An Issue in Nevada. An Issue Nationwide.
Campaign finance reform refers to political effort to change how money is involved in politics mainly during political campaigns. Through litigation and lobbying activities, people have thrown their support behind campaign finance reform in advocating for increased transparency in the government, most especially with the use of campaign funds during election season by calling for the disclosure of how direct contributions are used because these are believed to have just as direct of an impact on the elections. Alongside promoting disclosure, those in support of financial reform in campaigns also protect the rights to free speech and privacy that those participating in the political process as long as these rights do not show signs of corruption.
The Healthcare Link
With the passing of the Affordable Care Act, private insurance companies stand to gain from adding more policyholders. Not surprisingly, insurance companies were also big donors to Congressional races in Nevada and elsewhere.
As of October 2012
The influence is growing. Government is picking winners and losers, seemingly based on campaign donations as a large portion.
Case Study: Long-Term Care Insurance & Campaign Influence
One part of the Affordable Care Act that could have really hurt insurance companies was the CLASS ACT. While there are already Federal Long Term Care plans, they are not available to the general public. The CLASS ACT could have taken private policyholders away from insurers like New York Life, LTC Tree, and MassMutual that offer this coverage. Not coincidentally, perhaps, we find that NY Life is one of the largest donors of campaign cash, splitting more to Republicans than Democrats.
Campaign Finance Reform Isn’t Just a US Problem.
Campaign finance reform is a concern in various parts of the world but analysis of the role that money plays in politics was first done in the United States, the most powerful country in the world. While there have been attempts to regulate campaign corporate influence in the US with legislation as early as 1867, the first attempt that was successful at nationally regulating and enforcing campaign finance reform dates just to the 1970s, many thanks to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972. The Act required anyone running for office to disclose the source of contributions for the campaign, as well as detail campaign expenses to show how the contributions were spent. The Federal Election Campaign Act underwent amendment in 1974 as it introduces statutory limits for contributions and created the Federal Election Commission. The amendment attempts to restrict influence that wealthy individuals can wield over an election campaign by limiting donations to just $1,000 individually while limits for donations given by political action committees were set at $5,000.
Where To From Here?
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is the most recent of major federal laws related to campaign finance reform, revising some of the limits set for expenses in 1974 and prohibiting unregulated contributions to political parties in the nation. Where “soft money” is used to refer to unregulated contributions, funds used by independent organizations not specifically for advocating anything election-related, and funds not directly contributed to campaigns for certain candidates, “hard money” refers to specific donations made for the election. Earlier in 2010 though, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporate funds for independent broadcasts used in candidate elections will not be limited as limitations go against the right to free speech that entities involved have.
For related info, see Cornell’s LII: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bcra