Federal Campaign Financing Regulations Equity v. Efficiency: Federal Campaign Financing

This paper will examine the issue of equity versus efficiency with regards to the federal campaign financing regulations. In particular, the discussion will focus on whether the debate concerning equity v. efficiency really applies to this subject, how efficiency is or should be defined in this context, and whether the current regulations promote either efficiency or equity.

The first question which must be asked is whether the debate over equity v. efficiency is applicable to the context of campaign funding regulations. Efficiency is typically defined as the state in which there can be no change, in order to make someone better off, without making someone else worse off. Frequently, actions which are efficient, increasing the size of the "pie," distribute the individual "slices" unequally, sometimes even decreasing the size of an individual "slice." This action thus affects equity, the fairness of distribution. In order to achieve equity, all shares need not be equal; an allocation is equitable if no individual envies another's share. The frequent object of law, often accomplished at the expense of efficiency, is to achieve equity. The types of laws which are discussed most often in the context of efficiency v. equity are those which directly affect economic interests and relationships.

The subject area of this paper, however, may not directly involve an economic relationship between two or more parties. Indiv

. . .
to $425 million; in 1980, $1.2 billion was spent on all campaigns. Originally, the regulations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) sought to limit all expenditures made during the course of a campaign, whether they be contributions or independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate. The Supreme Court, however, ruled these regulations unconstitutional, on the grounds that they violated the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. The Court pointed out that in an age of expensive electronic communications, limits placed upon the amounts which could be spent during a campaign also limited the audience which could be reached by the speaker. Limits on the amounts contained in individual contributions made directly to a candidate's campaign, however, did not limit speech in the same manner since the candidate could simply seek a larger number of contributors to fund his campaign. Thus the modified regulations, enacted in the late 1970s, placed limits on the amount of money which an individual could give to a particular candidate during a single year; they did not limit the amount of money which could be spent in an individual effort on behalf of a candidate, although persons engaged in these activities must re
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Financing Regulations, Action Committees, PACs Congressional, Roosevelt Kennedys, Supreme Court, House Congress, Amendment Court, Campaign Act, Financial World, Research Reports, congressional elections, equity efficiency, wealthy candidates, funding regulations, amount money, pool potential, efficiency equity, campaign funding, limits placed, individual contributions, matching funds provided, political action committees, running public office, campaign funding regulations, pool potential candidates,
Approximate Word count = 2225
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)