Edward Maddalena

October 1, 2013
SPCM 3185
Senior Thesis Proposal
Topic and Question
Campaign Finance Reform After Citizens United
I am studying campaign finance reform because I want to find out what the impact of the
2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was,
how it affected electoral financing in American politics, and what potential campaign
finance reforms could look like in order to help my reader understand the influence that
money in politics has and possible campaign finance solutions in the wake of Citizens
United.
Working Hypothesis
The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the floodgates
for hundreds of millions of dollars of independent expenditures by Super PACs, aimed at
electing candidates to federal office. Although these independent expenditures do not
constitute outright quid-pro-quo corruption, they create the appearance that candidates
are reliant on special interests for support and thus put the special interests legislative
interests over that of the voters. This system of campaign finance has led to Americans
losing faith that their government is for, or and by the people. Potential reforms to
campaign finance can take many routes, including a constitutional amendment regarding
the Citizens United decision, public matching of candidate fund raising, to a system of
voting with dollars.
Context
Due to the fact that the Supreme Court ruling was handed down in 2010, there is not a
wealth of academic literature on the definitive effects of the decision. However, I intend
to rely on select Supreme Court decisions relating to campaign finance, including
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), McConnell v. Federal Election
Commission (2003), and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). Furthermore, since there are no
examples of quid-pro-quo corruption (i.e. suitcases of cash being exchanged for votes), I
intend to review contributions to candidates and independent expenditures in regards to
candidates with congressional voting records. Since issues regarding campaign finance
have been around since the 1970s, there is a great amount of academic research that will
help provide a framework explaining why individuals and businesses get involved in
contributing to politics.
Significance of the Project
The American publics knowledge of the Citizens United decision and the impact it had is
limited, with over 50% of respondents to a Pew Research poll never having heard of the

decision. Several politicians have suggested possible reforms that are too narrow and do
not fix the current system, or that are too broad and have the potential to break the current
system even more. My aim is to propose several possible reforms of the current campaign
finance system in light of the Citizens United decision, while being observant of the First
Amendment.
Broad Outline of the Paper
This Election For Sale: Reforming Campaign Finance After Citizens United
A) Introduction
B) A Brief History of Campaign Finance Before Citizens United and SpeechNow
The first piece of Campaign Finance law was passed in 1907, which explicitly
banned the contribution of campaign funds by corporations.
First major Campaign Finance reform was the Federal Elections Campaign Act of
1971, which created a Federal Elections Committee to enforce CF rules,
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (also called McCainFeingold) aimed to modernize existing CF regulations
C) What Citizens United Did
Non- profit corporation Citizens United produced documentary Hillary: The
Movie, and wanted to air it on demand on DirecTV. FEC ruled that if Citizens
United were to air commercials it would violate Section 203 of the BCRA, which
prohibited independent expenditure issue ads sponsored by corporations in the run
up to an election
Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court to get an injunction ruling that
Section 203 of the BCRA did not apply to them as it was written.
The Supreme Court held that the government had no compelling interest in
preventing corporate entities from making independent expenditures
Major outcome of the ruling allowed for contributions from individuals,
corporations, and unions, for the purposes of electioneering communication and
independent expenditure issue advocacy ads, as long as organization did not
coordinate with any candidate nor give funds to any candidate running for office.
The ruling did not allow for corporations to directly contribute to candidates for
office, but only contribute from their general treasury.
D) So You Want To Buy An Election: Making Your Speech Heard
With the rulings in 2010, the vehicles for individuals, corporations and unions to
spend money to get their message out are numerous, and all have various pros and
cons.
Individual Contributions
Political Action Committees (PAC)
Independent Expenditure Only Political Action Committees (Super PAC)
501 (c)(4) groups
E) Lobbying and Revolving Doors: Only the Tip of The Iceberg
The Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, when people think about lobbying now, they imagine huge corporations
retaining highly paid lawyers to bribe lawmakers to write and pass legislation,
favorable to them.
Run through of the current disclosure system of lobbying and how companies
lobby for legislation or lobby for or against rules
Issue when lobbyists make more than members of congress do. Congressmen and
Senators would be unwise to burn bridges with these lobbying firms by not seeing
the lobbyists and passing some laws that curry their favor.
Leads to a revolving door syndrome in Washington DC where losing senators and
representatives go to work for lobbying firms, and are valuable due to their ties to
current lawmakers. (e.g. Amgen lobbyists in Fiscal Cliff negotiations)
Lobbyists can also pursue a tit for tat strategy, hinting at supporting other
candidates in the future if the lawmaker does not help pass the bill in their
interests
F) Why Is Unlimited Money Bad?
The ads run by Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s are overwhelmingly negative and do
not need to be factually correct. Unlike candidates who run ads of this type, the
groups have neither real accountability nor a lasting permanence.
Can choose whom they want to be in an election, and can ensure that the
candidate continues to stay in the race by providing unlimited independent
expenditures.
Huge contributions to Super PACs supporting candidates marginalize the voices
of voters
Voters lose trust in their elected representatives, feeling that they are bought and
sold by the 1%
G) Where Do We Go From Here: Proposals for Reforming Campaign Finance
Reform the Federal Election Commission
Better Disclosure Rules
SEC Requirements on Corporate Spending
Fix the Revolving Door
No Limits on Money
Reform the 501(c)(4) distinction
Public Financing of Elections (Clean Elections)
Public Multiple Match of Funds
Amendment overruling Citizens United
Voting With Dollars
No matter what reforms are chosen, the system must be changed to ensure that we
elect representatives who are not beholden to special interest groups over the
voters who they represent.
Every reform will have flaws and money will always find a way through, however
the cost of inaction is the gradual decay of trust in the government being of the
people, by the people, and for the people.