Money

The primary source of campaign funds for federal level elections comes from individuals, followed by political action committees (PACs). Individuals feel the need to contribute based on a variety of reasons. Some reasons include ideology, party identifications, and support and self-interest. Contributions from both types of donors are limited, and corporations and labor unions are not aloud to contribute to presidential campaigns.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency established in 1975 because of amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), sets standards for presidential campaigns, as well as keeps the different parties in check. FECA requires all sources of campaign funds to be disclosed. Qualifying candidates for President have access to public financing during the primaries and general election. The money for federal subsidies comes from income taxes; citizens have the option to check a box and donate $3.00 to federal campaigns when they fill out their taxes each year. Candidates that do qualify for government funding are often subject to spending limits.

Chart of spending limits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Table_of_Federal_Donation_Limits

In the Supreme Court ruling of FECA, it was ruled that individuals and groups have the right to spend as much money as they wish on presidential campaigns. The only limitation of this ruling is that the money cannot come from corporate or union treasury money. One example of an enormous independent expenditure in the 2000 election was Stephen Adams, the owner of an outdoor advertising firm, who gave $2,000,000 to support Bush.

Corporate Friends of Gore for 2000 Presidential Campaign

Gore's top donors for the presidential campaign (donation in parenthesis)

ERNST & YOUNG ($130,625): One of the nation's largest accounting agencies, Ernst & Young has almost matched the $140,000 it gave to Clinton/Gore in 1996. Its clients are mostly high-tech and the firm has fought Internet taxation. Other clients include R.J. Reynolds and Anheuser-Busch.

CITIGROUP ($99,500): Gave $648,547 to democrats in 1990s. Sought and received a relaxation of financial service regulations.

VIACOM ($94,675): Sought approval for its merger with CBS. Gave $356,900 in soft money to Democrats in the 1990s.

GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. ($86,750): Pushed hard for normalized trading relations with China. Gave $1.4 million in soft money to Democrats in 1990s.

TIME/WARNER ($73,525): Keeping the Internet free of taxation and regulators out of the cable industry are Time/Warner's chief goals. No longer gives soft money.

BELLSOUTH ($71,750): Baby bell. When Gore and Reed Hundt drew up idea for a $2.3 billion-a-year tax on phone calls to pay for Internet service in schools, BellSouth successfully lobbied to pass the tax on to consumers. Then made millions providing new telephone lines to schools. Gave $614,379 in soft money to Democrats over the 1990s.

PATTON BOGGS ($40,750): One of Washington's most powerful lobbying firms, Patton Boggs led the push for permanent most-favorable trade status for China. Charging clients $9.3 million for their services last year, Patton Boggs is the second largest lobbying firm in Washington.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH ($37,000): Alcohol kills 100,000 people every year. Over 12 million Americans are addicted to it. Yet the Administration has done almost nothing to raise awareness of the dangers of alcohol abuse. Maybe that's because alcohol industry PACs are among the biggest spenders in Washington, giving out $2.3 million in 1997-1998 alone, more than the gun lobby.

Campaign finance has become a controversial issue because of debates about free speech, and corruption when considering those who favor existing, fewer, and further restrictions.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/20050203pressum/presbigpic.pdf

~Gray