This House would limit anonymous contributions from corporations and individuals to super PACs

Currently, Super PACs are organizations that can receive unlimited contributions, which encourages the belief that the amount of money contributed is directly correlated to the amount of influence the donor could have. By permitting individuals or corporations to make unlimited contributions, the current legislation undermines the democratic character of the elective process. Political figures related to the sponsored Super PACs have an incentive to satisfy the needs of those who contribute huge amounts of funding towards their campaign rather than meet the needs of the average citizen. This is not the way that democracy should be; it must represent the viewpoint and needs of the majority of the population, not just the small fraction of it that is wealthy enough to effectively pay for policies they want. Furthermore, caps on contributions to Super PACs will bring competition in elections back into the mainstream and when more citizens contribute to politicians, they will be more engaged in politics.[1]

 For example, the pass of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) eliminated soft money for parties and attempted to handle the elections contributions through PACs. With the elimination of soft money for parties, the role of interest groups investment decreased in the 1990s.[2] Obama’s campaign in 2008 raised 114.1 million or 34% of his general election fund from small contributions. His unprecedented small donor fundraising success can be interpreted as increased credibility and public visibility for Obama and through this the benefit of mobilizing lots of small donations. In 2008, Obama used online communications and social networking tools to reach and mobilise more people. In effect of this approach, he not only inspired an unprecedented number of young and retired people to get involved in the campaign, but also achieved the highest rate of small contributions.[3]

[1] Malbin, Michael, Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann, and Norman Ornstein. "Reform in an Age of NEtworked Campaigns." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. By Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 84-106. Print.

[2] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83.

[3] Malbin, 2011.

To limit the ability of any person or a group, to influence a democratic political process is rather undemocratic and discriminatory. Groups should to be able to express their voice, and attempt to influence politics. Any form of limitation of that is an infringement of their rights as citizens in a democratic country.

Limiting contributions could equally be used to achieve a partisan advantage. The Tillman Act banning corporate contributions to campaigns in 1907 is a good example. It was sponsored by the South Carolina senator Tillman who wanted to embarrass President Roosevelt for his heavily reliance on corporate funding in his 1904 election campaign. Tillman often bragged about his role in vote frauds; thus, revealing his bill was less about public good and more to gain partisan advantage.[1] This was repeated a couple of times since, despite the numerous regulatory bills that have been passed. According to Smith’s research, the effect of campaign-finance regulations has been to help people who passed them and to strengthen special interest, rather than to cleanse American politics of the influence of self-interested factions. Money is the means by which those who lack talents or other resources with direct political value are able to participate in politics beyond voting. This reform favour people and corporations skilled and able to afford political advertising over those skilled in other building homes or other fields with no media influence.

Thus, the reform undermines efforts for equal access to the political arena by restricting campaign contributions.

Data analysis of the last three elections also shows that campaign –finance regulations are of little value. Many scholars, such as Stephen Ansolabehere, James Snyder, and John de Figueiredo, believe that it is not the contributions that corrupt politicians, therefore, limiting contributions will not tackle the problem of corruption. Legislators’ votes usually depend on own beliefs and preferences of their voters and their parties and contributions have no detectable effects on legislative behaviour.[2] The past two elections at which Obama won over better known and funded leaders like Hillary Clinton and Romney who did not lack funds shows that support for ideology was more important than funds.

[1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.52

[2] Smith, 2011, P.54

When a corporation and an individual are both trying to achieve the same goal, they should be able to do so in the same way. It would be unfair if the campaign finance reform limits the amount that an individual could contribute, but not that of a corporation when it is apparent that corporations are contributing considerably larger amounts than individuals as seen in the case of the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations need to have the same rights and limitations on campaign contributions and economic freedom.

This was why the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal ban on spending by corporations was unconstitutional under the First Amendment Act in 2010. This led to the Super PACs because they represent an association of people and have the right to freedom of speech and political preference. Reforms, such as Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) may have been successful in curtailing interest groups role as investors in campaigns, they failed when it comes to candidate advocacy as a result of super PACs. Such regulations that limit large-scale political spending from interest groups serves to limit speech crucial to political groups without a broad base of support or political entrepreneurs like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that got its message aired when the national media was ignoring the issue. Moreover, bans on corporate contributions did not prevent alternative ways for candidate advocacy, such as the private satellite radio station of the National Rifle Association or the movies made by the Citizens United[1] These alternative ways could undermine the principle of fair and transparent campaigns more than the lack of such limit on spending from individuals and corporations and their political expression.

[1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.58-9

The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people. In addition, difference in the size of individual and corporate campaign contributions is usually quite significant.

    Despite increasing number of individual contributions, the donations from large interest groups, such as corporations, often exceeds sums from individuals as in 2000 and 2001- by $176 million and &171 million respectively. Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporations almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption.[1] While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different.Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimizes the role and influence of interest groups.

[1] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83. P.70

A further reform limiting super PACs would have the effect of leveling the playing field for candidates. Candidates with enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources. Under a reformed campaign finance system, it will be more difficult for well-financed candidates to win purely because of the money they have. Incumbent candidates have a unique advantage over challengers in the present system because of their direct connections to important sources of money.

Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive and thus enhance higher turnover or "fresh blood" in politics. This is essential for challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas. It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise large sums of money.

Quantitative analysis of elections involving incumbents from twenty-five states across three election cycles indicate that more stringent campaign finance laws increase the likelihood of  new challengers to the current incumbent.[1]  Financing laws limiting fundraising increase the likelihood of minority-party and independent challengers and produce higher rate of election competition. As a result challengers feel they have better chances against the incumbents.

[1] Hamm, Keith E., and Hogan, Robert E., “Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State Legislative Elections”, Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 171-191.

Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes will exist and enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of development which led reformers to want to close the soft-money loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are adopted to get around it.

There is actually a higher turnover in public office than some critics of the present campaign finance systems would like to admit. Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress or other legislative body becomes.

Moreover, the effect for challengers could be different. Finance limitations benefit the most popular candidates who already have a large base of support. Political minorities, newcomers, and outcasts will find it difficult to reach enough people to raise the money they need through many small contributions. The financial limitations further limit the possibilities for such campaigns in the future.

Campaign finance reform gives the individual donor a voice more comparable to other donors’ interests. At present, the enormous amount of money channeled into campaigns by large corporations, unions, and special interest groups through PACs overwhelm the smaller, limited contributions of individual donors. Reforming the super PACs and limiting these large group donations would increase the significance of donations by individual voters, likely increasing the responsiveness of candidates to voters/donors and so increasing their accountability to their electorate. Additionally, the increased significance of individual contributions encourages voter participation and activism.

Even the most radical campaign finance reform proposals have yet to eliminate corporate or union contributions. Short of such bans, the potential for large organizations to swamp the donations of individual voters still exists. Additionally, limitations on the voice of unions, businesses and special interest groups are another form of potential infringement on the rights of free speech and assembly. Who is to say that a union member’s contribution to their organization’s political action committee is not significant speech comparable to the individual gesture they make when they donate to a candidate themselves? It is reasonable that union members or shareholders choose to trust their leaders to use their money in order to best advance their interests.

Allowing anonymity of contribution to “Issue Ads” and to Super PACs only amplifies the corrosive effect money has on American politics.

Without knowing where the funding for particular “Issue Ads” come from, the intentions of contributors can be obfuscated and issues can be easily branded into political palatable campaigns by allowing contributors to keep themselves and their agendas hidden[1]. Using names such as the “America Future Fund”[2] and the “Coalition of American Seniors”[3] political allegiances and agendas are hidden from view, removing a much needed critical evaluation of those who contribute and what their ends are. Further to this, the anonymity of Super PACs make it easy for foreign contributors, who are banned by US law from contributing to campaigns, to secretly contribute to campaigns, helping to skew American democracy by giving undue political influence to foreign corporations and their interests[4].

Anonymity of Super PACs allows people to obfuscate their intentions and turn campaigns into opaque propaganda, removing the capacity for proper democracy and political debate.

[1] "Campaign Finance: Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." Economist 04 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/campaign_finance

[2] ibid

[3] "ibid

[4] Parnell, Sean. "A campaign finance 'reform' twofer from Think Progress." Campaign Freedom. Center for Competitive Politics, 05 Oct 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/a-campaign-finance-reform-twofer-from-think-progress

Releasing the names of individual people who have contributed to a campaign will in no way indicate what interests were at play in creating a particular political campaign ad or strategy. Moreover, this is at best an argument against propagandizing political ads, not one for releasing the names of people who financially donated to that ad.

The campaign finance reform failed to achieve political equality and does not affect wealthy donors or prominent candidates. Often, the most authentic grassroots candidates and campaigns are burdened by such regulations. In 2000, Mac Warren ran for Congress in Texas and spent just $40, 000, half of his money. 2 pieces of the literature failed to contain the required notice that the literature was paid for by the committee and his campaign was fined by $1,000.[1]

[1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.59

Currently, Super PACs are organizations that can receive unlimited contributions, which encourages the belief that the amount of money contributed is directly correlated to the amount of influence the donor could have. By permitting individuals or corporations to make unlimited contributions, the current legislation undermines the democratic character of the elective process. Political figures related to the sponsored Super PACs have an incentive to satisfy the needs of those who contribute huge amounts of funding towards their campaign rather than meet the needs of the average citizen. This is not the way that democracy should be; it must represent the viewpoint and needs of the majority of the population, not just the small fraction of it that is wealthy enough to effectively pay for policies they want. Furthermore, caps on contributions to Super PACs will bring competition in elections back into the mainstream and when more citizens contribute to politicians, they will be more engaged in politics.[1]

 For example, the pass of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) eliminated soft money for parties and attempted to handle the elections contributions through PACs. With the elimination of soft money for parties, the role of interest groups investment decreased in the 1990s.[2] Obama’s campaign in 2008 raised 114.1 million or 34% of his general election fund from small contributions. His unprecedented small donor fundraising success can be interpreted as increased credibility and public visibility for Obama and through this the benefit of mobilizing lots of small donations. In 2008, Obama used online communications and social networking tools to reach and mobilise more people. In effect of this approach, he not only inspired an unprecedented number of young and retired people to get involved in the campaign, but also achieved the highest rate of small contributions.[3]

[1] Malbin, Michael, Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann, and Norman Ornstein. "Reform in an Age of NEtworked Campaigns." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. By Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 84-106. Print.

[2] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83.

[3] Malbin, 2011.

To limit the ability of any person or a group, to influence a democratic political process is rather undemocratic and discriminatory. Groups should to be able to express their voice, and attempt to influence politics. Any form of limitation of that is an infringement of their rights as citizens in a democratic country.

Limiting contributions could equally be used to achieve a partisan advantage. The Tillman Act banning corporate contributions to campaigns in 1907 is a good example. It was sponsored by the South Carolina senator Tillman who wanted to embarrass President Roosevelt for his heavily reliance on corporate funding in his 1904 election campaign. Tillman often bragged about his role in vote frauds; thus, revealing his bill was less about public good and more to gain partisan advantage.[1] This was repeated a couple of times since, despite the numerous regulatory bills that have been passed. According to Smith’s research, the effect of campaign-finance regulations has been to help people who passed them and to strengthen special interest, rather than to cleanse American politics of the influence of self-interested factions. Money is the means by which those who lack talents or other resources with direct political value are able to participate in politics beyond voting. This reform favour people and corporations skilled and able to afford political advertising over those skilled in other building homes or other fields with no media influence.

Thus, the reform undermines efforts for equal access to the political arena by restricting campaign contributions.

Data analysis of the last three elections also shows that campaign –finance regulations are of little value. Many scholars, such as Stephen Ansolabehere, James Snyder, and John de Figueiredo, believe that it is not the contributions that corrupt politicians, therefore, limiting contributions will not tackle the problem of corruption. Legislators’ votes usually depend on own beliefs and preferences of their voters and their parties and contributions have no detectable effects on legislative behaviour.[2] The past two elections at which Obama won over better known and funded leaders like Hillary Clinton and Romney who did not lack funds shows that support for ideology was more important than funds.

[1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.52

[2] Smith, 2011, P.54

When a corporation and an individual are both trying to achieve the same goal, they should be able to do so in the same way. It would be unfair if the campaign finance reform limits the amount that an individual could contribute, but not that of a corporation when it is apparent that corporations are contributing considerably larger amounts than individuals as seen in the case of the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations need to have the same rights and limitations on campaign contributions and economic freedom.

This was why the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal ban on spending by corporations was unconstitutional under the First Amendment Act in 2010. This led to the Super PACs because they represent an association of people and have the right to freedom of speech and political preference. Reforms, such as Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) may have been successful in curtailing interest groups role as investors in campaigns, they failed when it comes to candidate advocacy as a result of super PACs. Such regulations that limit large-scale political spending from interest groups serves to limit speech crucial to political groups without a broad base of support or political entrepreneurs like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that got its message aired when the national media was ignoring the issue. Moreover, bans on corporate contributions did not prevent alternative ways for candidate advocacy, such as the private satellite radio station of the National Rifle Association or the movies made by the Citizens United[1] These alternative ways could undermine the principle of fair and transparent campaigns more than the lack of such limit on spending from individuals and corporations and their political expression.

[1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.58-9

The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people. In addition, difference in the size of individual and corporate campaign contributions is usually quite significant.

    Despite increasing number of individual contributions, the donations from large interest groups, such as corporations, often exceeds sums from individuals as in 2000 and 2001- by $176 million and &171 million respectively. Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporations almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption.[1] While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different.Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimizes the role and influence of interest groups.

[1] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83. P.70

A further reform limiting super PACs would have the effect of leveling the playing field for candidates. Candidates with enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources. Under a reformed campaign finance system, it will be more difficult for well-financed candidates to win purely because of the money they have. Incumbent candidates have a unique advantage over challengers in the present system because of their direct connections to important sources of money.

Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive and thus enhance higher turnover or "fresh blood" in politics. This is essential for challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas. It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise large sums of money.

Quantitative analysis of elections involving incumbents from twenty-five states across three election cycles indicate that more stringent campaign finance laws increase the likelihood of  new challengers to the current incumbent.[1]  Financing laws limiting fundraising increase the likelihood of minority-party and independent challengers and produce higher rate of election competition. As a result challengers feel they have better chances against the incumbents.

[1] Hamm, Keith E., and Hogan, Robert E., “Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State Legislative Elections”, Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 171-191.

Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes will exist and enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of development which led reformers to want to close the soft-money loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are adopted to get around it.

There is actually a higher turnover in public office than some critics of the present campaign finance systems would like to admit. Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress or other legislative body becomes.

Moreover, the effect for challengers could be different. Finance limitations benefit the most popular candidates who already have a large base of support. Political minorities, newcomers, and outcasts will find it difficult to reach enough people to raise the money they need through many small contributions. The financial limitations further limit the possibilities for such campaigns in the future.

Campaign finance reform gives the individual donor a voice more comparable to other donors’ interests. At present, the enormous amount of money channeled into campaigns by large corporations, unions, and special interest groups through PACs overwhelm the smaller, limited contributions of individual donors. Reforming the super PACs and limiting these large group donations would increase the significance of donations by individual voters, likely increasing the responsiveness of candidates to voters/donors and so increasing their accountability to their electorate. Additionally, the increased significance of individual contributions encourages voter participation and activism.

Even the most radical campaign finance reform proposals have yet to eliminate corporate or union contributions. Short of such bans, the potential for large organizations to swamp the donations of individual voters still exists. Additionally, limitations on the voice of unions, businesses and special interest groups are another form of potential infringement on the rights of free speech and assembly. Who is to say that a union member’s contribution to their organization’s political action committee is not significant speech comparable to the individual gesture they make when they donate to a candidate themselves? It is reasonable that union members or shareholders choose to trust their leaders to use their money in order to best advance their interests.

Allowing anonymity of contribution to “Issue Ads” and to Super PACs only amplifies the corrosive effect money has on American politics.

Without knowing where the funding for particular “Issue Ads” come from, the intentions of contributors can be obfuscated and issues can be easily branded into political palatable campaigns by allowing contributors to keep themselves and their agendas hidden[1]. Using names such as the “America Future Fund”[2] and the “Coalition of American Seniors”[3] political allegiances and agendas are hidden from view, removing a much needed critical evaluation of those who contribute and what their ends are. Further to this, the anonymity of Super PACs make it easy for foreign contributors, who are banned by US law from contributing to campaigns, to secretly contribute to campaigns, helping to skew American democracy by giving undue political influence to foreign corporations and their interests[4].

Anonymity of Super PACs allows people to obfuscate their intentions and turn campaigns into opaque propaganda, removing the capacity for proper democracy and political debate.

[1] "Campaign Finance: Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." Economist 04 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/campaign_finance

[2] ibid

[3] "ibid

[4] Parnell, Sean. "A campaign finance 'reform' twofer from Think Progress." Campaign Freedom. Center for Competitive Politics, 05 Oct 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/a-campaign-finance-reform-twofer-from-think-progress

Releasing the names of individual people who have contributed to a campaign will in no way indicate what interests were at play in creating a particular political campaign ad or strategy. Moreover, this is at best an argument against propagandizing political ads, not one for releasing the names of people who financially donated to that ad.

The campaign finance reform failed to achieve political equality and does not affect wealthy donors or prominent candidates. Often, the most authentic grassroots candidates and campaigns are burdened by such regulations. In 2000, Mac Warren ran for Congress in Texas and spent just $40, 000, half of his money. 2 pieces of the literature failed to contain the required notice that the literature was paid for by the committee and his campaign was fined by $1,000.[1]

[1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.59

The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people and may not fully represent the views of any of them. Thus many big companies while favoring one party or the other actually give to both parties, Honeywell International for example to July 2012 had given more than $2.2million with 63% going to the Republicans and the rest to the Democrats.[1] These companies clearly then bet on both sides, presumably however their senior staff are actually supporting one or the other.  

    Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporation almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption. While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different. Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimize the role and influence of interest groups.

[1] McIntyre, Douglas A., and Hess, Alexander E. M., “10 Companies Making the Biggest Political Donations: 24/7 Wall St.”, Huffington Post, 2 July 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/corporate-political-donations_n_1644375.html#slide=1176088

In the context of sponsoring a campaign figure, there should be no differentiation between corporations and individuals. The incentives to fund a candidate and the political outcomes that result from corporatist and individual contributions are the same, therefore, legally treated as such. The idea that the government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is against the First Amendment.

It is simply unfeasible for this policy to work effectively. There are two key issues that arise to prevent this policy from having any positive impact.

Firstly, when dealing with the general public actually knowing who is contributing, the vast majority of these contributions, whether from a corporation or an individual, are contributed under the names of individuals. The first problem with this is that thousands of names of individuals cannot fit into a commercial advertisement. There would have to be a list created which is made public, but, unfortunately, the vast majority of people will not seek this list out and so will not become any more informed about who is behind the advertisement.

The second problem is that even if the public did find the list, individual names do not hold any weight or indication of the types of interests that are backing campaigns and advertisements. “John Smith” and “Joe Jones” will not indicate to a normal person that this advertisement was funded by an oil company even if these people are the oil company’s CEO and Managing Director.

Secondly, corporations and large businesses that want to avoid detection will simply donate the money under an individual’s name or donate ‘in the name’ of multiple employees of the company in quantities small enough not to raise any suspicion as they already do with current campaign donations to stay under funding caps. There are already instances, such as ASG in 2012, where CEOs pressurise their employees into making donations,[1] if they are no longer able to spend as much as they wish themselves they will be much more likely to use their employees.

Therefore, this policy does nothing to help the American political situation.

[1] Volsky, Igot, “CEO Asks Employees To Help Company ‘And Yourself’ By Donating $2,500 To Romney”, Think Progress, 20 October 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/20/1054351/ceo-asks-employees-to-help-company-and-yourself-by-donating-2500-to-romney/

Although it may not be immediately apparent to the average TV-watcher who is funding these campaigns, the importance of releasing the names of funders is to allow investigative journalists to conduct research on these names and draw together any conclusions the public may need to know about who is funding candidates. This also applies to other techniques that corporations may employ to get around publicity. Nevertheless, there is a much better chance that the dots will be connected for the public if the names of donors are released.

Certain political groups are politically disenfranchised because of perceptions about them that exist of in the society. Some groups are considered as being political enemies by their counterparts from more powerful opposing political parties and therefore, they cannot engage meaningfully in the political discourse without being dismissed at the get-go.

Allowing anonymity in Issue Ads allows people and groups to fund political speech and support certain policies and political discussions without having social perceptions of their membership to certain groups taint their political activity. This is especially important in America where membership to certain groups is considered to coincide with political allegiance like in the case of the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party. 39% of people say that they would be less likely to support a candidate if they were supported by the NRA so it is clear that the NRA can best support a campaign anonymously.[1]

Anonymity will enfranchise certain forms of political activity by individuals and associations which otherwise would have been dismissed by voters. Therefore, allowing anonymity allows for less partisan policy discussion.

[1] Jensen, Tom, “Americans consider NRA endorsement to be a negative”, Public Policy Polling, 5 February 2013, http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_205.pdf

It is exactly because certain organizations have particular interests that it is important to reveal when they fund Issue Ads or campaign initiatives[1]. People hold these biases and views of organizations like the National Rifle Association for a reason. If the involvement of this organisation invokes suspicion in a conscientious voter, then that voter has the right to be alerted about that suspicion.

[1] McIntire, Mike. "The Secret Sponsors." New York Times 02 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/weekinreview/03mcintire.html?partner=rss&emc=rss