When students came into class they found Angel at the front of the room. He had a stack of Xeroxed paperwork with him. If it looked like he was clutching those pages like a lifeline while he talked, well there was a good reason for that.

"Uh, Prof. Lyman's out today," Angel said. "I don't have all his notes on what he wanted to cover, but I know today he wanted to talk about campaign finance. So, um, let's take a look at the reading first."

Angel handed out the papers:

***

Money in presidential campaigns: history, regulations and problems

You have decided to run for president of the United States and are full of ideas about what you would like to do for the country. You think of fine people you want to appoint to your cabinet, have ideas to generate more jobs and to provide health care, believe you can strengthen the nation's foreign policy. But you can do none of these things unless you are elected. And you will have no chance of being elected unless you raise an enormous amount of money.

Your campaign for the presidency will cost you:

* $12,000 to $15,000 in salary per month for an experienced campaign manager
* $50,000 for a direct mail fundraising letter to 100,000 people you hope will donate to the campaign
* $525,000 to run a week's worth of TV commercials in New York
* $600,000 to run a telephone bank with operators making two million calls

An average day of campaigning can run to $100,000. (New York Times, 6/29/03, based on interviews with various campaign experts)

As of early November 2003, candidate Howard Dean had raised more money than any of the eight other Democratic candidates--over $25,000,000. But by that time the Bush/Cheney reelection campaign had already collected more than $100,000,000. That's half of the $200,000,000 the Bush/Cheney campaign expects to raise for the primary election season, which begins in January 2004 and ends in August, when the Republicans hold their convention. And yet, the president and vice president face no opposition in any Republican primaries.

For a century reformers have come up with ideas about campaign finance. Below is a timeline of some of the highlights of campaign reform law.

1907: After businessman and U.S. Senator Mark Hanna raised millions from corporations and the rich for President William McKinley (1897-1901), Congress banned all corporate contributions.

1925: Congress approved the Corrupt Practices Act requiring political committees to report all contributions of $100 or more. The law was never enforced.

1940: Congress passed the Hatch Act, which limited individual contributions to $5,000. But rich donors got around the law by giving to state and local party committees.

1947: The Taft-Hartley Act banned unions from using their treasuries to contribute to political candidates.

1974: Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which was intended to close the loopholes in earlier reforms. It also created the Federal Election Commission to enforce the legislation and gave presidential candidates the option of receiving government subsidies to match private contributions raised by the candidate (up to a certain limit).

1976: The Supreme Court ruled that while Congress can limit most campaign contributions, it cannot limit campaign expenditures, which, it said, are a form of free speech and protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. This ruling resulted in a loophole that made it possible for candidates to use contributions to buy ads on issues that do not directly support a candidate.

1978: The Federal Election Commission itself opened up a loophole that made it possible for political parties to receive unlimited, so-called "soft money" contributions for "party building." But, in fact, both parties began using soft money to elect candidates. (Note: "Soft money" refers to unregulated contributions from unregulated sources to national political parties to fund grassroots state and local campaigns --even when those efforts also would benefit federal candidates. For more information, please see the classroom activity "Campaign Finance: Soft Money & Hardball Politics" on this website.)

2000: To close the "soft money" loophole, Congress enacted the McCain-Feingold Law. But opponents immediately challenged its constitutionality. They argued that it limits free speech, citing the Supreme Court decision of 1976. But by a 5-4 vote on December 10, 2003 the Court upheld the law, ruling: "In sum, there is substantial evidence to support Congress's determination that large soft-money contributions to national political parties give rise to corruption and the appearance of corruption."

Other proposals to curb campaign spending include additional public financing of campaigns (14 states have moved in this direction) and requiring radio and TV owners, whose licenses state that they are to operate in "the public interest," to provide some free air time as well as reduced-price air time to candidates. These ideas, however, are unlikely to become national law anytime soon.

Six organizations (Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and United States Public Interest Research Group) united to create the Presidential Public Financing Reform Project "to promote major improvements to the presidential campaign finance system by reducing the role of special interest money in presidential elections, increasing the importance of public financing in the primaries, and making enactment of reforms a priority for the presidential candidates and for Congress." (Common Cause)

The current laws on campaign finance are detailed and complicated but include the following:

Public Financing

Candidates who agree to limit their primary election spending to $45 million can receive public financing (money from the federal government) to match private funds the candidate has raised. The limit for spending on the general election-that is, after each party's nominee is selected at the party convention--is $75 million. (The source of this money is a $3 contribution taxpayers can choose to make on their federal income tax return.) A candidate can choose not to accept public financing, which frees them to raise as much money as they can--but bars them from receiving federal matching funds.

The Bush/Cheney, Howard Dean and John Kerry campaigns have all decided not to accept public financing and its limits for the primary season. A major reason is that, although the $45 million cap on primary campaign spending seems quite high, many people believe that it is not enough to allow a candidate to remain competitive. The Bush/Cheney campaign has already raised more than twice that amount. Note: The Bush/Cheney, Dean and Kerry campaigns have all said they plan to accept public financing for the general election.

Contribution Limits

An individual can give up to:

* $2,000 per election to any candidate or candidate committee
* $25,000 per calendar year to a national party committee
* $10,000 per calendar year to each state or local party committee
* $5,000 per calendar year to a Political Action Committee (PAC), a political group usually representing some issue-oriented organization, business or labor interest
* $95,000 per two-year election cycle to candidates, national party committees and PACs

A multicandidate political committee can give up to:

* $5,000 per election to any candidate or candidate committee
* $15,000 per calendar year to a national party committee
* $5,000 per calendar year to any PAC

Candidate committees, national party committees, multicandidate committees and PACs can and do spend large amounts that don't go directly to the candidates themselves. Corporations and unions can pay for radio and TV commercials that support a candidate and run more than 60 days before a general election. During the 60-day period they can't support a candidate directly. But they can indirectly, for example through commercials on an issue associated with the candidate and important to the group.

Though individuals can give no more than $2,000, they can lead a drive in their place of business, to "bundle" their contribution with those of others. For example, as of September 2003 Merrill Lynch, the financial services company, had contributed $364,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign in donations from employees and their immediate family members. The employees of the law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, had bundled $97,500 in contributions for Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry.

Political committees making use of a vague area of campaign finance law have spent more than $430 million in unlimited and unregulated amounts during the past three years to influence elections and policy debates through commercials, voter drives and political research. Both the Republican and Democratic parties work steadily, hard and successfully at finding ways to get around campaign finance regulations.

In short, despite all kinds of rules, regulations and reforms, the American political system is awash in money. And this raises serious questions about the role money plays in determining presidential elections, congressional legislation and presidential action.

***


"So, uh, basically whoever has the most money tends to get elected," Angel said, "and attempts to try to level the playing field either get thwarted or accused of being against the Constitution. Since I don't know what Prof. Lyman wanted to do as far as our three groups, I'm going to stick with class discussion where hopefully I won't have to talk too much. Let's, uh, talk about the following:"

Angel wrote these questions on the board. Yes, the handwriting was very precise and girly.

1) Should there be limits to how much a campaign can spend?

2) Are campaign contributions a facet of free speech? Should they be protected as such?

3) Do you think campaign finance law needs to be changed? If so, how?

"Oh, and - " Angel looked around randomly, then pointed at Logan, "how many days left until the election?"

[OCD threads a-coming are up like uppy things that up]

[ETA: Going to class m'self. Back around 10pm Eastern FHT]