The simmering issue of campaign finance reform has burst into a hot topic in recent years as candidates have expended millions of dollars to win even the lowliest office. This has forced candidates to raise even more money, which has seemingly increased the influence of large donors. Those factors, coupled with the dramatic increase in ôsoft money,ö have deepened the American public's cynicism about the political system and about politicians. This sentiment has been especially strong in California, where the state's voters have considered several initiatives designed to remake the system of campaign finance. This paper will examine the issue of campaign finance, placing particular emphasis on California's attempts at reform and the impact of those efforts on large donors such as the state's labor unions.
The movement to reform campaign finance traces its origins to the Watergate scandal. The way that Richard Nixon's campaign raised money, and the way that Nixon spent that money to harass and undermine opponents, prompted calls for change. Nixon actually signed into law the first campaign finance measureùthe Federal Election and Campaign Act (FECA)ùin 1972 (Utter and Strickland, 54).
That law had no teeth until Congress amended it in 1974, in the wake of Nixon's resignation and revelations about his administration's abuse of the campaign system. The amendments established spending limits for candidates and contribution limits for donors. The amendments also created the Federal Election Commission (FEC), a federal agency charged with implementing the law (Utter and Strickland, 54-55).
However, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated one of those amendments in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The Court ruled that campaign spending limits violated candidates' First Amendment rights and thus unconstitutional. The Court also rejected Congress' method for appointing members of the FEC. Congress remedied that ...