The “nevada campaign finance” controversy is a hot topic for many of us. I personally am not too worried about it because, in my opinion, it is extremely rare for a candidate to have to face a campaign finance scandal, but for those of you who do, I can’t begin to imagine the amount of sleepless nights, phone calls, and legal fees you will endure.
The nevada campaign finance scandal is a scandal because it shows how vulnerable candidates can be when they have money that they don’t know what to do with. As a result, the Supreme Court will decide on the constitutionality of two portions of the constitution which would prevent a candidate from running for office if they don’t get enough money to run a campaign.
The first part is known as the “political contribution” portion of the constitution, which allows candidates to make unlimited donations. The second part is known as the “campaign finance” portion, which makes it impossible for candidates to receive funds from corporations, unions, or other groups that are not organized for profit. If the Supreme Court finds these sections unconstitutional, we can expect a new law to be passed. That is not a good thing for the candidate but for the people who fund them.
The idea of a campaign finance law is nothing new. In fact, the first time Congress passed a campaign finance law was in 1913 when they passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which was very similar to what we have now in the United States. The Federal Election Campaign Act had a loophole that allowed corporations to donate directly to candidates they favored without having to donate money to a national organization.
In the years since, both candidates were funded by corporations that held a lot of money in their bank accounts. In the days of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the candidates’ contributions were limited to the amount of money they raised (which was pretty low in those days). With the Federal Election Campaign Act, corporations could also donate to candidates they favored without having to donate money to a national organization.
I don’t know if it was a better strategy than the one used by the DNC to raise money but I do know it was a lot more effective. It is very possible that the DNC was raising money from corporations that were making their own donations because it would make it seem like they were donating to candidates that they favored. It also would allow the corporations to have a bit more control while still not having to donate to some national organization.
The DNC is definitely an organization that was successful at raising funds but the corporation that was paying them had to fund their candidates based on their own donations. In the case of the DNC the corporate money was used to finance the organizations’s campaigns.
In my opinion it would be great if corporations could donate directly to a specific candidate instead of a national organization. The amount of influence the corporation has on a candidate’s campaign would be reduced, and the corporations would be able to direct the funds towards the candidate that they prefer.
In the case of the DNC the corporation was paying them for the right to spend money on a presidential candidate. A good candidate would make the corporate donations go directly to a specific candidate’s campaign. If the candidate is a big donor, like Bill Clinton, then a corporation may not be able to donate directly to his campaign, because if he or she wants to see the money going to a specific candidate, then they should have the corporate money going towards them.
It’s a good thing that corporations can’t donate to candidates. A candidate that is a big donor can use their political money to support candidates that they are supporting in their campaigns.