The paradigm shift essay was an observation on the shift in a particular type of cultural practice. For this assignment, I wrote about the rise of campaign finance:
What Campaign Finance Reveals About American Business and Government
California State University at Fresno professor Thomas T. Holyoke succinctly summed up campaign finance in his recent book Interest Groups and Lobbying by stating, “Money in politics is like water in riverbeds: no matter where you construct a dam, it will always find new ways to flow” (Holyoke, 241). This intriguing analogy plays an important role in establishing the current climate regarding campaign finance and political contributions in the United States. Almost every election over the past century has been influenced in some capacity by campaign contributions and many important elections have seen the presence of “big money.” However, while the role of money in the democratic process is increasingly evident, its effects have ultimately been curtailed by stringent government policies that limit contributions. Paradigm shifts with regards to campaign finance laws are evident through the enactment of legislation and the public’s reaction to this. Throughout the course of campaign finance history, there has been a shift from loosely regarded policy to stringent enforcement of the law. Ultimately, the intended goal of enacting strict campaign finance laws is to level the proverbial playing field by creating more political opportunity and participation (American Civil Liberties Union). However, what is most intriguing about this topic is what the paradigm shift with regard to stricter regulation reveals about the relationship between big business and government. Over the past century, regulations and restrictions placed on businesses have greatly increased and in turn political contributions have skyrocketed (Holyoke, 245). The campaign finance paradigm shift reveals a correlation between big business and the size of government in which businesses seeks to buy their interests at an increasing cost.
Origins of Campaign Finance
Campaign finance has played an integral role in politics since the early 20th century. Because campaign finance is a relatively new idea, this paper will focus on its effects since its advent in the early 1900s. Famed 20th century Republican Mark Hanna accurately describes the early role of money in politics by stating, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is” (Hanna quoted in Holyoke, 240). In an attempt to change this corrupt nature of elections during the Progressive Era, President Theodore Roosevelt and lawmakers set out to restrict the role of money in politics (Geraci). The passage of the Tillman Act in 1907 marks the first evidence of campaign finance laws. This particular piece of legislation sought to limit the role of big business in elections by banning direct contributions from corporations (Holyoke, 240). While this law was an important landmark in campaign finance history, it was widely disregarded and not strictly enforced (Geraci). This culture continued into the 1930s until the Great Depression saw a shift away from corporation influence toward labor union involvement. Despite President Franklin Roosevelt’s best efforts to block it, the Smith-Connolly Act was passed in 1943 banning all union contributions and ultimately gave rise to the Political Action Committee (PAC) evident today (Holyoke, 241). President Roosevelt’s reluctance to pass legislation banning campaign funds from unions really emphasizes the intertwined nature of politics and money. However, what it really points to is the motive behind big business excessively contributing large sums of money to political candidates.
Necessity for Reform
Many historians trace the advent of “big government” to policies enacted by President Roosevelt in the 1930s and 40s (Saldin). In this particular instance, big government does not refer to an intrusive institution but rather a government that places regulations and restrictions on its businesses. Almost simultaneous to this governmental size increase, the necessity for stricter campaign finance reform became increasingly evident and led to legislation such as the Smith-Connolly Act in 1943. Such an example serves as early evidence to the correlation between the size of government and the necessity for corporations and labor unions to buy their interests. With this as background, it is intriguing to look at the further development of this relationship between big business and government over the past 40 years.
Development of Political Action Committees
The general guidelines associated with PACs remained unclear until the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971. FECA is most notable for establishing clear contribution limits and ultimately empowering PACs by setting loose limits on such groups. Since the final amendments of FECA were made 1974, the number of official Political Action Committees has increased by nearly 700% (Holyoke, 242). During the time period leading up to this increase in PACs, the size of government grew dramatically under Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” (Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"). Kevin Portteus of Hillsdale College explains that the motive behind Johnson’s “Great Society” was to promote “the elimination of any economic, legal, or social hindrances to the achievement of excellence and the ‘fulfillment of the human spirit” but that this came at the cost of ‘extensive regulations” (Portteus). Even though Johnson was attempting to improve the quality of life, this came at the cost of tremendous regulation and increased the desire for businesses to purchase their interests. Ultimately, the precedent set with regard to regulation and restriction during this time period continued the rise of big government for the future four decades.
Implications of Stronger Legislation
While there wasn’t much in terms of new policy enacted between 1974 and 2002, there were adaptations made by the public which emphasize paradigm shifts as a result of campaign finance legislation. One clear example of this can be seen through how money was donated following the enactment of FECA in 1974. Since this time, the interest components of Political Action Committees, interest groups, have greatly focused their contributions on Congressional candidates (Holyoke, 251). The lack of interest in donating to presidential candidates really emphasizes the adaptations made to increased regulation and the desire for corporations and people to buy their interests. Congress is in charge of creating policy, and the increased focus on donations to such members makes it very clear that corporations are trying to buy their interests. This idea is further emphasized through the emergence of “soft money” following the implementation of FECA. Soft money became very popular in response to this legislation, because it does not limit how much PACs can donate to local and state parties. While these funds cannot be used to support a single candidate, they influence public opinion by advocating for certain policy (Holyoke, 244). The emergence of soft money in the 1970s serves as further evidence to the public’s reaction to campaign finance paradigm shift. Additionally, these types of campaign donations reveal the norm of the time period, as campaign finance became full of corruption but Congress refused to act (Holyoke, 244). The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ultimately banned soft money contributions, gave legitimacy to Congress, and gave rise to a new wave of donation tactics (Holyoke, 245).
Campaign Finance in Courts
The relationship between big government and business has further been evinced through landmark court cases regarding campaign finance. Perhaps the most monumental case in the past few years was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. This case played an interesting role in regard to the campaign finance paradigm shift, as it actually gave power back to corporations. The Court ruled that “any legal restrictions on spending by corporations, unions, and nonprofits for issue advertising, even ads that do attack candidates, violate the First Amendment unless it is clearly coordinated with a candidate or party” (Holyoke, 246). This ruling is most famous for essentially establishing that corporations are people, because they have a protected right to free speech. What is most intriguing about this ruling is that it’s returning power to the big corporations that are trying to buy their interests. When you look at who makes campaign contributions by issue or industry, the entities that face a lot of regulation tend to be supported by corporation associated PACs as opposed to individuals. Looking at a heavily regulated industry such as the pharmaceutical market, individuals accounted for less than 10 million dollars in campaign contributes during the 2009-10 election cycle. During this same time period, PAC contributions accounted for nearly 20 million dollars (Holyoke, 255). This reveals a very interesting paradigm shift, as we are actually reverting back to looser forms of control such as those that were evident more than 40 years ago. The reasoning for this is unclear, but one could deduce that the rise of corporate power over the past few years has increased their ability to gain access to politicians who represent their interests.
Conclusion
It is fairly evident that the campaign finance paradigm shift reveals the intertwined nature of business and government. Throughout the past century, there has been a shift from loosely regarded campaign finance laws to stringent policy. As government grows by increasing regulations and restrictions on business, powerful corporations feel the need to buy their interest through campaign contributions. In turn, this has led to an increase in campaign finance laws as well as its scrutiny in the public spotlight. In Holyoke’s book, he tries to explain what all these contributions have gained by stating, “Most interest groups are using money to do one of two things: reshape the partisan and ideological makeup of Congress and gain access to key lawmakers” (Holyoke, 251). Both of these findings are certainly supported by the reactions to shifts in campaign finance legislation. Additionally, businesses responses to the ever-changing nature of campaign finance laws reveals their desire to circumvent restrictions placed on them. The nature of campaign finance laws is certainly complex and the positive and negative effects can be widely debated. However, the reaction to paradigm shifts in legislation reveals that the necessity for big money influence on the election process has come about in response to the increasing size of government. It will be interesting to monitor the continued effects of regulation on campaign contributions and in turn the government’s response.
Works Cited
"Campaign Finance Reform." American Civil Liberties Union. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
"Contribution Limits 2013-14." Federal Election Commission. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Geraci, Victor. "Campaign Finance Reform Historical Timeline." Connecticut Network. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Hanna, Mark in Holyoke, Thomas T. Interest Groups and Lobbying: Pursuing Political Interests in America. Westview, 2014. Print.
Holyoke, Thomas T. Interest Groups and Lobbying: Pursuing Political Interests in America. Westview, 2014. Print.
"Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"" Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Portteus, Kevin. "Total Regulation: LBJ’s Great Society”." Hillsdale College. 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Saldin, Robert. "The Origins of 'Big Government': FDR's Welfare or Warfare?" World Affairs Journal. Mar. 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
What Campaign Finance Reveals About American Business and Government
California State University at Fresno professor Thomas T. Holyoke succinctly summed up campaign finance in his recent book Interest Groups and Lobbying by stating, “Money in politics is like water in riverbeds: no matter where you construct a dam, it will always find new ways to flow” (Holyoke, 241). This intriguing analogy plays an important role in establishing the current climate regarding campaign finance and political contributions in the United States. Almost every election over the past century has been influenced in some capacity by campaign contributions and many important elections have seen the presence of “big money.” However, while the role of money in the democratic process is increasingly evident, its effects have ultimately been curtailed by stringent government policies that limit contributions. Paradigm shifts with regards to campaign finance laws are evident through the enactment of legislation and the public’s reaction to this. Throughout the course of campaign finance history, there has been a shift from loosely regarded policy to stringent enforcement of the law. Ultimately, the intended goal of enacting strict campaign finance laws is to level the proverbial playing field by creating more political opportunity and participation (American Civil Liberties Union). However, what is most intriguing about this topic is what the paradigm shift with regard to stricter regulation reveals about the relationship between big business and government. Over the past century, regulations and restrictions placed on businesses have greatly increased and in turn political contributions have skyrocketed (Holyoke, 245). The campaign finance paradigm shift reveals a correlation between big business and the size of government in which businesses seeks to buy their interests at an increasing cost.
Origins of Campaign Finance
Campaign finance has played an integral role in politics since the early 20th century. Because campaign finance is a relatively new idea, this paper will focus on its effects since its advent in the early 1900s. Famed 20th century Republican Mark Hanna accurately describes the early role of money in politics by stating, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is” (Hanna quoted in Holyoke, 240). In an attempt to change this corrupt nature of elections during the Progressive Era, President Theodore Roosevelt and lawmakers set out to restrict the role of money in politics (Geraci). The passage of the Tillman Act in 1907 marks the first evidence of campaign finance laws. This particular piece of legislation sought to limit the role of big business in elections by banning direct contributions from corporations (Holyoke, 240). While this law was an important landmark in campaign finance history, it was widely disregarded and not strictly enforced (Geraci). This culture continued into the 1930s until the Great Depression saw a shift away from corporation influence toward labor union involvement. Despite President Franklin Roosevelt’s best efforts to block it, the Smith-Connolly Act was passed in 1943 banning all union contributions and ultimately gave rise to the Political Action Committee (PAC) evident today (Holyoke, 241). President Roosevelt’s reluctance to pass legislation banning campaign funds from unions really emphasizes the intertwined nature of politics and money. However, what it really points to is the motive behind big business excessively contributing large sums of money to political candidates.
Necessity for Reform
Many historians trace the advent of “big government” to policies enacted by President Roosevelt in the 1930s and 40s (Saldin). In this particular instance, big government does not refer to an intrusive institution but rather a government that places regulations and restrictions on its businesses. Almost simultaneous to this governmental size increase, the necessity for stricter campaign finance reform became increasingly evident and led to legislation such as the Smith-Connolly Act in 1943. Such an example serves as early evidence to the correlation between the size of government and the necessity for corporations and labor unions to buy their interests. With this as background, it is intriguing to look at the further development of this relationship between big business and government over the past 40 years.
Development of Political Action Committees
The general guidelines associated with PACs remained unclear until the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971. FECA is most notable for establishing clear contribution limits and ultimately empowering PACs by setting loose limits on such groups. Since the final amendments of FECA were made 1974, the number of official Political Action Committees has increased by nearly 700% (Holyoke, 242). During the time period leading up to this increase in PACs, the size of government grew dramatically under Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” (Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"). Kevin Portteus of Hillsdale College explains that the motive behind Johnson’s “Great Society” was to promote “the elimination of any economic, legal, or social hindrances to the achievement of excellence and the ‘fulfillment of the human spirit” but that this came at the cost of ‘extensive regulations” (Portteus). Even though Johnson was attempting to improve the quality of life, this came at the cost of tremendous regulation and increased the desire for businesses to purchase their interests. Ultimately, the precedent set with regard to regulation and restriction during this time period continued the rise of big government for the future four decades.
Implications of Stronger Legislation
While there wasn’t much in terms of new policy enacted between 1974 and 2002, there were adaptations made by the public which emphasize paradigm shifts as a result of campaign finance legislation. One clear example of this can be seen through how money was donated following the enactment of FECA in 1974. Since this time, the interest components of Political Action Committees, interest groups, have greatly focused their contributions on Congressional candidates (Holyoke, 251). The lack of interest in donating to presidential candidates really emphasizes the adaptations made to increased regulation and the desire for corporations and people to buy their interests. Congress is in charge of creating policy, and the increased focus on donations to such members makes it very clear that corporations are trying to buy their interests. This idea is further emphasized through the emergence of “soft money” following the implementation of FECA. Soft money became very popular in response to this legislation, because it does not limit how much PACs can donate to local and state parties. While these funds cannot be used to support a single candidate, they influence public opinion by advocating for certain policy (Holyoke, 244). The emergence of soft money in the 1970s serves as further evidence to the public’s reaction to campaign finance paradigm shift. Additionally, these types of campaign donations reveal the norm of the time period, as campaign finance became full of corruption but Congress refused to act (Holyoke, 244). The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ultimately banned soft money contributions, gave legitimacy to Congress, and gave rise to a new wave of donation tactics (Holyoke, 245).
Campaign Finance in Courts
The relationship between big government and business has further been evinced through landmark court cases regarding campaign finance. Perhaps the most monumental case in the past few years was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. This case played an interesting role in regard to the campaign finance paradigm shift, as it actually gave power back to corporations. The Court ruled that “any legal restrictions on spending by corporations, unions, and nonprofits for issue advertising, even ads that do attack candidates, violate the First Amendment unless it is clearly coordinated with a candidate or party” (Holyoke, 246). This ruling is most famous for essentially establishing that corporations are people, because they have a protected right to free speech. What is most intriguing about this ruling is that it’s returning power to the big corporations that are trying to buy their interests. When you look at who makes campaign contributions by issue or industry, the entities that face a lot of regulation tend to be supported by corporation associated PACs as opposed to individuals. Looking at a heavily regulated industry such as the pharmaceutical market, individuals accounted for less than 10 million dollars in campaign contributes during the 2009-10 election cycle. During this same time period, PAC contributions accounted for nearly 20 million dollars (Holyoke, 255). This reveals a very interesting paradigm shift, as we are actually reverting back to looser forms of control such as those that were evident more than 40 years ago. The reasoning for this is unclear, but one could deduce that the rise of corporate power over the past few years has increased their ability to gain access to politicians who represent their interests.
Conclusion
It is fairly evident that the campaign finance paradigm shift reveals the intertwined nature of business and government. Throughout the past century, there has been a shift from loosely regarded campaign finance laws to stringent policy. As government grows by increasing regulations and restrictions on business, powerful corporations feel the need to buy their interest through campaign contributions. In turn, this has led to an increase in campaign finance laws as well as its scrutiny in the public spotlight. In Holyoke’s book, he tries to explain what all these contributions have gained by stating, “Most interest groups are using money to do one of two things: reshape the partisan and ideological makeup of Congress and gain access to key lawmakers” (Holyoke, 251). Both of these findings are certainly supported by the reactions to shifts in campaign finance legislation. Additionally, businesses responses to the ever-changing nature of campaign finance laws reveals their desire to circumvent restrictions placed on them. The nature of campaign finance laws is certainly complex and the positive and negative effects can be widely debated. However, the reaction to paradigm shifts in legislation reveals that the necessity for big money influence on the election process has come about in response to the increasing size of government. It will be interesting to monitor the continued effects of regulation on campaign contributions and in turn the government’s response.
Works Cited
"Campaign Finance Reform." American Civil Liberties Union. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
"Contribution Limits 2013-14." Federal Election Commission. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Geraci, Victor. "Campaign Finance Reform Historical Timeline." Connecticut Network. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Hanna, Mark in Holyoke, Thomas T. Interest Groups and Lobbying: Pursuing Political Interests in America. Westview, 2014. Print.
Holyoke, Thomas T. Interest Groups and Lobbying: Pursuing Political Interests in America. Westview, 2014. Print.
"Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"" Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Portteus, Kevin. "Total Regulation: LBJ’s Great Society”." Hillsdale College. 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Saldin, Robert. "The Origins of 'Big Government': FDR's Welfare or Warfare?" World Affairs Journal. Mar. 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.