Freedom and

Campaigning
Anita Oshin Harrison

proposal I.

Candidates can accept donations of any size from any source, on or off campus, and spend
unlimited amounts of money.

Pros:

Able to get whatever you need

Dont have to rely on only students for funding
Cons:
Could be corrupt (buying votes, bribing)
Some runners could be limited by financial and social
circumstances; unfair

proposal II.

Candidates can accept donations only from students, and no donation can be more than $25.
Candidates cannot spend their own money. Candidates can raise and spend no more than $1,000 on a
campaign.

Pros:

Able to see how creative they can get with set amount of money
Causes voters to focus on political competency
No discrepancies over who donated what
Cons:
May not be able to raise enough

proposal III.

Candidates can accept donations only from students, and no donation can be more than $25.
Candidates cannot spend their own money. There is no limit on the amount candidates can raise and
spend.

Pros:

More fair (no outside contributions)

Have to rely on policies/personality
Shows effort (who can raise the most for campaign)
No discrepancies over who donated what
Cons:
Poor college students = no $
May not be able to raise enough

proposal IV.

Candidates receive $1,000 from the university to finance a campaign and cannot
spend any money beyond that.
Pros:

Level playing field

Cant bribe
Cons:
Limited budget (may not be enough)
Rules? (who says where the money can be used, could just allocate the money wrongly themselves-- if not
specified)

Limiting free speech

Citizens Clean Elections Act
Provided a state subsidy to candidates that were outmatched in campaign spending by their opponents, in an
attempt to level the playing field.

Any candidate was eligible to receive the state funds, but those that did were required to limit their overall
campaign spending

Supreme Court ruled law unconstitutional because it undermined the free speech of candidates that earn their
own campaign funds.

loopholes.
Pay people to vote for them (proposal IV)
Can give people money to contribute to their campaign
(proposal II & III)
Have people, unbeknownst to runner, take it upon
themselves to use own $ (for posters, campaign in
general, etc.) (proposal I, II, III)

quid pro quo

In politics,quidquo pro can refer to the use of political office for
personal benefit.
For instance, an elected official might promise favorable
governmental treatment to a person in exchange for something of
value. This form ofquidpro quo would be a violation of the law.
On the federal level, the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. 1951 [1994])
makes it a felony for a public official to extort property under color
of office. Trading campaign contributions for promises of official
actions or inactions are also prohibited under the act.

the hatch act.

1939
Imposed a limit of $3 million for campaign spending by political
parties, and limited government employees to making total
campaign contributions of no more than $5,000.
Goal: Prevent government employees from buying political favors,
such as promotions, by contributing to the winners campaign.
Challenged on the grounds that it violated the Constitutional right
to free speech; contributing money to a political cause was a form
of free expression that should not be limited.

lets discuss.
What makes a democratic system democratic? Or what
would be an ideal democratic system?
Is it possible to have an election thats based only on the
peoples opinion (without loophole or corruption)?
How does money affect election outcomes?

Work Cited
Ed. Shirelle Phelps and Jeffrey Lehman. Vol. 8. 2nded.
Detroit: Gale, 2005.
p203-204.COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale,
Cengage Learning
"Campaign Finance Reform."Opposing Viewpoints Online
Collection. Detroit:
Gale, 2010.Opposing
Viewpoints In Context. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.