![]() Of course, only some of these arguments apply to "soft money" contributions to political parties or other advocacy groups. Finally, political competitors, the media and advocacy groups all have it in their interest to reveal any unseemly behavior by political candidates. Fourth, financial disclosure laws further limit any opportunity for clandestine deals. Incidentally, these contribution limits have become more restrictive every year as they have never been adjusted for inflation. Third, individuals may only contribute limited amounts to candidates, PACs and parties similarly, contributions by PACs and the parties are also limited by Federal law. Second only individuals may contribute to candidates for Federal office, either directly, or indirectly through PACs or the parties. First, bribery and influence-peddling have long been illegal. There are several reasons why money does not play as large a role in American politics as is commonly thought. This isnt to say that money is unimportant, just that it doesnt drive the content of public policy or the outcomes of elections in the manner that is assumed by many reform advocates. Similarly, candidates that win election often spend more than their opponents, but this is because popularity among voters causes a candidate to be popular among contributors. For example, legislators often vote in accordance with the interests of their contributors, but this is because contributors choose to give money to like-minded legislators. Political success and fund-raising success are highly correlated, but numerous efforts have failed to find an important causal relationship. Lurid anecdotes notwithstanding, there is no systematic evidence that campaign contributions alter the behavior of legislators, nor that campaign spending has much impact on electoral outcomes, nor that large campaign war chests deter serious challengers. It should then be welcome news that the conventional wisdom about the corrupting influence of money in politics is a gross exaggeration. To be sure, no one is eager to police political speech, but it is understood to be a necessary evil. In response, some reformers have even proposed amending the Constitution to permit more stringent regulation of political activity. ![]() However, the courts have consistently stymied the most ambitious attempts at regulating campaign finance. Consequently, many Americans are willing to sacrifice some freedom of speech or association in order to restore integrity to our democratic system. It has become conventional wisdom that campaign contributions are bribes and that elective offices are for sale to the highest bidder. The most commonly stated purpose of campaign reform is to limit the corrupting influence of money in politics. Single Issues of The Independent Review.Podcast: Independent Outlook / Conversations.International Economics and Development.Learn more about the benefits, limitations and expectations of tax-exempt organizations by attending 10 courses at the online Small to Mid-Size Tax Exempt Organization Workshop. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another (b) oppose a candidate in some manner or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.Ĭertain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |