Report Summary March 31, 2000
 Current Issue Cover Photo

Campaign Finance Reform
Do wealthy donors subvert the democratic process?
By Mary H. Cooper

Arizona Sen. John McCain focused his recent White House bid on eliminating the influence of big money in U.S. elections, catapulting the issue to the forefront of the campaign debates. McCain and other reformers -- including Vice President Al Gore -- want to plug the legal loopholes that allow corporations and wealthy individuals to pour huge sums of “soft” money into their favorite political. . . .

Read the Full Report (Subscription Required)
Buy Report PDF PDF


Pro/Con
Would tougher limits on political fundraising violate Americans' constitutional right to freedom of speech?

Pro Pro
Sen. Mitch McConnell
Chairman, Senate Rules and Administration Committee . From a Senate Floor Debate, Oct. 14, 1999
Sen. John McCain
Chairman, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. From a Senate Floor Debate, Oct. 14, 1999


Spotlight

Within hours of his upset victory over Texas Gov. George W. Bush in New Hampshire's Republican primary on Feb. 1, Arizona Sen. John McCain received an avalanche of campaign contributions totaling $300,000. Six weeks later, the total had mushroomed to $6.4 million. Footnote 1

What's remarkable about the sudden infusion of cash is the way it arrived -- via McCain2000.com. Cyber-savvy supporters of the senator's unsuccessful run for the White House could not only read his speeches and issue statements on his Web site but also send donations using credit cards.

The major party candidates, Bush (georgewbush.com) and Vice President Al Gore (algore2000.com), have set up similar sites to replenish their war chests in anticipation of this summer's aggressive issue ad skirmishes. But neither candidate has come close to raising as much money on the Net as McCain. As of March 6, Gore -- the most vocal Internet supporter in American politics -- had raised only $1.1 million through his site. Bush came in a distant third with just $400,000.

Internet-based political campaigning began with the 1996 presidential election, when both the Clinton-Gore and Dole-Kemp campaigns set up Web sites to solicit volunteers and disseminate information about their stands on important political issues of the day, such as Medicare funding and tax reform. At the same time, both parties began using the Internet as a platform for spontaneous, grass-roots discussions about political issues.

The Internet offers several advantages over traditional campaign platforms, such as television advertising, public appearances on the campaign trail and televised debates. For one thing, it's cheaper to create and update Web sites than it is to make in-person campaign appearances. Perhaps more important, the Internet enables candidates, parties and advocacy groups to make claims about issues and other political figures that can reach millions of individuals before the opposition has a chance to rebut them.

McCain, for example, created a furor among fellow Republicans last fall when he spotlighted a $2.2 million appropriation for sewer construction for the 2002 winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. McCain's Web site called the appropriation “pork-barrel spending related to the rise of soft money.” The money was earmarked within a larger spending bill and appropriated, at the behest of Sen. Robert F. Bennett, R-Utah, without a hearing.

“I am unaware of any money that was given by anybody in any amounts that influenced my action here,” said an incensed Bennett during an Oct. 14 floor debate on campaign finance reform. “But I have been accused on a Web site, for the entire world to see, of caving in to soft money. I have been accused of being corrupt. . . . The issue is whether or not a member of the Senate, when he is accused of corruption, has a right to know the details of the corruption.”

McCain was quick to defend his charge. “[T]he people of Arizona would at least like to have a hearing before their tax dollars go to the state of Utah. This is, in my view, something that we have to obviously fix,” McCain replied. “I do not know if we will ever stop this practice of earmarking and pork barreling, but I will never stop resisting it.”

[1] See Rita Ciolli, “Campaigns Now Spin on the Web,” Newsday, March 13, 2000.

Footnote:
1. See Rita Ciolli, “Campaigns Now Spin on the Web,” Newsday, March 13, 2000.


Document Citation
Cooper, M. H. (2000, March 31). Campaign finance reform. CQ Researcher, 10, 257-280. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
Document ID: cqresrre2000033100
Document URL: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2000033100


Issue Tracker for Related Reports
Campaign Finance
May 28, 2010  Campaign Finance Debates
Jun. 13, 2008  Campaign Finance Reform
Nov. 22, 2002  Campaign Finance Showdown
Mar. 31, 2000  Campaign Finance Reform
Feb. 09, 1996  Campaign Finance Reform
Mar. 29, 1985  Campaign Finance Debate
Oct. 11, 1974  Campaign Spending in Europe and America
May 03, 1956  Campaign Controls
Apr. 18, 1952  Control of Campaign Abuses
Jun. 05, 1946  Campaign Spending and the Law
Apr. 15, 1940  Money in Politics
Jul. 01, 1931  Revision of Federal Corrupt Practices Act
Dec. 01, 1929  The Vare Case
Apr. 06, 1928  Presidential Campaign Funds
Aug. 17, 1926  Excessive Expenditures in Election Campaigns
Aug. 10, 1926  Illegal and Corrupt Practices in Elections
Jul. 16, 1924  Election Costs and Campaign Contributions

Browse Related Topics
Campaign Finance
Campaign Finance
Lobbying and Special Interests
U.S. Constitution
Voting and Suffrage