The debate over the reforming of campaign finance is inconclusive after a decade, however, the debate will continue until a decision is made. The possibilities for change are eliminating soft money and raising limits on individual contributions. There are arguments for and against the reforms by politicians, but knowing from the past, the decision will alter the measure that is in place now.
The definition of soft money is prohibiting or regulating campaign contributions to political parties and or contributions for party building activities. Some argue that it takes millions of dollars to run a campaign, and with all the money in one place the possibilities of fraud are very much possible. On the other side of the argument, the first amendment declares that prohibiting contributions is unlawful because it is a personal right defined in the Bill of Rights.
The government is considering reforming individual contributions by increasing the dollar amount people may give to campaign parties or PAC's. This reform would decrease the influence of PAC's in the campaign and would decrease restrictions on the first amendment, just like the soft money proposal. However, the reform would also allow the rich to have more influence because they have more available money. It would also drive up the already skyrocketing costs of campaigns.
Campaign finance reform is necessary in government. Whether by eliminating soft money, or increasing individual contribution limits, the reform will cause a response. No matter what happens, the first amendment will be challenged by those who are against, and the rich will be in favor of the reform that best suits their needs. There is no completely correct answer, but if reform in inevitable, it should be done to suit the needs of many different classes and people.
No comments:
Post a Comment