This is an area where following the rules is important. Violating campaign finance laws and rules can have a range of consequences, from having to resubmit a campaign finance report on one end of the spectrum to prison time on the other — with bad press being the most common consequence.
At the time this course was created, Rose was the Director of Online Trainings at NDTC. She is currently the Director of Voter Protection at the Texas Democratic Party, where she leads the state party's efforts to create an easy voting experience for all Texans and support voters throughout the process.
The system of campaign finance regulation in the United States is focussed primarily on seeking the full public disclosure of funds raised and spent by candidates for political office and their campaign committees, the political parties, and independent political action committees (PACs). Numerous problems with this system have surfaced during the last ten years, mostly having to do with “soft money” campaign contributions and “issue advocacy” advertising. These problems have prompted a series of investigations into the activities of the two major political parties and new reform legislation in the congress and at the state level.
One of the most important factors which prompted the reform of the campaign finance system launched in France in the late 1980s was exposure of a number of serious abuses in the funding of political activity. One of such cases involved Societe Auxiliaire d'Enterprise (SAE). As a result, a criminal case was opened against several right-wing and left-wing politicians who received illegal subsidies from this company. The investigation of the case has exposed a funding mechanism devised by the Socialist Party with the help of Urbatechnic, a consulting firm, and Grappo, a centralized consumer organization, which acted as intermediaries between the companies and candidates elected at the local level20.
The 1996 congressional elections demonstrated one more unregulated method of election campaign finance, which produced an extremely negative effect on the entire system of financial control measures . This is a widespread practice of the so-called "issue advocacy" advertising . In accordance with this practice individuals and independent groups which take a definite stand on some political issue may, quite legitimately, spend money on the propaganda of their convictions on TV and in the press, issue printed propaganda material, etc. This money is not given to the political parties and is not subject to restrictions established by federal laws. At the same time, de facto this money substantially contributes to the funding of federal election campaigns11.
In the Untied States a large role is played in federal election campaigns by the so-called "soft money” – funds raised and spent outside the framework of bans imposed by the federal election law6. As a rule, this money is given to the national committees of the political parties established at the state level. It is not directly intended for campaign funding but is used for party needs so that indirectly it could produce a marked effect on the election campaign. “Soft money” can be used, for instance, for touting the advantages of some political party, rather than for the propaganda in favor of its candidates.
In practice the parties and candidates manage to substantially increase the number of financing sources and eventually obtain large extra funding for their election campaigns , as a rule, not by directly violating the laws but by making use of numerous legal loopholes which guarantee them against application of sanctions by the authorities.
The Federal Election Commission has presented to the U.S. President and the Congress its proposals on the regulation of donations in the form of "soft money." These proposals focus on extending the public accountability requirement to the receipt of "soft money"; banning the use of a candidate's name in the federal elections for collecting "soft money"; limiting collection of "soft money" only to the years when federal elections are not held; requiring any activity of political parties in support of the election campaign of candidates at a non-federal level to be paid for from funds subject to federal regulation if this activity simultaneously affects federal election campaigns9.
The British Popular Representation Act establishes limitations on the total amount of financial expenditures of candidates' running for the House of Commons and for other elective offices. In 1994, this amount was not to exceed 4,642 pounds plus 5.2 pence and 3.9 pence per registered voter in rural and urban constituencies, respectively. At the same time, there is no regulation in respect of the amounts spent by political parties on election campaigns. Neither are there any legislative provisions that require the political parties to publish reports on the contributions to their electoral funds. So, in practice, none of the parties has disclosed information concerning individual and corporate contributions to their electoral funds14.