKinley was assassinated and
Roosevelt assumed office.
When it came time for re-election Roosevelt campaigned on the idea of stamping out
political corruption via contributions by corporations. This was an increasingly popular
sentiment of the day. It was no surprise that Roosevelt won the election and gained the
Presidency. Once in, he asked congress to pass a measure to not allow for corporate
contributions for federal elections. In 1907 Roosevelt got his way and the Tillman Act was
passed. (CITE 7) This law made it illegal to have corporations donate to federal campaigns.
While the Tillman Act did set forth a new set of rules it was widely disregarded at the time. The
importance of the act is that it was the first attempt to regulate federal campaign contributions.
There would be a flurry of activity over the next 15 years or so. First, the Federal Corrupt
Practices Act was passed. This act was passed in 1911 in an attempt to further transparency and
fairness to elections. The idea was to have all candidates disclose all campaign finances they
had. As well as limit the spending of both the house and senate. The original law passed would
not stand for too long.
10 years after the passing of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act in 1921, a business man
from Michigan would defeat this in the Supreme Court case Newberry v. United States. Truman
Newberry ran against Henry Ford for a senate seat in Michigan. After defeating Ford by a
narrow margin, Ford appealed to the government and press that Newberry had over spent and
violated the Corrupt Practices Act. Newberry would be tried and convicted of violating the act.
He appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to regulate
primaries and finances. The Supreme Court agreed with Newberry and overturned his
conviction as well as the Act itself. The Supreme Court had ruled it was unconstitutional to
regulate primaries and was an infringement on his rights. (CITE 8)
The response to this while swift was not necessarily that effective. Congress voted and
passed an amendment to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. In the amended part of the act
Congress had now made it so all contributions over $100 need to be reported and raised the
amount congress could spend to $25,000. (CITE 9) You were now also required to report your
contributions quarterly. It did not however, cap donations by individuals or set up a regulatory
authority to oversee this. There was also no fine or penalty for failing to follow the law. This
would serve as the main campaign finance law until 1971. Lyndon B. Johnson would famously
later say when reforming finance that this law was more loophole than law (CITE 10) as it was
easily skirted.
This act would be challenged in the Supreme Court. Burroughs v. United States was a
case in which two men were charged with 10 counts of violation of the Federal Corrupt
Practices Act. They appealed on the grounds of vague charges and unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court upheld the ruling stating that the 9
th
charge explained the previous charges
sufficiently. Also, there was no violation of their constitutional rights. (CITE 11)
Again in 1941 a case was brought to the Supreme Court in Classic v. United States. In
this case a man in New Orleans violated the laws of the Federal Corrupt Practices act and was
trying to use the Newberry case as a defense. The Supreme Court ruled against Classic and
again upheld the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. This would be the last major case until major
reform in 1971.(CITE 12)
After years of continuing corruption in politics, Congress created the Federal Election
Campaign Act. This new replaced the outdated Federal Corrupt Practices Act. The importance
of this was it set up clearer guidelines for donation amounts, timeline for reporting, advertising
caps, allows unions to organize an solicit campaign contributions. It also allowed for a broader
scope of people to oversee and enforce the laws. (CITE 13) Due to the Watergate scandal this
was amended in 1974 to allow for more strict control over finances such as capping donations
from Political Action Groups (PACS).
This would be challenged in 1976 in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. Senator James Buckley
challenged the law on the grounds it was a violation of First Amendment rights to cap personal
contributions. (CITE 14) The court decided on two things. First was that individual contributions
could be capped and were not a violation. Second, if a person wants to use their personal
wealth in their campaign, that is alright to do so and was considered a violation of the First
Amendment rights. This law would receive continues amendments to it such as the Feingold-
McCain reforms of 2002 setting the standard for electioneering communications. (CITE 15)
The last major court case to shape finances in campaigns was Citizens Untied v. FEC. In
this landmark case Citizens United fought for and won, for the right to have corporations and
unions to have unlimited ability to campaign and voiced their opinion for their candidate as
long as they were not giving the money to the candidate. (CITE 16) Two months later
Speechnow.org won a case using this precedent that not made it legal for individuals to
contribute as much as they wanted to an independent organization. This paved the way for
the Super Pacs we now see today financing candidates.
As it stands today, corporations and unions are allowed to flood candidacies with
impunity. They are not allowed to outright give the money as individual campaign as it is still
illegal for a corporation or union to give directly to a federal campaign. Instead this is done via
PACs. PACs are allowed to spend unlimited money and take unlimited contributions as well. So
now there are third party organizations that can run ads, print media or whatever they see fit,
for a candidate or opposing another year round.
Adding to this recent influx of money into campaigns is a ruling in April of this year. In
the case of McCutheon v FEC, a business man from Alabama challenged that capping
individuals donations to committees, organizations and PACs is a violation of his rights. The
Republican National Committee would also join this law suit. In a narrow 5-4 decision the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCutheon. (CITE 17) Now the individual has the ability to
donate as much money as they see fit to anyone of these groups while still being capped at
directly contributing $2,600 per election cycle for a presidential candidate or congressional
candidate. As the opinions change so will the laws. Its the American way.

















3 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/03/a-history-of-campaign-finance-
reform-from-george-washington-to-shaun-mccutcheon/
1 http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/all-entries-subject/social-life/beer
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-03.html
2
http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/civics/campaign_finance/Support%20Materials/CTN%20CFR%20Timeline.pd
f
4 http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline.php
5 http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=48
6 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/449725/Pendleton-Civil-Service-Act
7 http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=15165
8
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/contested_elections/102Ford_Newberry.htm
http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm
9 http://books.google.com/books?id=5mKC8BI-TxkC&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false
10 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28030
11 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/534/
12 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1940/1940_618
13
http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/civics/campaign_finance/Support%20Materials/CTN%20CFR%20Timeline.pd
f
14 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_436
15 http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml
16 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205
17 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-
donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html