Abstract: Literature

Name of Literature: What Use Are Campaign-Finance Laws If They're Not Enforced?
Type: Magazine Article
Author: David A. Graham
Date: May 8, 2015
Website: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/what-use-are-campaign-financelaws-if-theyre-not-enforced/392621/
Date of Access: February 23rd,2016

On Sunday, Democratic members of the Federal Election Commission vented their anger to The
New York Times.
The few rules that are left, people feel free to ignore, Ellen Weintraub said.
The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim, Chairwoman Ann Ravel added. I never want
to give up, but Im not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. Its worse
than dysfunctional.
As if to prove the point, the agency released figures this week on the number of fines it doled
out in 2014, with a total just short of $600,000. Not only is that the lowest total since the current
system launched in 2001, but the number looks especially large when compared to the
increasing amount being spent on elections. Spending in 2014 totaled about $7 billionthe
highest nominal value ever. (The 2012 election cost a little more than $6 billion.) The average
fine for a major violation reached a low of about $13,000, half of what it was the previous year
and less than a tenth of the record average.
Everyone who's paying any attention at all knows that spending on elections is skyrocketing.
The Times estimates the 2016 election could cost $10 billion. Polling shows that a majority of
Americans would favor more limitations on spending, and think the system advantages the
wealthy, but a powerful minority feels that many limitations on campaign spending are an
impermissible infringement on free speech.
Regardless, most people on either side of that divide share a basic assumption that it is
important to have some laws on campaign spending to avoid straightforward corruption, and
that whatever rules exist will be followed. This is, after all, a nation of lawsso even if the laws
aren't strong, they're going to be enforced, right?

Should you think this is a nave position, consider that it's the view espoused by Chief Justice
John Roberts, who wrote the Supreme Court's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, striking down
aggregate limits on spending per cycle.

"Our cases have held that Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against
corruption or the appearance of corruption," Roberts wrote in McCutcheon. "We do not doubt
the compelling nature of the 'collective' interest in preventing corruption in the electoral
process."
The vanishingly small number of fines handed out, despite increasing spending, coupled with
Ravels complaint suggest that this faith may be misplaced. Believing that the election system
protects against even the most obvious cases of corruption might actually be nave. Not only are
campaign-spending laws weak and getting weaker with almost every relevant court decision,
the ones that remain on the books are, in large part, irrelevant or futile.
While Republican and Democratic members of the FEC each blame each other for the bad
blood on the commission, the Republican members don't actually dispute the fact that laws
aren't being enforced. They point out, as they have for some time, that the commission was
designed to have three members of each party, for a total of six. In the case of a tie, the
commission takes no action, meaning that a three-commission bloc from either party can
forestall enforcement. If the FEC wasn't designed for deadlock, why would Congress have built
it this way?
The result, as Christopher Rowland reported in 2013, is that even clear violations of the law go
unpunished, because of Republican members' ideological opposition to the laws themselves. It
is a bureaucratic override on legislative intent.
This is essential but largely unknown background for understanding headlines about campaignfinance. Take the case of super PACs, the special form of independent groups brought into
existence by the Citizens United case and a lower-court decision soon afterwards. Legally,
candidates are not allowed to coordinate with the bodies. In practice, that rule looks like a farce.
They've developed as independent groups that work to support a single candidate, and they're
often run and staffed by former close aides to that candidate.

Just this week, it emerged that Hillary Clinton is embracing a super PAC that will support her,
including meeting with fundraisers to the super PAC. That sits uneasily with Clinton's vow to
work for stricter campaign-finance lawsher allies say they can't unilaterally disarmbut it
likely doesn't break the letter of the law. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush is preparing to delegate an
astonishing array of tasks to Right to Rise, a super PAC he has set up but will dissociate himself
from when (or if) he makes his run for president official. The Associated Press reported that the
central idea is to place Right to Rise:
in charge of the brunt of the biggest expense of electing Bush: television advertising and direct
mail. Right to Rise could also break into new areas for a candidate-specific super PAC, such as
data gathering, highly individualized online advertising and running phone banks .... The goal is
for the campaign to be a streamlined operation that frees Bush to spend less time than in past

campaigns raising money, and as much time as possible meeting voters.

Each of these strategies is carefully calibrated to push the law to its limits. There is no indication
that these, or other groups, intend to break it. But that law seems unlikely to be enforced by the
FEC, even in the case of obvious violations; and when it is enforced, it will probably be with
minimal, slap-on-the-wrist penalties. That may tempt some candidates, or groups, to push
harder than they otherwise might, or even to do more than they are legally allowed to do. After
all, what's a $13,000 fine to a $1.3 billion campaign?
Main Idea of Literature (At least 5 to 6 Sentences):
This article began by explaining campaign finance and how it is relevant. Then, it stated who is
trying to change it and what they are doing. It stated their suggested plans for change. Then it
listed reasons that it would be hard to enforce campaign finance laws. It concluded with a
somber tone suggesting that campaign finance cannot be fixed.
Evidence from Text (At least two quotes):
1. Regardless, most people on either side of that divide share a basic assumption
that it is important to have some laws on campaign spending to avoid straightforward
corruption, and that whatever rules exist will be followed.
2. Believing that the election system protects against even the most obvious cases
of corruption might actually be nave.
Use in Paper (Placement=Introduction, Body Paragraphs, Conclusion):
I would most likely use this article to show why nothing has been done to change campaign
finance, and that it is difficult to enforce laws surrounding it.