We the People have been Snookered  by Michael Lewis
Substitute the word "communication" for words that are struck through in the text below and you will understand that campaign finance laws are really limitations on freedom of speech. Campaigns are short lived corporations that spring up overnight to offer voters alternatives. Campaigns are about communicating and money is required as a means. It is insulting and often disproven that bad or unpopular ideas repeated frequently via "too much money" will wear down voters and win elections, but that is what refomers would have you believe.


Text below in black is copied from FEC website "Historical Background" webpage http://www.fec.gov/pages/fecfeca.htm#Historical Background .  Black Bold for emphasis and comments in red italic are mine. Blue text is excerpted from articles as noted.

Historical Background



As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. Ask yourself the question are broadcasters and newspaper chains "Corporations"?  Kentucky Election Law prohibiting corporate contributions predate the Federal Election Campaign Act by over a hundred years. In response, Congress enacted several statutes between 1907 and 1966 which, taken together, sought to:

  • Limit the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections;
  • Regulate spending in campaigns for federal office; and
  • Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.

In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce. There was no central authority because writing campaign law is the responsibility of the states as stipulated in the 10th Amendment. This is correct because there are no "Federal" elections.  U.S. Congressmen and Senators stand for election in the states they wish to represent. Requirements for running vary from state to state.  Even the presidential election is 51 separate elections (Puerto Rico). Some states, for example, permit Independents and Democrats to vote in Republican primaries and others do not. The state board of election finance regulations are written by the state legislature, a body closer to and more responsive to the people.

Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.  Ask the question "Wag the Dog". From 1905 through today it is "Federal", incumbent politicians telling us the solution to our "outrage" is more "Federal" control and regulation. If we the people are outraged by the shennagians of our elected "federal politicians" do we want them writing the laws to curb their excesses or should our state legislatures to do it?

Our nations largest and most powerful newspaper chains used Richard Nixons "character flaws" to their advantage:

Some of our nations largest newspapers found themself in federal court loosing antitrust suits which accused them of purchasing financially troubled newspapers and pretending to compete with them while actually rigging prices.

Richard Nixon and his attorney general were on record as strongly opposed to the passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act. The Newspaper Preservation Act was working its way through congress and was designed to grant antitrust relief to the affected newspapers.

A newspaper executive wrote a letter to president Nixon as his re-election approached and reminded the President Nixon that the nations largest Newspaper chains published in those states that had the largest number of electoral votes. The carefully worded letter reminded President Nixon that it could be difficult to be re-elected without their editorial support.

President Nixon reversed his position and used his political skills to convince congress to pass the newspaper preservation act.

Newspapers in the parlance of our existing Federal election laws "had co-ordinated their endorsements" with the needs of president Nixons Re-election committee in return for his support for "their" Newspaper Preservation Act. see pgsMonopoly 5th edition paperback .95-99 The Media

You would expect serious "financial" abuses to result in amendments to FECA that restrict the "outrageous", unfair influence of the "corporate" media. Instead Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals (including handbills), political parties and PACs in 2 U.S.C. 431 (9)(A):

9) (A) The term "expenditure" includes -

(i) any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance,

 

deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any

person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; and
(ii) a written contract, promise, or agreement to make an expenditure.

and exempted the corporate press, newspaper and magazine publishers in 2 U.S.C. 431 (9)(B)(i)

(B) The term "expenditure" does not include -
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed

through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper,

magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities

are owned or controlled by any political party, political

committee, or candidate;

The politicians declared that what people were upset about was the fundraising excesses of the 1972 Nixon campaign, so they passed strict new regulations on campaign finance. The 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act limited contributions to any candidate for federal office to $1,000 per person per election (primary and general elections counted as separate elections). They also limited political action committees -- which pool the donations of many individuals -- to $5,000 per candidate. Many members of Congress were clear about their aim: to strengthen the two-party system in the face of popular outrage.

Several other provisions were later struck down by the Supreme Court: a limit of $25,000 in personal spending by a candidate, a limit on what independent committees could spend, and a ceiling of $70,000 in spending by House candidates.

But the contribution limits served their purpose. Despite all the dissatisfaction with the two major parties, no viable independent or third-party challenge emerged. The two-party share of the House vote remained at virtually 100 percent -- rising a bit to 98.8 percent in 1988, dropping to a nail-biting 97.4 percent in 1996. Deprived of the chance to raise seed money from wealthy and strongly committed individuals, no new party could get off the ground.

 
Contribution and spending limits mean less competition for incumbents.