 |
|
|
|
Government professor Robert Boatright examines the effects of campaign finance reform—who gives, who gets and what difference it makes in how U.S. elections are funded. |
|
 |
The money trail: tracing the impact of campaign finance reform
Professor Robert Boatright's research
Research question: What impact, if any, did the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) have on the way the 2004 federal political campaigns were financed?
In 2000, well known advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and the National Rifle Association each spent millions of dollars on television advertisements aimed at influencing voters' views on presidential candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush. Yet these groups were largely absent from the 2004 elections. In their place appeared newly formed and little known groups such as America Coming Together, the Media Fund, Progress for America, and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Why did established advocacy groups disappear from the airwaves, only to be replaced by relatively unknown organizations?
Advocacy groups and wealthy individuals that try to promote a political agenda, especially during elections, are regarded by many Americans with suspicion, if not down right disapproval. The large amounts of money contributed by special interests to political campaigns and parties are perceived as unfairly influencing election outcomes, to the detriment of the interests of the citizenry as a whole. For years, concern about the influence those wealthy donors might be buying in the political arena led to numerous calls for campaign finance reform, and resulted in the passage of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
Government professor Robert Boatright, in collaboration with a team of researchers,* has concluded that the BCRA did in fact affect the way some advocacy groups and individuals used and deployed their money in the 2004 federal elections, but not necessarily in the way or to the degree that was intended or expected. Some political analysts thought the new law would significantly curtail the influence of advocacy groups and wealthy individuals, while others assumed that these donors would find some other way to make their dollars felt. The team's research suggests that, while BCRA did reduce the amount of money some donors spent on contributions and electioneering, it did not reduce the overall amount spent on campaigns. The researchers also caution that a variety of changing political and social conditions make it difficult to tease out what is the result of the BCRA as opposed to other factors.
Federal campaign finance law: Getting up to speed on BCRA
Monetary donations
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulates certain categories of monetary contributions to political activity at the federal level. These regulated donations are referred to as hard money. Categories are defined on the basis of
- the type of donor (individual or type of organization)
- the recipient of the donation (individual or type of organization)
- how the money is to be spent; for example, for political party-building activities, a campaign endorsing a particular candidate, advertising (see electioneering, below)
Thus, election laws regulate who can give how much money to whom, over what period of time, and for what purpose.
Prior to BCRA (including through the 2002 elections), donations to be used for political party-building activities at the state and local level and/or voter mobilization were unregulated. This loophole allowed corporations, labor unions and individuals to funnel vast sums of money (termed soft money) into political activity that, in fact, affected federal elections.
Electioneering
Prior to BCRA, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulated radio or television advertisements that directly advocated for the election or defeat of a political candidate in a federal election. However, many groups evaded FEC regulations by running "electioneering" advertisements that clearly described a candidate in a positive or negative light, but without any sort of direct exhortation to vote for or against that candidate.
After BCRA: the 2004 election cycle
Monetary contributions
Contributions that, before BCRA, were characterized as soft money are now prohibited.** All contributions are regulated, so a contribution to the party can be used for any purpose.
Electioneering
An advocacy group that accepts money from corporations or labor groups (in practice, most advocacy groups†) can no longer run advertisements on radio or television within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election that specifically name a candidate. Note that this restriction does not apply to internet advertising.
Research questions
Monetary donations
Boatright and his team wanted to find out if
- 2000/2002 soft money donors directed money into alternative outlets in 2004, and if so, what were those outlets?
- there was a difference between 2000/2002 soft money donors who donated again in 2004 and those who did not
Electioneering
Boatright and his team wanted to find out if
- labor unions and corporations continued to fund advertisements in 2004, and, if not, did these groups direct money previously targeted for advertising into other types of political activity
- the timing and focus of these advertisements changed
Finally, could any of these changes be attributed as responses to BCRA?
Conclusions
Monetary donations
Boatright and his team concluded that most donors who contributed soft money before BCRA did not increase their donations in the 2004 cycle; many cut down and others ceased donating all together. This was especially true for corporations. Although many individuals and labor unions spent far more money in 2004 than they had in 2000 or 2002, these were not necessarily the same people or groups who had given soft money to the parties before BCRA.
Electioneering
While the total number of ads funded by labor unions and corporations before and after BCRA stayed much the same, a higher percentage was aired outside of the 30/60 day windows. (Ads could still be aired in that window if they were paid for with hard money or did not mention candidates by name.)
Funds previously used for advertising were often shifted to fund other activities; however, since this shift began prior to BCRA, it's unclear how much of a role was played by BCRA itself.
The Big Picture
The research team cautions that the effect of BCRA cannot be fully assessed until several more election cycles have passed. The context of the 2004 elections was somewhat unusual in that it was characterized by a highly polarized electorate, the breakdown of the presidential public financing system, and record spending by both party nominees.
Finding the data: who gives and who gets
For information about who gave what to whom, the research team relied on data from the Federal Elections Commission, the IRS and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project. (Some of this information is also available online through the Center for Responsive Politics and the Campaign Finance Institute.)
For information about donation strategies, the researchers conducted interviews with leaders from labor, liberal, business and conservative groups over the course of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 election cycles.
Questions for future research
Canada has also implemented campaign finance reform legislation. How do American and Canadian advocacy groups compare in their responses? Professor Boatright discusses his new research.
*The team included Michael J. Malbin (Campaign Finance Institute and SUNY Albany), Mark J. Rozell (George Mason University) and Clyde Wilcox (Georgetown University). This research was funded by the Campaign Finance Institute.
** The only exempt groups are those that have an MCFL exemption (originally granted by the court in a case concerning Massachusetts Citizens for Life) and can demonstrate that they accept no corporate or labor money. Other examples of such groups are the League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
†Note that the 2005 Levin Amendment now allows limited soft money contributions to state and local political parties.
|
|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
|
|
