VoteMatch
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
POSITIONS
- Strongly Support means you believe:
Public funds should be used for political campaigns.
The best way to reduce the influence of big-money lobbyists and special interests is to remove as much money as possible from campaigning. Free television time would be a good start.
- Support means you believe:
Reforms are needed in campaign finance, in order to reduce the influence of moneyed interests.
Those reforms might include restrictions on personal donations to political campaigns;
restrictions on corporate, labor union, or PAC donations; and restrictions on PAC activities.
- Oppose means you believe:
Politicians will always find loopholes in any campaign finance reform, so the best approach is just to monitor campaigns for lawbreaking and leave the rest to the press. Better reporting of donations would be useful.
- Strongly Oppose means you believe:
Campaign donations are free speech, and should not be limited for corporations nor for individuals. PACs and 527 committees should be similarly allowed free speech via unlimited spending on any issue or any candidate they choose.
This question is looking for your views on whether wealthy individuals should have an unlimited right to finance political candidates (including themselves). However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:
- Require TV networks to provide free air time to candidates
- Include a checkoff box on tax returns for optional $1 contributions
- Support "Clean Election" laws where candidates receive funding if they agree to spending limits
- Restrict PAC (political action committees) spending on individual campaigns.
- Restrict the activities of 527 committees (independent fundraising entities such as MoveOn.org or the Swift Boat Veterans committee)
How do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose").
The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters.
If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate.
If you give a general answer of Support vs. Oppose, VoteMatch can more accurately match a candidate with your stand.
Don't worry so much about getting the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question -- like candidates!
- Strongly Support means you believe in the principle of taxpayer funding for political campaigns.
- Support means you believe that restrictions on campaign finance, and/or partial public funding, is a practical means to reduce undue political influence.
- Oppose means you believe some practical reforms are needed, but that the basic system of privately financing political campaigns is acceptable.
- Strongly Oppose means you believe that the principle of free speech applies to political campaign donations.
BACKGROUND
‘Soft money’ means donations to the national party rather than to a particular candidate ($193 million in the 1998 election; $55 million so far in 1999).
‘Hard money’ is subject to less reform proposals -- it means cash donations to a particular candidate, which must be fully reported to the FEC.
‘PAC money’ means donations to political action committees, which is used for issue ads which typically favor one candidate, but do not count in federal spending limits.
Individuals may donate a maximum of $1000 to one candidate, but may donate any amount of soft money.
Candidates who voluntarily limit their campaign spending qualify for federal matching funds of about $100 million.
REFERENCES