New York State Campaign Finance Laws

Campaign finance laws govern how political candidates raise and spend monies for their elections. In general, there are three ways in which states regulate campaign finance: (1) disclosure, (2) contribution limits, and (3) public financing. Disclosure requires a candidate to disclose campaign-related contribution receipts as well as expenditures. Expenditures can include anything from advertising material to travel expenses. Contribution Limits restrict the amount of money that an individual or other entity (corporation, partnership, etc.) can contribute to a candidate or political party. Public Financing can take many forms, but, generally speaking, it is a voluntary program that allows a candidate to receive public money in exchange for abiding by spending and fundraising limits

The Changing Role of Soft Money on Campaign Finance Reform.The Birth of the 527 and its Consequences.

In a time when record numbers of dollars are being spent on campaigns the unregulated dollars are flowing faster than ever. Hundreds of millions of dollars in independent expenditures are being used for “issue advocacy”, print and broadcast advertising, which does not expressly endorse or oppose a candidate for office. The one-time campaign finance ceiling has become the campaign finance basement. Individuals are able to give unlimited dollars to 527 organizations, which function outside of all campaign finance regulation and provide a new path for the flow of political dollars. Since the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, federally regulated lobbyists and PACS are being edged out of the political dollar due to contribution limits. It is in 1996 that we witness the birth of 527 organizations and the flourishing growth of soft money spending in the campaign process

Citizens United and the 2012 Election : how did the presidential campaigns and outside PACs frame the candidates?

Campaign finance has long been a controversial political subject in the United States and was made more so by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United. The ruling struck down limits on donations made to and spent by outside groups supporting candidates or causes, including money donated by either corporations or individuals. Perhaps just as importantly, the ruling also allowed some donors to remain anonymous, thereby potentially shielding them from outside criticism. As expected, the change in campaign finance rules led to a surge in political advertising along with the birth of new political advocacy groups known as "super PACs" (political action committees). This study reviewed how that new influx of money was spent during the 2012 campaign for president, and more specifically if candidate and PAC spending differed in the type of negative advertising used (personal attacks vs. issue attacks). If there were significant differences, the success or failure of advertising strategy could affect decisions made in the next presidential election in 2016. This study determined that the amount of negative advertising created far exceeded positive for all sponsors, and perhaps more importantly there was little difference in the type of attack ads produced by the candidates' campaigns and their supporting PACs

Reforming Campaign Finance Reform: A Review of \u3ci\u3eVoting with Dollars\u3c/i\u3e

On March 27, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ( BCRA ) into law. The culmination of a six-year legislative and political struggle, BCRA works the most comprehensive change in federal campaign finance law in nearly three decades. BCRA addresses a broad range of issues, including soft money, issue-advocacy advertising, fundraising on federal property, campaign activities of foreign nationals, and penalties for violation of campaign finance laws. Enacted in the face of intense political opposition, BCRA, if it stands up in court, is a significant reform achievement. Or is it? BCRA closely follows the main lines of campaign finance regulation set out in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (collectively FECA ) : disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures; limits on individual contributions to candidates, political action committees ( PACs ), and parties; limits on contributions by PACs and parties to candidates; and prohibitions on campaign contributions and expenditures by business corporations and labor unions. BCRA plugs many of the gaps that emerged in FECA\u27s structure as Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) and Supreme Court decisions eroded FECA\u27s provisions, and politicians, interest groups, and donors found new ways of raising and spending campaign money that undermined FECA\u27s requirements, restrictions, and prohibitions. By subjecting soft moneyand issue advocacy to regulation, BCRA essentially restores the status quo ante of campaign finance law of the early 1980s

Investing in the People's Business: A Business Proposal for Campaign Finance Reform

Since the release of this landmark report, the debate over the way American elections are financed has fundamentally changed. CED successfully demonstrated that business leaders support reform and representatives of the business community became prominent and outspoken advocates for reform for the first time because of CED's work. Investing in the People's Business calls for specific changes in U.S. campaign finance laws to enhance electoral competition, stem the flow of unregulated money, and shift financial influence from organized interests to individual voters and small contributors. Major recommendations include a ban on soft money; an increase from $1,000 to$3,000 on contribution limits to candidates and $2 for$1 public matching funds on small donations for candidates who adhere to spending limits. Over 300 CED Trustees and business leaders across the country have endorsed CED's recommendations to reform the campaign finance laws and have played an instrumental role in the successful effort to pass significant reform legislation

Free Speech and the 527 Prohibition

Proponents of measures to make independent section 527 organizations into "political committees" under the Federal Election Campaign Act, subjecting the organizations federal campaign limits and reporting requirements, misunderstand both the role and result of regulation in campaigns and the jurisprudence in this area. Such measures would leave much activity unregulated and would induce a shift of activity from one legal structure to another, thus rendering any perceived partisan advantage arising from the measures improbable or incalculable. Organizations engaged in independent speech and association with no connection to candidates or officeholders cannot be made to register with the Federal Election Commission simply because they mention candidates; and they cannot be limited in the financial contributions they may receive for their independent communications. Independent organizations do not corrupt the legislative process. They are not corrupting the balloting process. They are a part of, not corrupters of, the information exchange process in and around elections. That politicians and party chairmen on both sides of the aisle favor restricting the speech of independent organizations on vaguely egalitarian grounds ignores the Supreme Court's clear instruction that limiting the voice of some to enhance the relative voice of others is foreign to the First Amendment. The instrumental value of this maxim is backed by data. Studies show that more speech in campaigns, not less, benefits voters of all socio-economic backgrounds

Tainted Money? Contribution Limits and the Effectiveness of Campaign Spending

Campaign expenditures are not effective in increasing candidates’ vote shares if voters do not respond to the advertisement when they believe that campaign expenditures are financed with “tainted money.” In this situation, limiting contributions may reduce the number of policy favors that candidates promise to contributors, and thereby increase the effectiveness of campaign spending. Exploiting cross-state variation in campaign finance laws, this paper tests whether campaign expenditures by state House candidates are more productive in increasing vote shares when candidates run in states that limit contributions. The results show that campaign expenditures by incumbents, challengers, and open seat candidates are more productive when candidates run in states with campaign contribution limits, as opposed to in states without limits. Controlling for the endogeneity of incumbent spending, the study shows that in states with contribution limits, incumbent spending and challenger spending are equally productive, and that spending by both candidates is quantitatively important in increasing their vote shares.

First Amendment (Un)Exceptionalism: A Comparative Taxonomy of Campaign Finance Reform Proposals in the United States and United Kingdom

There is an urgent conversation happening among the world’s democracies about how to respond to the combined threat of online electioneering and foreign interference in domestic elections. Despite the shadow such activities cast over the 2016 presidential election in the United States, the US has been largely absent from comparative discussions about how to tackle the problem. This is not just because of a recalcitrant president. The assumption that America’s “First Amendment Exceptionalism” – the idea that American freedom of expression law is simply too much of an outlier to warrant useful comparative consideration – is strong on both sides of the Atlantic. This is especially true in regard to the regulation of political campaigns.This article challenges that assumption, and argues that America’s more libertarian approach to the legal regulation of political speech does not pose a barrier to fruitful comparative work in this area. It does so by comparing the law of the US to that of the UK. Specifically, it organizes reform proposals being considered in the US and UK into a common taxonomy, and sets out the legal standard governing each type of proposal in each country. Considering each country’s law through this organizational structure allows us to see that the legal differences between the US and UK, while significant, rarely bar the types of changes being considered in either nation. Indeed, the two countries have much to learn from each other’s efforts in this area, and lawmakers, regulators, and scholars should not hesitate to engage with the experiences of their transatlantic peers.In reaching this conclusion, the paper makes three distinct contributions. First, by clustering reform proposals into a taxonomy, it provides a structure for comparative work that will be useful not just in the US and UK, but in all countries working to bring their election laws fully into the internet era. Second, by providing an in-depth yet accessible guide to the legal structures undergirding election law in the US and UK, it provides a useful tool for scholars attempting to understand these systems. The US system in particular is often quickly dismissed by other nations, but without a deeper understanding of how and why US law has ended up as it has those nations risk inadvertently following in its footsteps. Finally, it identifies several concrete areas where the US and UK can benefit from each other’s expertise, thereby providing a roadmap for regulators, lawmakers, and reform advocates in both countries