Campaign Financing in the United States and United Kingdom

The 2012 United States election was the most expensive on record in its history- at a cost
of approximately $7 billion (Politico 2013). This was not a surprise to the average American
citizen as presidential campaigns have become increasingly expensive over the last three
decades. The United Kingdom in contrast has a 30,000 expenditure limit in place for each
constituency- which amounts to about 19 million ($ 26 Million) nationally, per party (LOC
2009). The stark contrast between two of the historically most advanced countries in the world
suggests that the United States learn from the structure guidelines in the UK to improve current
US campaign financing practices.
The exorbitant cost of American elections has several adverse consequences. The 1988
elections cost a then record of $2.7 billion (NY Times 1991). This race for presidency between
George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis also laid the roots for negative campaigning in modern
American elections. President Bush viciously attacked Dukakis by portraying him as a man who
pardons murderers by broadcasting a menacing picture of convicted felon Willie Horton
(American Thinker 2013). The Bush campaign also made use of Dukakis riding in a tank
wearing an awkward looking Army helmet as compared to Bush, a World War II veteran, to
further smear Dukakis public image. Due to Bushs success in demeaning Dukakis, he was
absolved from actually developing solid ideas which would benefit America. Rather, he made
promises without considering the possibility of them actually being implemented; such as the
infamous, Read my lips: no new taxes. President Bushs campaign set two important
precedents. First, it demonstrated that negative campaigning works with the American voter, as a
17 point lead for Dukakis in July turned into an 8 point defeat come November. Secondly, the
Dukakis campaign failed to fight back, and in turn resulted in a crushing defeat, teaching future

campaigners that one must counter negative attacks with more negative attacks. Come 2012,
during election time over 80% of campaign ads were classified as negative, in which the
opponent was being attacked. (Politico 2012). In fact, when measuring the negative ads from
January to April of the election years, the amount of negative ads in 2012 were 700% in more
than at the same point during the 2008 election (LA Times 2012). Through this all, the most
damaging impact of the negative ads is the fact that it creates a toxic, partisan, hatred-filled and
stagnant atmosphere in Washington, which makes consensus during the presidency even more
difficult. This has perhaps never been more apparent than in the Obama administration.
When analyzing data, it appears that the major cause of negative campaigning lies in an
uncapped limit on campaign funds. In 2012, a combined $646 million was spent on negative ads
(Politico 2012), which dwarfs the approximately 113 million ($177 million) spent on the entire
2010 UK parliamentary election (BBC 2013). Moreover, only 31% of ads amongst the main
three parties in the United Kingdom were considered to be negative ads over a 10 year period.
Because UK campaigns have expenditure caps, it is a far better use of their limited funds to show
positive and informational ads. (Scammel and Langer 79)
Another harm of the current campaign finance structure in the United States is that it
creates the possibility of corruption with the rise of super Politcal Action Committees (PACs). In
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court decided that,
independent expenditures could not be constitutionally limited in federal elections, and
implicitly that corporations could give unlimited amounts to other groups to spend, as long as the
expenditures were made independently from the supported candidate It is difficult to believe
that super PACs run independently from candidates with names such as Restore Our Future
where Mitt Romney happened to speak at during the 2012 election. The fact that super PACs are

an exclusive club for the wealthy is an almost undeniable fact. From 2010 to 2012, about $181
million was raised by super PACs, with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 superrich people. Consequently, these select few donors will naturally expect something in return for
their generous contributions, allowing, the super rich and wealthy interests to buy influence
over government decisions, in the even the candidate wins (CNN 2012). It also minimalizes the
significance of the average citizens who cannot afford to donate to campaigns, let alone donate
thousands or even millions of dollars. The American people- Democrats and Republicans alikeare wary of super PACs, with 52% of people believing that super PAC spending is more likely to
lead to corruption, and 65% saying that they trust the government less due to super PACS having
more influence than regular voters (Brennan Center 2012). In essence, the unlimited amounts
groups can spend in the election lead to elected officials serving the entire population despite
only having the direct support of a mere 1% or even 0.5% of the population (NY Times 2011),
while simultaneously deterring better qualified, but less financially-supported candidates from
running for office. This is not to say that the British system is free from corruption or fraud.
According to the Royal Commonwealth Society lax identity checks and postal voting leaves the
system vulnerable to voting fraud (Daily Mail 2010). However, these deficiencies cannot
compare to the magnitude with which super PACs can influence the election as the very idea of
limitless campaign finances lends itself to the argument that Big Money will triumph and
challenges fundamental democratic principles of equality.
There have been efforts in Washington for campaign finance reform, but these efforts
have been repeatedly rebuffed; mostly recently in 2014 in the 5 to 4 decision in McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission which ruled that limiting campaign spending encroaches on the
First Amendment rights of freedom of expression. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that

There is no right in our democracy more basic than the right to participate in electing our
political leaders (NY Times 20111). Ironically, the lack of campaign finance limits marginalizes
the voice of the majority of the population while serving the interests of only a select few
individuals.
The notion that a public advertising ban (caused in part by campaign finance limits) is a
violation of rights was also raised in the United Kingdom as it appears to violate the right to
freedom of expression in the European Convention on Human Rights. In response, the European
Court of Human Rights upheld that the ban was compatible with the convention if it met a
pressing social need (LOC 2009). It is unfortunate though, that in America, the need to fairly
hear the voices of 99% or the population is not considered a pressing social need.
Following the UKs model of limiting campaign financing would eliminate the problem
of super PACs and also decrease the amount of negativity in American elections, but this
proposition may be too extreme to ever have a realistic chance of becoming legislation in
America. Perhaps a more realistic approach suggested by political activist Lawrence Lessig is to
levy a federal tax upon every voter and issue a rebate in the form of a voucher. Candidates
campaigns would then be financed by public vouchers which would amount to nearly $6 billion
USD every election cycle (assuming that each voucher is $50). This approach would eliminate
the need and influence of super PACs while at the same time enabling the voice and protecting
the right of expression of every American voter. With a fairly reliable source of funding,
candidates would benefit from have more time to develop the details of his or her objectives
rather than spend approximately 50% of their time fundraising (NY Times 2011).
A downside to Lessigs proposal is that negative advertising would likely continue, and
perhaps even increase. At closer glance though, one may argue that negative advertising has

already infused itself into American society and thus, will inevitably occur. The sheer use of
negative advertising is a testament to the fact that they work in winning over the average
American voter; with 70% of citizens believing that candidates have a right to point out the
weaknesses of the opponent. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, the mindset of the people is
much different. Studies have shown that voters are turned off by negative attack ads, making it
much easier for the British to shy away from policies that result in negativity (Independent).
Moreover, even US psychologists argue that in the United States negative ads are beneficial
because they contain more useful information that positive ads. Because the United States is
essentially run by two main parties, choosing the lesser of the two evils is essentially equivalent
to choosing the better of the two candidates. Although the means differ, the end result will be the
same in either case (Psychology Today 2012).
In conclusion, it is clear that the United States campaign finance system needs some type
of reform. The aspect of the United Kingdoms campaign finance system placing a cap on funds
will likely not be plausible to implement in America. However, the United Kingdoms
restrictions on donations could be enacted, in a way, using Lessigs proposal, which may be a
refreshing idea which Congress may consider, while bypassing the Supreme Courts ruling that
previous attempts were a violation of First Amendment rights. Such restructuring would allow
the United States to address the absurdly high cost of campaign financing in a way that would
not compromise the basic democratic values of the American campaign trail.
Works Cited
Burke, Richard. "Spending for 1988 Campaigns Set a Record." New York Times. N.p., 27 June
1991. Web. 17 July 2015.

"Campaign Finance: United Kingdom." Campaign Finance: United Kingdom. N.p., Apr. 2009.
Web. 17 July 2015. <http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/uk.php>.
Cowling, David. "What Price Democracy? Counting the Cost of UK Elections." BBC News.
N.p., 8 Nov. 2013. Web. 17 July 2015. <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics24842147>.
Grice, Andrew. "Voters 'turned Off' by Negative Campaign." The Independent. Independent
Digital News and Media, 11 June 2004. Web. 17 July 2015.
Groves, James. "'Corruptible and Open to Fraud': International Observers Give Damning Verdict
on UK Electoral System." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 25 May 2010. Web.
17 July 2015.
Groves, James. "'Corruptible and Open to Fraud': International Observers Give Damning Verdict
on UK Electoral System." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, n.d. Web. 17 July
2015.
Lessig, Lawrence. "More Money Can Beat Big Money." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 17 July 2015.
Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 02 Apr. 2014. Web. 17 July 2015.
Little, Morgan. "Negative Ads Increase Dramatically during 2012 Presidential Election." LA
Times. N.p., 3 May 2012. Web. 17 July 2015.
Murray, Greg. "Why Are Negative Ads Positive for Voters?" Psychology Today. N.p., 17 Oct.
2012. Web. 17 July 2015.
"National Survey: Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy." Brennan Center. N.p., 24 Apr.
2012. Web. 17 July 2015.

Parti, Tarini. "$7 Billion Spent on 2012 Campaign, FEC Says." POLITICO. N.p., 31 Jan. 2013.
Web. 17 July 2015.
Scammell, Margaret, and Ana Ines Langer. "Political Advertising in the United Kingdom." The
SAGE Handbook of Political Advertising (2006): 65-82. 16 May 2006. Web. 17 July
2015.
Slack, Donavan. "R.I.P. Positive Ads in 2012 Election." POLITICO. N.p., 4 Nov. 2012. Web. 17
July 2015. <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83262.html>.
Wertheimer, Fred. "Super PACs a Disaster for Democracy - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News
Network, 15 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 July 2015.