Salem Press

Back More

Article Citation
Save this article
Print this Article/Save as PDF
Email this article
Copy Permalink to this Article to Clipboard✓

Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition

Campaign finance reform

by Michael L. Coulter

Definition: Efforts to improve the procedures through which political candidates collect and spend money in their efforts to win elections

Type of Ethics: Politico-economic ethics

Significance: Advocates of campaign finance reform argue that increased regulation of campaign finance would lead to greater political fairness and decreased corruption in politics; opponents argue that new regulation would unduly limit the freedom that individuals should have when participating in elections.

Campaign finance reform became a hotly contested issue in American politics during the last several decades of the twentieth century. Proponents of reform have argued that allowing large campaign contributions undermines equality in a liberal democracy by giving undue influence to small groups who can demand favors from the candidates who receive their contributions. Reform advocates also argue that limitations on campaign spending for candidates, individuals, and groups makes it possible to have a more level playing field for those seeking public office. Critics of campaign finance reform counter that limitations on making and receiving contributions limits freedom of citizens who desire to participate in the political process. They also argue that limiting contributions would lead to less-informed voters.

Early Federal Campaign Finance Law

From the founding of the American Republic until 1971, there were relatively few restrictions on the financing of political campaigns. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 prohibited candidates for federal offices from collecting contributions on federal property. This regulation was primarily aimed at protecting federal employees, rather than at protecting or restoring the integrity of federal elections.

Because persons holding positions in the federal government had previously contributed large portions of the money spent on early federal campaigns, candidates and parties looked to other sources after passage of the reform act. Powerful corporations associated with manufacturing, railroads, and natural resources provided significant contributions to both major political parties during the finals years of the nineteenth century. The criticism of the economic power of large corporations not only led to antitrust legislation, but also led to the Tillman Act of 1907 that prohibited corporations from making direct contributions to candidates for federal office.

In 1910 the Federal Corrupt Practices Act passed. It required disclosure of donors and for a short time established limitations on campaign spending. Neither that act nor its revisions established an independent enforcement agency, a fact that made the law’s provisions largely ineffectual. The argument for disclosure was that the public should be able to know the identities of people attempting to influence political candidates. The law assumed that voters would be able to determine when office seekers were considering the interests of their district or the interests of their donors.

Modern Campaign Finance Reform

Significant campaign finance reform began in 1971. The modern reforms have been driven, in large part, by concerns about political fairness and the integrity of political campaigns. In 1971 the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) established a comprehensive reform of campaign finance. The act required regular disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. It established limits on the amounts of money that candidates and their own families could contribute to their campaigns and set restrictions on advertising expenditures. A related act passed that same year provided limited tax deductions and credits for small contributions to political campaigns. The purpose of that law was to encourage more individuals to participate in political campaigns.

In the wake of very large contributions made to President Richard M. Nixon’s campaign for reelection in 1972 and increasing concern about corruption in government, Congress amended FECA in 1974. The changes that year included spending limits for presidential and congressional elections, a one-thousand-dollar contribution limit for individuals, a five-thousand-dollar limit for political action committees (PACs), and additional restrictions on how much individuals could spend on campaigns. The revision created the Federal Election Commission as a agency for enforcing the new regulations. The act also established a system of matching funds for candidates in presidential elections. Partial public funding of presidential campaigns was initiated as a means to provide fairness for candidates seeking the presidency and to limit candidates’ reliance on private contributors.

In its Buckley v. Valeo (1976) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the spending limits for campaigns, limits on what individuals could spend on their own campaigns, and limits on what independent groups could spend to influence elections as violations of the First Amendment. The court did uphold disclosure requirements and limits on contributions. In 2002 a major addition to campaign finance regulation was the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. That act changed the system of campaign finance in many ways, but most significantly it prohibited political parties from raising and spending so-called “soft money”—large contributions given to parties and originally intended support general party activities. These large contributions were often used to influence particular elections. The act also prohibited independent organizations from broadcasting “electioneering communications” to defeat or elect candidates in close proximity to elections. Defenders of the bill saw it as removing the corrosive effects of large contributions. Critics asserted that the bill restricted the free speech of candidates.

Values and Campaign Finance Reform

One side in the debate over campaign finance reform argues that the right of free speech should be the preeminent political value. It is an argument made by both conservative Republicans and the American Civil Liberties Union. Those who favor increased regulation and greater public funding of campaigns assert that money greatly contributes to the corruption of both candidates and the democratic system and that increased regulation would lead to greater fairness. John Gardner, founder of Common Cause, summarized this sentiment stating that “there is nothing in our political system that creates more mischief, more alienation, and distrust on the part of the public than does our system of financing elections.” In Political Liberalism (1996), political philosopher John Rawls sided with proponents of reform. He argued that “political speech may be regulated in order to preserve the fair value of the political [system].”

Citation Types

Type

Format

MLA 9th

Coulter, Michael L. "Campaign Finance Reform." Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition, edited by George Lucas & John K. Roth, Salem Press, 2019. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=Ethics_0279.

APA 7th

Coulter, M. L. (2019). Campaign finance reform. In G. Lucas & J. K. Roth (Eds.), Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.

CMOS 17th

Coulter, Michael L. "Campaign Finance Reform." Edited by George Lucas & John K. Roth. Ethics: Questions & Morality of Human Actions, 3rd Edition. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2019. Accessed December 14, 2025. online.salempress.com.

Table of Contents