Hi-Rent House party has limits

Oprah's California estate, site of Saturday night's $2,300 Obama fund-raiser.

You have heard the joke about money and politics? “There are two important things in politics. One is money and . . . I cannot remember the other one.”

Indeed, there appears to be a pernicious influence of big money in American politics. As the federal budget has ballooned by $1 trillion in the last six years, you would expect the fat cats to be interested.

It is the pernicious influence of campaign finance law ignorance, however, that is even more startling. Accusations of corruption are easy to make. Yet understanding campaign finance law is anything but easy.

With Oprah Winfrey hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama over the weekend, a quick review of campaign finance law is in order.

Here are the essential terms (we will study these in further detail later in the semester):

Hard Money: Money given directly to a candidate for campaign purposes. Can only be given in limited amounts. This amounts to $2,300 per candidate, per campaign. There are maximum limits on top of this.

Soft Money: Money given to a political party for the purposes of political activity. It cannot be laundered to the candidate but must be used for issue advocacy ads and/or voter mobilization efforts. No limit. Recently banned.

Independent Expenditures: This is money spent by private individuals toward the election of a favored candidate or desired political outcome. On the rise, this sort of electioneering bypasses the candidates and the parties. Private individuals and groups, somewhat undercover, do political damage.

Federal Election Campaign Act [FECA] (1971, amended in 1974): In response to President Nixon’s unprecedented campaign abuses, this legislation limited “hard money” to $1,000 to an individual campaign and $20,000 to a political party. The requirement of full disclosure is now law. Parties and candidates must now document and record for public access most campaign receipts.

FEC: The Federal Election Commission. Founded in 1974, this is the federal agency, oft called the “toothless watchdog,” that oversees federal campaigns.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political donations are protected by the 1st Amendment. Certain limits, however, are deemed Constitutional. Individual candidates can give themselves unlimited amounts.

BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act [BCRA] (2002): Often referred to as McCain-Feingold, this measure raised the limits on individual contributions to $2,000 to an individual campaign and $25,000 to a political party. Most importantly, it banned ALL soft money. Certain “electioneering communication,” by interest groups, was also banned 60 days prior to an election.

527: A tax code loophole discovered as a means to bypass the soft money ban of McCain – Feingold. A 527 is a tax protected political activity. Such groups must register with the IRS but are not subject to full disclosure laws or donation limits. In essence, these are political groups dependent upon independent expenditures which lie outside of current campaign finance law.

McConnel v. FEC (2003): The U.S. Supreme Court essentially upheld as constitutional the provisions found in BCRA.

The upcoming 2008 presidential election will certainly tax our understanding of the new BCRA regulations as money collected has already achieved incredible status. Evidence suggests, despite the absence of large soft money donations, that both individual candidates and the major political parties are collecting money in record amounts.

The polarized political environment helps to explain this continuing surge. Small donors, those giving less than $200, comprise close to 50% of the total. When this election cycle is over hundreds of millions of dollars will have been collected by millions of voters. More political cents just might mean more political sense.

Then again, we might be tossing our coins into a wishing well and you know what typically results from that? Nothing.

And what of that party with Oprah? Well, it is reported that Leonard Nimoy has given Obama $2,300, the maximum donation under current law. Obama is in this campaign for the duration . . . as long as he hits the right Spock.

Even before the planed party at Oprah's his campaign was doing quite well in the fund-raising race. His campaign brougt in $25 million in the first three months of 2007.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/02/politics/main2636900.shtml

The question is, would you give money to a Presidential, or any political campaign?