Civilisation américaine

Dossier 2:

Is corruption anavoidable in campaign finances?

Are campaign finances synonym of corruption?

Campaign financing: a threat to democracy?

Distinction soft money/ hard money

Soft money = political parties as whole (indirectly spent in a campaign)

Hard money = money given directly to candidates (very controled)

1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (F.E.C.A)= regulations, limit on how much can be spent for a candidate, option for public founding campaign (candidate has to sign contract and accept limits on how much would be spent). Companies, unions could not spend money to a candidate. It had to send money through a PAC (Political Action Committee = way of checking where money comes from and it is used) and then PAC could spend money on campaign.

1976 Buckley v Valeo (Money is speech) = people free to spend their money in campaigns

2010: Citizens United = Big compagny goes to Supreme Court and says law prevents freedom of speech. Compagnies and unions free to spend money they want according to Supreme Court

Document B:

Keywords

elections/ participation

money

reform/ regulation/ control

democracy

corruption

Because democracy you need elections

Problem = money -> flawing democracy: not all votes equal in the end

More money = more participation from the people in case of Obama

Doc C: Contributions are called investments: suggests you want something back

One person gave 4 million dollars for Adelson who was not elected = big investment and no return = you have to "bet on the correct horse"

Democrats started to run adds repeatidly. Romney lost the elections in part because Democrats used TV adds against him. Money can backfire. TV adds do not lead to results.

2/3 of money in campaign = TV adds

...