Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:19:19.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reform in a Cold Climate: Change in US Campaign Finance Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Dean McSweeney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 was the first major change in US federal campaign finance law in a quarter of a century. Many attempts at reform had failed in that period. Few members of Congress were enthusiasts for reform, the two parties and two chambers had conflicting interests to protect, successive presidents did not promote the issue and public pressure for reform was weak. When reform was achieved in 2002, many of these formidable obstacles remained in place. This paper draws on the literature of public interest reform and policy innovation to attribute the change to a policy entrepreneur whose resources had undergone a sharp increase, the neutralization of opposition, the impact of an event (the bankruptcy of the Enron Corporation) and membership turnover in Congress. The substantial support for the bill in Congress from Democrats, the party with most to lose from reform, is attributed to the inescapability of past commitments.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , 2005 , pp. 492 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2005.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mann, Thomas E., ‘Linking Knowledge and Action: Political Science and Campaign Finance Reform’, Perspectives on Politics, 1 (2003), p. 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Martha Derthick and Paul J. Quirk, The Politics of Deregulation, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 1985; Gary Mucciaroni, Reversals of Fortune: Public Policy and Private Interests, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 1995; Adam D. Sheingate, The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State: Institutions and Interest Group Power in the United States, France and Japan, Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2001; Patashnik, Eric, ‘After Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability of Policy Reform’, Governance, 16 (2003), pp. 203–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).Google Scholar

4 ‘Bill Summary and Status’, www.thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin.Google Scholar

5 David B. Magleby, ‘Prospects for Reform’, in Margaret Latus Nugent and John R. Johannes (eds), Money, Elections, and Democracy: Reforming Congressional Campaign Finance, Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 1990, pp. 245–62.Google Scholar

6 David R. Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar

7 Frank Sorauf, ‘Public Opinion on Campaign Finance’, in Nugent and Johannes, Money, Elections, and Democracy, p. 213.Google Scholar

8 Shaw, Greg M. and Ragland, Amy S., ‘The Polls – Trends: Political Reform’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (2000), pp. 206–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9 David Rapp, ‘Senate Votes to Restrict PAC Contributions’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 16 August 1986; Craig Alston, ‘Showdown on Spending Limits Moves Towards White House’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 4 August 1990; Beth Donovan, ‘Overhaul of Election Funding Unlikely to Become Law’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 11 April 1992; Beth Donovan, ‘House Takes First Step in Overhauling System’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 27 November 1993.Google Scholar

10 Greg D. Kubiak, The Gilded Dome: The U.S. Senate and Campaign Finance Reform, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1994, p. 205.Google Scholar

11 Robert E. Mutch, ‘The Reinvigorated Reform Debate’, in John C. Green (ed.), Financing the 1996 Election, Armonk, NY, M. E. Sharpe, 1999, pp. 215–40. Dean McSweeney, ‘Parties, Corruption and Campaign Finance in America’, in Robert Williams (ed.), Party Finance and Political Corruption, Houndmills, Macmillan, 2000, pp. 37–60.Google Scholar

12 Mutch, ‘The Reinvigorated Reform Debate’, p. 228.Google Scholar

13 Anthony Corrado, ‘Financing the 2000 Elections’, in Gerald M. Pomper et al., The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations, New York, Chatham House, 2001, p. 93.Google Scholar

14 Candice J. Nelson, ‘Spending in the 2000 Elections’, in David B. Magleby (ed.), Financing the 2000 Election, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 2002, p. 24.Google Scholar

15 Anthony Corrado, ‘Financing the 2000 Presidential Election’ in Magleby, Financing the 2000 Election, p. 102; Diane Dwyre and Robin Kolodny, ‘Throwing Out the Rule Book: Party Financing of the 2000 Elections’, in Magleby, Financing the 2000 Election, p. 133.Google Scholar

16 John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy, New York, Harper and Row, 1984; Derthick and Quirk, The Politics of Deregulation; Mucciaroni, Reversals of Fortune; Patashnik, ‘After Public Interest Prevails’.Google Scholar

17 Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, pp. 188–93.Google Scholar

18 ABCnews.com, ‘Election Coverage’, www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote.Google Scholar

19 Pew Research Centre, ‘Economy, Education, Social Security Dominate the Public's Policy Agenda’, www.people-press.og/reports, accessed 6 September, 2001.Google Scholar

20 John C. Fortier and Norman J. Ornstein, ‘President Bush: Legislative Strategist’, in Fred I. Greenstein (ed.), The George W. Bush Presidency, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, pp. 154–5.Google Scholar

21 Gibbs and Tumulty, ‘A New Day or A False Dawn’.Google Scholar

22 Robert F. Schiff, ‘Remarks’, Association of American Law Schools, Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 2–5 January 2003.Google Scholar

23 ‘Five Ideas for Practical Campaign Finance Reform’, www.Brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cf/reform/cf.Google Scholar

24 Marianne Holt, ‘The Surge in Party Money in Competitive 1998 Congressional Elections’, in David B. Magleby (ed.), Outside Money: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 1998 Congressional Elections, Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 2000, p. 31; David B. Magleby, ‘Conclusions and Implications’, in Magleby, Outside Money, p. 216; David B. Magleby and Eric A. Smith, ‘Party Soft Money in the 2000 Congressional Elections’, in David B. Magleby (ed.), The Other Campaign: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2000 Congressional Elections, Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 2003, p. 41.Google Scholar

25 Derek Willis, ‘Campaign Finance Kickoff’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 27 January 2001.Google Scholar

26 Don Balz, ‘In Long Battle, Small Victories Added Up’, Washington Post, 21 March 2002.Google Scholar

27 Karen Forestal, ‘Campaign Finance Passage Ends a Political Odyssey’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 23 March 2002.Google Scholar

28 Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, pp. 99–105.Google Scholar

29 Paul Alexander, Man of the People: The Life of John McCain, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2003, p. 2.Google Scholar

30 Mike Allen and Dana Millbank, ‘President's Politics of Pragmatism Helped Undermine GOP Opposition’, Washington Post, 15 February 2002.Google Scholar

31 ‘House Group Offers Campaign Reform Bill’, National Journal, 3 January 2001.Google Scholar

32 Derthick and Quirk, The Politics of Deregulation, p. 245; Mucciaroni, Reversals of Fortune, pp. 170–4.Google Scholar

33 McConnell et al. v. FEC et al., 540 U.S. (2003); Mann, ‘Linking Knowledge and Action’, pp. 78–80.Google Scholar

34 Dwyre and Kolodny, ‘Throwing Out The Rule Book’.Google Scholar

35 David B. Magleby, ‘Conclusions and Implications for Future Elections’, in Magleby, The Other Campaign, pp. 231–2; Juliet Eilperin and Thomas B. Edsall, ‘Gephardt Has Large Stake in Bill's Fate’, Washington Post, 12 July 2001.Google Scholar

36 Elizabeth Drew, Citizen McCain, New York, Simon and Schuster, 2002, pp. 19, 27.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar

38 Nancy Gibbs and Karen Tumulty, ‘A New Day or A False Dawn’, Time, 31 March 2001.Google Scholar

39 Washington Post/ABC News, Poll, 11–15 January 2001.Google Scholar

40 Matt Keller, Executive Director, Common Cause, author's interview, Washington, DC, 16 January 2003.Google Scholar

41 www.nytimes.com/search/query.Google Scholar

42 Richard Fenno, Home Style: House Members in their Districts, Boston, MA, Little, Brown, 1978, ch. 5.Google Scholar

43 Sheingate, The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State.Google Scholar