Political Campaign Contribution Limitations

Campaign spending and contributions are sky high. Just look at the last presidential election in 2012. Mitt Romney, the Republican National Committee, and the Restore Our Future Super PAC raised a combined total of $992.5 million and spent $992 million. President Obama’s campaign as well as the Democratic Party and Priorities USA Action Super PAC raised $1072.6 million and spent $985.7 million of that income (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance). The debate about limiting campaign contributions and spending has been going on for a while. With the rise of several prominent Super PACs last election cycle, the debate has become more necessary. This debate was put before the Supreme Court in early October.

In 1974, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was created to oversee and enforce campaign finance regulations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/). Since then the FEC has established a set of parameters for how much money an individual or corporation can donate to a campaign or political party each election cycle. These limits were put in place to help stamp out corruption.

For the current 2013-2014 cycle, an individual can give up to $123,200 to candidates, national party committees, and certain political committees (Sullivan, 2013). Individuals are also limited to how many candidates they contribute a base amount.

Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy, conservative businessman from Alabama, along with the Republican National Committee, is challenging the FEC. McCutcheon is not challenging the contribution base limits rather he wants to give the maximum amount of money to as many candidates as he wishes (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-08/politics/42812345_1_citizens-united-contributions-justices).

With limitations in place on an individual’s contributions, there has been a rise in Super PACs. A Super PAC is a political-action committee with the sole purpose to advocate for a particular candidate. Super PACs are independent of the candidate’s or party’s campaign. By nature, donors are able to give an unlimited amount of money to these Super PACs (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/firstamendment/a/What-Is-A-Super-Pac.htm).

In 2010, the US Supreme Court rejected limits on political contributions by unions or corporations, claiming limits to be unconstitutional in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).  There was not a ruling in this case about how much an individual could give. Maybe it’s just a coincident, but during the summer of 2010 the United States saw the rise of the first major Super PACs. In the McCutcheon case, it will be up to a conservative Court to determine if monetary limitations should continue for individuals.

During the last presidential campaign I feel like I saw more Super PAC ads than ads from the candidate or political party. As a voter, I would rather see an advertisement from the candidate himself than from an independent organization. If limitations on political contributions were removed we could return to the traditional way of campaigning and hear from the candidate himself. I feel like the Super PAC movement meddles too much with the campaigning process. Their ads often add to the negative atmosphere surrounding political campaigns.

Being able to donate as much as you want to a candidate, party, or committee should be protected by the First Amendment. We should be able to express our support for a candidate however please. If that means that an individual wants to donate a large sum of money to a particular candidate, they should be permitted. Our right to show our support for a candidate should not be limited by a sum of money. If these limitations are removed, a more traditional campaign process could return and Super PACs could be done away with.