Campaign finance reform is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns.

Although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the first successful attempts nationally to regulate and enforce campaign finance originated in the 1970s. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972 required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. It was amended in 1974 with the introduction of statutory limits on contributions, and creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1,000 and donations by political action committees (PACs) to $5,000. These specific election donations are known as ‘hard money.’ The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold", after its sponsors, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits on expenditures set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions (commonly referred to as "soft money") to national political parties. ‘Soft money’ also refers to funds spent by independent organizations that do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and funds which are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns.

In early 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech.

History[link]

First attempts[link]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)

To gain votes from recently^[when?] enfranchised, unpropertied voters, Andrew Jackson launched his campaign for the 1828 election through a network of partisan newspapers across the nation. After his election, Jackson began a political patronage system that rewarded political party operatives, which had a profound effect on future elections. Eventually, appointees were expected to contribute portions of their pay back to the political machine. During the Jacksonian era, some of the first attempts were made by corporations to influence politicians. Jackson claimed that his charter battle against the Second Bank of the United States was one of the great struggles between democracy and the money power. The Bank of the United States in turn spent over $40,000 from 1830 to 1832 in an effort to stop Jackson's re-election.^{[citation needed]}

In the 1850s, Pennsylvania Republican Simon Cameron began to develop what became known as the "Pennsylvania idea" of applying the wealth of corporations to help maintain Republican control of the legislature.^{[citation needed]} Political machines across the country used the threat of hostile legislation to force corporate interests into paying for the defeat of the measures.^{[citation needed]} U.S. Senators of the time were elected not by popular vote, but by state legislatures, whose votes could sometimes be bought. Exposed bribery occurred in Colorado, Kansas, Montana and West Virginia.^{[citation needed]}

Abraham Lincoln's attempt to finance his own 1858 Senate run bankrupted him, even though he had arranged a number of $500 expense accounts from wealthy donors. However, he was able to regain enough money in his law practice to purchase an Illinois newspaper to support him in the presidential election of 1860, for which he gained the financial support of businessmen in Philadelphia and New York City.

After the Civil War, parties increasingly relied on wealthy individuals for support, including Jay Cooke, the Vanderbilts, and the Astors. In the absence of a civil service system, parties also continued to rely heavily on financial support from government employees, including assessments of a portion of their federal pay. The first federal campaign finance law, passed in 1867, was a Naval Appropriations Bill which prohibited officers and government employees from soliciting contributions from Navy yard workers. Later, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 established the civil service and extended the protections of the Naval Appropriations Bill to all federal civil service workers.^[1] However, this loss of a major funding source increased pressure on parties to solicit funding from corporate and individual wealth.

In the campaign of 1872, a group of wealthy New York Democrats pledged $10,000 each to pay for the costs of promoting the election. On the Republican side, one Ulysses S. Grant supporter alone contributed one fourth of the total finances. One historian said that never before was a candidate under such a great obligation to men of wealth. Vote buying and voter coercion were common in this era. After more standardized ballots were introduced, these practices continued, applying methods such as requiring voters to use carbon paper to record their vote publicly in order to be paid.

Boise Penrose mastered post-Pendleton Act corporate funding through extortionist tactics, such as squeeze bills (legislation threatening to tax or regulate business unless funds were contributed.) During his successful 1896 U.S. Senate campaign, he raised a quarter million dollars within 48 hours. He allegedly told supporters that they should send him to Congress to enable them to make even more money.

In 1896, a wealthy Ohio industrialist, shipping magnate and political operative, Mark Hanna became Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Hanna directly contributed $100,000 to the nomination campaign of fellow Ohioan William McKinley, but recognized that more would be needed to fund the general election campaign. Hanna systematized fund-raising from the business community. He assessed banks 0.25% of their capital, and corporations were assessed in relation to their profitability and perceived stake in the prosperity of the country. McKinley's run became the prototype of the modern commercial advertising campaign, putting the President-to-be's image on buttons, billboards, posters, and so on. Business supporters, determined to defeat the Democratic-populist William Jennings Bryan, were more than happy to give, and Hanna actually refunded or turned down what he considered to be "excessive" contributions that exceeded a business's assessment.^{[citation needed]}

Twentieth-century Progressive advocates, muckraking journalists, and political satirists argued to the general public that the policies of vote buying and excessive corporate and moneyed influence were abandoning the interests of millions of taxpayers. They advocated strong antitrust laws, restricting corporate lobbying and campaign contributions, and greater citizen participation and control, including standardized secret ballots, strict voter registration and women's suffrage.

In his first term, President Theodore Roosevelt, following President McKinley's assassination of 1901, began trust-busting and anti-corporate-influence activities, but fearing defeat, turned to bankers and industrialists for support in what turned out to be his 1904 landslide campaign. Roosevelt was embarrassed by his corporate financing and was unable to clear a suspicion of a quid pro quo exchange with E.H. Harriman for what was an eventually unfulfilled ambassador nomination. There was a resulting national call for reform, but Roosevelt claimed that it was legitimate to accept large contributions if there were no implied obligation. However, in his 1905 message to Congress following the election, he proposed that "contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." The proposal, however, included no restrictions on campaign contributions from the private individuals who owned and ran corporations. Roosevelt also called for public financing of federal candidates via their political parties. The movement for a national law to require disclosure of campaign expenditures, begun by the National Publicity Law Association, was supported by Roosevelt but delayed by Congress for a decade.

This first effort at wide-ranging reform resulted in the Tillman Act of 1907. Named for its sponsor, South Carolina Senator Ben Tillman, the Tillman Act prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates. However, weak enforcement mechanisms made the Act ineffective. Disclosure requirements and spending limits for House and Senate candidates followed in 1910 and 1911. General contribution limits were enacted in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1925). An amendment to the Hatch Act of 1939 set an annual ceiling of $3 million for political parties' campaign expenditures and $5,000 for individual campaign contributions. The Smith-Connally Act (1943) and Taft-Hartley Act (1947) extended the corporate ban to labor unions. |

FECA and the Watergate amendments[link]

All of these efforts were largely ineffective, easily circumvented and rarely enforced. In 1971, however, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, requiring broad disclosure of campaign finance. In 1974, fueled by public reaction to the Watergate Scandal, Congress passed amendments to the Act establishing a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement, including public financing of presidential campaigns and creation of a central enforcement agency, the Federal Election Commission. Other provisions included limits on contributions to campaigns and expenditures by campaigns, individuals, corporations and other political groups. However, in 1976 Buckley v. Valeo challenged restrictions in FECA as unconstitutional violations of free speech. The court struck down, as infringement on free speech, limits on candidate expenditures (unless the candidate accepts public financing) and certain other limits on spending.^[1] In 1979, a FECA amendments package allowed the use of donations to political parties rather than candidates. The first time Congress enacted such reform.^[2]

Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s[link]

In 1986, several bills were killed in the U.S. Senate by bipartisan maneuvers which did not allow the bills to come up for a vote. The bill would impose strict controls for campaign fund raising. Later in 1988, legislative and legal setbacks on proposals designed to limit overall campaign spending by candidates were shelved after a Republican filibuster. In addition, a constitutional amendment to override a Supreme Court decision failed to get off the ground. In 1994, Senate Democrats had more bills blocked by Republicans including a bill setting spending limits and authorizing partial public financing of congressional elections. In 1996, bipartisan legislation for voluntary spending limits which rewards those who bare soft money is killed by a Republican filibuster.^[2]

In 1997, Senators McCain and Feingold sought to eliminate soft money and TV advertising expenditures but the legislation was defeated by a Republican filibuster. Several different proposals were made in 1999 by both parties. The Campaign Integrity Act (H.R. 1867) proposed by Asa Hutchinson (R – Arkansas) put a ban on soft money and raised hard money limits. The Citizen Legislature & Political ACT (H.R. 1922) sponsored by Rep. John Doolittle (R – CA) would repeal all federal freedom ACT election contribution limits and expedite and expand disclosure. H.R. 417 Campaign Reform Act Shays-Meehan Bill, sponsored by Christopher Shays (R – CT) and Martin Meehan (D – MA). Would ban soft money and limit types of campaign advertising.^[2]

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2009)

The Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also called the McCain-Feingold bill after its chief sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on February 14, 2002 with 240 yeas and 189 nays including 6 members who did not vote. Final passage in the Senate came after supporters mustered the bare minimum of 60 votes needed to shut off debate. The bill passed the Senate, 60-40 on March 20, 2002, and was signed into law by President Bush on March 27, 2002. In signing the law, Bush expressed concerns about the constitutionality of parts of the legislation but concluded, "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns … Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." The bill was the first significant overhaul of federal campaign finance laws since the post-Watergate scandal era. Academic research has used game theory to explain Congress's incentives to pass the Act.^[3]

The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove big money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for "electioneering communications," a term defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election. This provision of McCain-Feingold, sponsored by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Vermont Independent James Jeffords, as introduced applied only to for-profit corporations, but was extended to incorporate non-profit issue organizations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund or the National Rifle Association, as part of the "Wellstone Amendment," sponsored by Senator Paul Wellstone.

The law was challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the Senate Majority Whip. After moving through lower courts, in September 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, McConnell v. FEC. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold; the vote on the court was 5 to 4. Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion; they were joined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and opposed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.

Since then, campaign finance limitations continue to be regulated in the Courts. In an interesting case, in 2005 in Washington state, Thurston County Judge Christopher Wickham ruled that media articles and segments were considered in-kind contributions under state law. The heart of the matter focused on the I-912 campaign to repeal a fuel tax, and specifically two broadcasters for Seattle conservative talker KVI. Judge Wickham's ruling was eventually overturned on appeal in April 2007, with the Washington Supreme Court holding that on-air commentary was not covered by the State's campaign finance laws. (No New Gas Tax v. San Juan County).

In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions on campaign finance. In Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission, it held that certain advertisements might be constitutionally entitled to an exception from the 'electioneering communications' provisions of McCain-Feingold limiting broadcast ads that merely mention a federal candidate within 60 days of an election. On remand, a lower court then held that certain ads aired by Wisconsin Right to Life in fact merited such an exception. The Federal Election Commission appealed that decision, and in June 2007, the Supreme Court held in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court declined to overturn the electioneering communications limits in their entirety, but established a broad exemption for any ad that could have a reasonable interpretation as an ad about legislative issues.

Also in 2006, the Supreme Court held that a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on spending was unconstitutional, under the precedent of Buckley v. Valeo. In that case, Randall v. Sorrell, the Court also struck down Vermont's contribution limits as unconstitutionally low, the first time that the Court had ever struck down a contribution limit.

In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not the law could restrict advertising of a documentary about Hillary Clinton.^[4] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was decided in January 2010, the Supreme Court finding that §441b’s restrictions on expenditures were invalid and could not be applied to Hillary: The Movie.

DISCLOSE Act of 2010[link]

The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and it established additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections. The bill would impose new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would require the sponsor of the ad to appear in it and take responsibility for it. President Obama argued that the bill would reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.^[5][6]

Current proposals for reform[link]

Voting with dollars[link]

The voting with dollars plan would establish a system of modified public financing coupled with an anonymous campaign contribution process. It has two parts: patriot dollars and the secret donation booth. It was originally described in detail by Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres in their 2004 book Voting with Dollars: A new paradigm for campaign finance.^[7] All voters would be given a $50 publicly funded voucher (Patriot dollars) to donate to federal political campaigns. All donations including both the $50 voucher and additional private contributions, must be made anonymously through the FEC. Ackerman and Ayres include model legislation in their book in addition to detailed discussion as to how such a system could be achieved and its legal basis.

Of the Patriot dollars (e.g. $50 per voter) given to voters to allocate, they propose $25 going to presidential campaigns, $15 to Senate campaigns, and $10 to House campaigns. Within those restrictions the voucher can be split among any number of candidates for any federal race and between the primary and general elections. At the end of the current election cycle any unspent portions of this voucher would expire and could not be rolled over to subsequent elections for that voter. In the context of the 2004 election cycle $50 multiplied by the approximately 120 million people who voted would have yielded about $6 billion in “public financing” compared to the approximate $4 billion spent in 2004 for all federal elections (House, Senate and Presidential races) combined.^[8] Ackerman and Ayres argue that this system would pool voter money and force candidates to address issues of importance to a broad spectrum of voters. Additionally they argue this public finance scheme would address taxpayers' concerns that they have "no say" in where public financing monies are spent, whereas in the Voting with dollars system each taxpayer who votes has discretion over their contribution.

The second aspect of the system increases some private donation limits, but all contributions must be made anonymously through the FEC. In this system, when a contributor make a donation to a campaign they send their money to the FEC indicating which campaign they want it to go to. The FEC masks the money and distributes it directly to the campaigns in randomized chunks over a number of days. Ackerman and Ayres compare this system to the reforms adopted in the late 19th century aimed to prevent vote buying, which led to our current secret ballot process. Prior to that time voting was conducted openly, allowing campaigns to confirm that voters cast ballots for the candidates they had been paid to support. Ackerman and Ayres contend that if candidates do not know for sure who is contributing to their campaigns they are unlikely to take unpopular stances to court large donors which could jeopardize donations flowing from voter vouchers. Conversely, large potential donors will not be able to gain political access or favorable legislation in return for their contributions since they cannot prove to candidates the supposed extent of their financial support.

Matching funds[link]

Another method allows the candidates to raise funds from private donors, but provides matching funds for the first chunk of donations. For instance, the government might "match" the first $250 of every donation. This would effectively make small donations more valuable to a campaign, potentially leading them to put more effort into pursuing such donations, which are believed to have less of a corrupting effect than larger gifts and enhance the power of less-wealthy individuals. Such a system is currently in place in the U.S. presidential primaries. As of February 2008, there were fears that this system provided a safety net for losers in these races, as shown by loan taken out by John McCain's campaign that used the promise of matching funds as collateral.^[9] However, in February 2009 the Federal Election Commission found no violation of the law because McCain permissibly withdrew from the Matching Payment Program and thus was released from his obligations. It also found no reason to believe that a violation occurred as a result of the Committee’s reporting of McCain’s loan. The Commission closed the files.^[10]

Clean elections[link]

Another method, which supporters call clean money, clean elections, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a certain, set amount of money. In order to qualify for this money, the candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions. The candidates are not allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding. Candidates receive matching funds, up to a limit, when they are outspent by privately-funded candidates, attacked by independent expenditures, or their opponent benefits from independent expenditures. This is the primary difference between clean money public financing systems and the presidential campaign system, which many have called "broken" because it provides no extra funds when candidates are attacked by 527s or other independent expenditure groups. Supporters claim that Clean Elections matching funds are so effective at leveling the playing field in Arizona that during the first full year of its implementation, disproportionate funding between candidates was a factor in only 2% of the races.^[11] The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, however, cast considerable doubt on the constitutionality of these provisions, and in 2011 the Supreme Court held that key provisions of the Arizona law - most notably its matching fund provisions - were unconstitutionalal in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Free Enterprise Club PAC v. Bennett.

This procedure has been in place in races for all statewide and legislative offices in Arizona and Maine since 2000. Connecticut passed a Clean Elections law in 2005, along with the cities of Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico. 69% of the voters in Albuquerque voted Yes to Clean Elections. A 2006 poll showed that 85% of Arizonans familiar with their Clean Elections system thought it was important to Arizona voters. However, a clean elections initiative in California was defeated by a wide margin at the November 2006 election, with just 25.7% in favor, 74.3% opposed, and in 2008 Alaska voters rejected a clean elections proposal by a two to one margin.^[12] Many other states (such as New Jersey) have some form of limited financial assistance for candidates, but New Jersey's experiment with Clean Elections was ended in 2008, in part due to a sense that the program failed to accomplish its goals.^[13] Wisconsin and Minnesota have had partial public funding since the 1970s, but the systems have largely fallen into desuetude.

A clause in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold") required the nonpartisan General Accounting Office to conduct a study of clean elections programs in Arizona and Maine. The ensuing report, created by Trent Lott and Christopher Dodd, issued in May 2003, cautioned that "It is too soon to determine the extent to which the goals of Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing programs are being met... [and] We are not making any recommendations in this report."^[14] A 2006 study by the Center for Governmental Studies (an advocate for campaign finance reform) found that Clean Elections programs resulted in more candidates, more competition, more voter participation, and less influence-peddling.^[15] In 2008, a series of studies conducted by the Center for Competitive Politics, an organization whose mission is to "oppose so-called reformers’ efforts to limit campaign contributions [and] taxpayer funded political campaigns^[16]" found that the programs in Maine, Arizona, and New Jersey had failed to accomplish their stated goals, including electing more women, reducing government spending, reducing special interest influence on elections, bringing more diverse backgrounds into the legislature, or meeting most other stated objectives, including increasing competition or voter participation.^{[17][18][19][20][21]} These reports confirmed the results of an earlier study by the conservative/libertarian Goldwater Institute on Arizona's program.^[22]

Occupy movement-inspired constitutional amendments[link]

In response to the Occupy Wall Street protests and the worldwide occupy movement calling for U.S. campaign finance reform eliminating corporate influence in politics, among other reforms, Representative Ted Deutch introduced the "Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy" (OCCUPIED) constitutional amendment on November 18, 2011.^[23][24] The OCCUPIED amendment would outlaw the use of for-profit corporation money in U.S. election campaigns and give Congress and states the authority to create a public campaign finance system.^[25] Unions and non-profit organizations will still be able to contribute to campaigns.^[26] On November 1, 2011, Senator Tom Udall also introduced a constitutional amendment in Congress to reform campaign finance which would allow Congress and state legislatures to establish public campaign finance.^[27] Two other constitutional campaign finance reform amendments were introduced in Congress in November, 2011.^[28] Similar amendments have been advanced by Dylan Ratigan,^[29] Karl Auerbach,^[30] Cenk Uygur,^[31] and others.^[32][33]

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig had called for a constitutional convention^[34] in a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,^[35] in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It,^[36] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.^[37] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book offers a manifesto for the Occupy Wall Street protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections,^[38] and Lessig provides credibility to the movement.^[39] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.^[40] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.^[41] On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published the 99 Percent Declaration^[42] of demands, goals, and solutions, including a call to amend the U.S. Constitution to reform campaign finance.^[43][44][45] Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.^{[46][47][48][49]}

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission[link]

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, on Jan, 2010, the US Supreme court ruled that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, the US federal law that regulates the financing of political campaigns, was in violation of corporations' and unions' First Amendment rights. Under the January 2010 ruling, corporations and unions are no longer barred from promoting the election of one candidate over another candidate.^[50]

Ruling[link]

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court pp8 . "Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U.S. C. §441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93, 203–209(2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990). Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity."^[51]

Dissent[link]

Justice Stevens, J. wrote, in partial dissent:

The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.^[50]

Justice Stevens also wrote: "The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question."^[52]

Public response[link]

Senator McCain, one of the two original sponsors of campaign finance reform, noted after the decisions that "campaign finance reform is dead" – but predicted a voter backlash once it became obvious how much money corporations and unions now could and would pour into campaigns.^[53]

Mitch McConnell said "Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all."^[54]

In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in early February 2010 it was found that roughly 80% of Americans were opposed to the January 2010 Supreme court's ruling. The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).^[55] In response to the ruling, a grassroots, bipartisan group called Move to Amend was created to garner support for a constitutional amendment overturning corporate personhood and declaring that money is not speech.^[56]

See also[link]

• Campaign finance
• Campaign finance in the United States
• Clean Elections
• Democracy Matters
• Money loop
• Pacific scandal
• Political action committee
• Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the UK Act of Parliament regulating campaign finance
• Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

Notes[link]

References[link]

• "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0122/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-ruling-a-bad-day-for-democracy. Retrieved January 22, 2010. 
• Smith, Bradley (2001). Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-11369-6. 
• Green, Mark (2002). Selling Out, How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy. Regan Books (Harper Collins). ISBN 0-06-052392-1. 
• Eds. Anthony Corrado, David B. Magleby, and Kelly Patterson (2006). Financing the 2004 Election. The Brookings Institution. ISBN 0-8157-5439-6. 
• "Public Funding of Presidential Elections". Federal Election Commission. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml. Retrieved August 3, 2005. 
• "The Federal Election Campaign Laws:A Short History". Federal Election Commission. http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm. Retrieved August 3, 2005. 
• "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act". The Campaign Finance Institute. Archived from the original on March 17, 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20050317200121/http://www.cfinst.org/eguide/shays.html. Retrieved August 3, 2005. 
• "BP stops paying political parties", March 2002
• League of Women Voters' Resources on Campaign Finance Reform
• eds. David Magleby and Quin Monson (2002). The Last Hurrah? Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Congressional Elections. The Brookings Institution. ISBN 0-8157-5436-1. 
• Ciara Torres-Spelliscy. "Has the Tide Turned in Favor of Disclosure? Revealing Money in Politics after Citizens United and Doe v. Reed". Georgia State University Law Review. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1878727. Retrieved October 10, 2011. 

External links[link]

• California Clean Money Campaign (www.CAclean.org)
• Campaign Finance Amendment
• Campaign Finance Institute
• Center for Competitive Politics
• Democracy Defined
• Democracy by Lottery and Vote: Reducing the Need for Campaigns
• Democracy Matters:Organizing College Campuses
• League of Women Voters' Resources on Campaign Finance Reform
• PoliticalMoneyLine
• Public Campaign
• Public Citizen's Campaign Finance Reform site
• Open Secrets
• REAL Campaign Reform.org
• SpeechNow.org
• [Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, ed., Writing Reform: A Guide to Drafting State & Local Campaign Finance Laws (2010 Revised Edition), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1729827]

• References opposed to campaign finance reform
• Chapter 9, Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 7th Edition (2009). [4]
• Hoersting, Stephen M. "Free Speech and the 527 Prohibition." April 3, 2006. [5]
• Basham, Patrick and Dennis Polhill. "Uncompetitive Elections and the American Political System." June 30, 2005. [6]

This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (October 2011)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2010)

It has been suggested that Political finance be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since September 2011.

Campaign finance refers to all funds that are raised and spent in order to promote candidates, parties or policies in some sort of electoral contest. In modern democracies such funds are not necessarily devoted to election campaigns. Issue campaigns in referendums, party activities and party organizations are additional items to be funded by political money. When James K. Pollock ^[1] and Louise Overacker ^[2] began to analyze the role of money in politics, they started in the United States, looking at the money that was spent in order to influence the outcome of a (federal) election. Their take-off point has dominated perception of the subject ever since. Campaign funds is the subject heading under which all books dealing with money in politics are catalogued by the Library of Congress. Other countries have a different experience and use other terms for the subject. All of these terms offer a broader perspective. Cross-national comparisons prefer the more comprehensive "political finance", researchers in continental Europe use "party finance". All of them deal with "the costs of democracy", a term that was coined by Alexander Heard for his famous analysis of campaign finance in the U.S.^[3]

In the U.S. political action committee (PAC) and campaign are adequate terms to identify the units that raise and spend money for political purposes. Each campaign (for federal office) has to run a PAC that reports revenue and expenses to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Political campaigns have many expenditures, such as the cost of travel for the candidate, professional advice on topics like message and voter turnout (see campaign consulting) and the direct costs of communicating with voters, such as billboards, television advertising, and other channels. The types and purposes of campaign spending will change with the legal and social landscape that the campaign operates in; for instance, in Great Britain, television advertising is provided to campaigning parties for free, while in the United States it is one of the biggest line items in the campaign budget, especially for statewide and national-level campaigns.

For most other democracies (including the European countries, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Israel) political party is a useful concept to identify and aggregate the multitude of entities that raise and spend political funds. Parties run national headquarters, constituency associations, regional branches and local chapters as well as offices in the field (on the ground). Each of these units collects revenue and incurs expenses that are used to fund political competition.

Although the political science literature indicates that most contributors give to support parties or candidates with whom they are already in agreement,^[4] there is wide public perception that donors expect illegitimate government favors in return^[5] (such as specific legislation being enacted or defeated), so some have come to equate campaign finance with political corruption and bribery^{[citation needed]}. These views have led some governments to reform fundraising sources and techniques in the hope of eliminating perceived undue influence being given to monied interests. Another tactic is for the government, rather than private individuals and organizations, to provide funding for campaigns. Democratic countries have differing regulations on what types of donations to political parties and campaigns are acceptable. With the rise of super PACs, the jet-fueled political action committees that can take unlimited contributions, many campaign finance watchdogs have focused on the hundreds of millions of dollars being raised this presidential election cycle.Barker, Kim. "Donate." ProPublica. Web. 02 Apr. 2012. <http://www.propublica.org/article/campaign-spending-shows-political-ties-self-dealing>.

The causes and effects of different campaign finance rules are studied in a number of disciplines including political science, economics, and public policy.

Private financing[link]

Some countries rely heavily on private donors to finance political campaigns. In these countries, fundraising is often a significant activity for the campaign staff and the candidate, especially in larger and more prominent campaigns. For example, one survey in the United States found that 23% of candidates for statewide office surveyed say that they spent more than half of their scheduled time raising money. Over half of all candidates surveyed spent at least 1/4 of their time on fundraising.^[6] The tactics used can include direct mail solicitation, attempts to encourage supporters to contribute via the Internet, direct solicitation from the candidate, and events specifically for the purpose of fundraising, or other activities.

Most countries that rely on private donations to fund campaigns require extensive disclosure of donations, frequently including information such as the name, employer and address of donors. This is intended to allow for policing of undue donor influence by other campaigns or by good government groups, while preserving most benefits of private financing, including the right to make donations and to spend money for political speech, saving government the expense of funding campaigns, and keeping government from funding partisan speech that some citizens may find odious (see [1]). Supporters of private financing systems believe that, in addition to avoiding government limitations on speech, private financing fosters civic involvement, ensures that a diversity of views are heard, and prevents government from tilting the scales to favor those in power or with political influence.

These kind of donations can come from private individuals, as well as groups such as trade unions and for-profit corporations.

However, critics of this system claim that it leads to votes being "bought" and to large gaps between different parties in the money they have to campaign with.

Public financing[link]

Other countries choose to use government funding to run campaigns. Funding campaigns from the government budget is widespread in South America and Europe.^[7] The mechanisms for this can be quite varied, ranging from direct subsidy of political parties to government matching funds for certain types of private donations (often small donations) to exemption from fees of government services (e.g. postage) and many other systems as well. Supporters of government financing generally believe that the system decreases corruption; in addition, many proponents believe that government financing promotes other values, such as civic participation or greater faith in the political process. Not all government subsidies take the form of money; some systems require campaign materials (often air time on television) to be provided at very low rates to the candidates. Critics sometimes complain of the expense of the government financing systems. Right Wing Libertarian critics of the system argue that government should not subsidize political speech. Other critics argue that government financing, with its emphasis on equalizing money resources, merely exaggerates differences in non-monetary resources.

In many countries, such as Germany and the United States, campaigns can be funded by a combination of private and public money.

In some electoral systems, candidates who win an election or secure a minimum number of ballots are allowed to apply for a rebate to the government. The candidate submits an audited report of the campaign expenses and the government issues a rebate to the candidate, subject to some caps such as the number of votes cast for the candidate or a blanket cap. For example, in the 2008 election, candidates for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong were entitled to a rebate up to HK$11 per vote.

Regulation[link]

The concept of political finance can affect various parts of a society's institutions which support governmental and social success.^[8] Correct handling of political finance impacts a country's ability to effectively maintain free and fair elections, effective governance, democratic government and regulation of corruption.^[8] The United Nations convention against Corruption, recognizing this, encouraged its members to "enhance transparency in the funding of candidatures for elected public office and, when applicable, the funding of political parties."^[9] Throughout the world countries have identified the problems which improper use of political finance could entail.^[10] When conducting a study pursuing and understanding of what international civil society has determined integral to regulation of political finance, Magnus Öhman and Hani Zainulbhai identified several common understandings by these organizations:^[10]

1. Money is necessary for democratic politics, and political parties must have access to funds to play their part in the political process. Regulation must not curb healthy competition.
2. Money is never an unproblematic part of the political system, and regulation is desirable
3. The context and political culture must be taken into account when devising strategies for controlling money in politics
4. Effective regulation and disclosure can help to control adverse effects of the role of money in politics, but only if well conceived and implemented
5. Effective oversight depends on activities in interaction by several stakeholders (such as regulators, civil society and the media) and based on transparency.

Their study also affirmed the perspective laid down by the Council of Europe, when discussing the concept of effective regulation of campaign financing: "[We are] convinced that raising public awareness on the issues of prevention and fight against corruption in the field of funding of political parties is essential to the good functioning of democratic institutions."^[10]

See also[link]

• Campaign finance in the United States
• Campaign finance reform in the United States
• Clean elections
• Election promise
• Hatch Act of 1939
• Investment theory of party competition
• Money loop
• No-bid contract
• Pacific scandal
• Party finance in Germany
• Political donations in Australia
• Political finance
• Political funding in Japan
• Political funding in the United Kingdom
• Political financing in Canada

References[link]

Notes[link]

Sources[link]

• Ansolabehere, Stephen; John de Figueiredo, James M. Snyder, Jr. (2003). "Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. politics?" (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspectives (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 17 (1): 105–130. DOI:10.1257/089533003321164976. http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/representation/CF_JEP_Final.pdf. Retrieved 2007-03-12. 
• Heard, Alexander (1960). The Costs of Democracy. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN not available in the book or in the Library of Congress catalogue. 
• Ohman, Magnus; Zainulbhai, Hani (2009). Political Finance Regulation: The Global Experience. Washington, DC: International Foundation for Electoral Systems. ISBN 1-931459-42-8. http://www.ifes.org/files/Political_Finance_Regulation_The_Global_Experience.pdf. 
• Will, George (2005-12-11). "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Hypocrisy". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901716.html. Retrieved 2007-03-12. 

Further reading[link]

• Abramoff, Jack (November 7, 2011). Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist. WND Books. ISBN 978-1-936488-44-5. 
• Ackerman, Bruce and Ian Ayres (February 10, 2004). Voting with Dollars. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10149-X. 
• Alexander, Herbert E. "Campaign Financing in International Perspective" in Michael J. Malbin, ed. (1980). Parties Interest Groups and Campaign Finance Laws. American Enterprise Institute. ISBN 0-8447-2167-0. 
• Birnbaum, Jeffrey (June 6, 2000). The Money Men : The Real Story of Fund-raising's Influence on Political Power in America. Crown. ISBN 0-8129-3119-X. 
• Bike, William S. (2012). Winning Political Campaigns: A Comprehensive Guide to Electoral Success. Central Park Communications. ISBN 978-1-452499-82-6. 
• Clawson, Dan ; Alan Neustadtl; Mark Weller (May 1998). Dollars and Votes: How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy. Temple University Press. ISBN 1-56639-626-3. 
• Coate, Steven (2004). Pareto Improving Campaign Finance Policy. American Economic Review. http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/9601.html. 
• Gill, David & Lipsmeyer, Christine (2005). Soft Money and Hard Choices: Why Political Parties Might Legislate Against Soft Money Donations. Public Choice. SSRN 1422616. 
• Goodliffe, Jay "BYU Syllabus for Money in Politics". Reading List. http://fhss.byu.edu/PolSci/Goodliffe/410/syllabus.htm#Readings. Retrieved Fall 2003.  Extensive list of articles on Money in Politics
• Green, Mark (2004). Selling Out: How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy. Regan Books. ISBN 0-06-073582-1.  New York mayoral candidate who lost to Bloomberg.
• Malbin, Michael J. (March 2006). The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 0-7425-3870-2. 
• John Samples (2006). The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-73450-7. 
• Sandler, Joseph "The Campaign Finance Minefield." An analysis of the impact of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act on state and local party committees. Campaigns & Elections Magazine, May 2004
• Smilov, Daniel and Jurij Toplak (2007). Political Finance and Corruption in Eastern Europe. Ashgate Press. ISBN 978-0-7546-7046-9. 
• Smith, Bradley A. (March 1, 2001). Unfree Speech : The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-07045-8. 
• Talbot, Stephen (1992). The Best Campaign Money Can Buy (TV-Series). United States: Frontline (PBS Video); Center for Investigative Reporting. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/info/1104.html. 
• Ward, Gene. Transparency in Money in Politics: A Comparison of the United States and Canada. http://www.idea.int/publications/pp_can_usa/upload/Freedom_Chap2.pdf.  PDF
• Van Treuren, Phil (2009). How to Build a Political Campaign Fundraising Donor List. Killer Campaigning. http://www.killercampaigning.com/how-to-build-a-political-campaign-fundraising-donor-list/. 

External links[link]

• Campaign Finance from UCB Libraries GovPubs
• Center for Competitive Politics
• More on United States campaign law
• Campaign Finance Institute
• Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding campaign finance
• PoliticalMoneyLine
• OpenSecrets
• IQElections - Complete Election Database
• Campaign Money Search
• The National Institute on Money in State Politics
• Institute for Law and Politics at the University of Minnesota Law School
• Money and Politics - Political Finance & Public Ethics (IFES) - links to news articles, resources and handbooks on political corruption, political finance and campaign finance issues around the world
• United States Campaign Finance Issues at the Open Directory Project
• Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on common rules against corruption in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns

Russ Feingold
United States Senator from Wisconsin
In office January 3, 1993 – January 3, 2011
Preceded by	Bob Kasten
Succeeded by	Ron Johnson
Member of the Wisconsin Senate from the 27th district
In office January 3, 1983 – January 3, 1993
Preceded by	Everett Bidwell
Succeeded by	Joseph Wineke
Personal details
Born	Russell Dana Feingold (1953-03-02) March 2, 1953 (age 59) Janesville, Wisconsin
Political party	Democratic
Spouse(s)	Sue Feingold (m. 1977–1986; divorced) Mary Feingold (m. 1991–2005; divorced)
Children	Jessica Feingold Ellen Feingold
Residence	Middleton, Wisconsin
Alma mater	University of Wisconsin-Madison (B.A.) University of Oxford (B.A.) Harvard Law School (J.D.)
Occupation	Politician Attorney
Religion	Judaism

Russell Dana "Russ" Feingold (/ˈfaɪn.ɡoʊld/; born March 2, 1953) is a lawyer and politician from the U.S. state of Wisconsin. He served as a Democratic party member of the U.S. Senate from 1993 to 2011. From 1983 to 1993, Feingold was a Wisconsin State Senator representing the 27th District.^[1]

He is a recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, and cosponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain–Feingold Act), a major piece of campaign finance reform legislation. He was the only Senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act during the first vote on the legislation.

Feingold had been mentioned as a possible candidate in the 2008 Presidential election, but following the November midterm elections of 2006 he chose not to run.^[2] In 2010, Feingold lost his campaign for re-election to the US Senate to Republican Ron Johnson.^[3][4]

On February 17, 2011, Feingold announced he had formed a grassroots Political Action Committee Progressives United, a movement intended, among other things, to fight the controversial United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC.^[5]

Early life, education, and career[link]

Feingold was born in Janesville, Wisconsin, to a Jewish family. His grandparents were immigrants from Russia and Galicia.^[6] His father, Leon Feingold (1912–1980), was an attorney; his mother, Sylvia Feingold (née Binstock; 1918–2005), worked at a title company. Feingold was one of four children. He has publicly noted that his older brother, David, along with his father, were the major influences in his political development as a youth.^[7] He was also involved with the B'nai B'rith Youth Organization and Aleph Zadik Aleph as a boy.

Feingold signs up as a member of Working America, August 4, 2008.

In 1972, Feingold volunteered for the presidential campaign of New York City mayor John Lindsay. Later he supported the presidential campaigns of Mo Udall and Ted Kennedy.^[8]

After graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School, Feingold attended the University of Wisconsin–Madison and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in 1975, a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. He went to Magdalen College at the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1977, where he earned another Bachelor of Arts degree. Upon returning to the U.S., he attended Harvard Law School, receiving his J.D. with honors in 1979.^[9]

Feingold worked as an attorney at the private law firms of Foley & Lardner and La Follette & Sinykin from 1979 until 1985.^[10]

Wisconsin Senate[link]

In 1982, he was elected to the Wisconsin Senate, where he served for ten years until his election to the United States Senate. In 1987, he joined the "Bowtie Brigade," a coalition of grassroots activists and local-level politicians who backed the presidential candidacy of bowtie-clad Senator Paul Simon of Illinois. After he was elected to the United States Senate, Feingold was succeeded in the State Senate by Joseph Wineke.^[11]

U.S. Senate[link]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on the Budget
• Committee on the Judiciary
  • Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
  • Subcommittee on the Constitution (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
• Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
  • Subcommittee on African Affairs (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
  • Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights
• Select Committee on Intelligence

Political positions[link]

Feingold with labor leaders in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 1, 2008.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Russ Feingold

Feingold's primary legislative focus has been on campaign finance reform; fair trade policies; healthcare reform; conservation and environmental protection; a multilateral foreign policy; Social Security; and the elimination of capital punishment and wasteful spending. He was also "a staunch supporter of civil liberties."^[12]

Feingold was the only Democratic senator to vote against a motion to dismiss Congress's 1998–1999 impeachment case of President Bill Clinton. In a statement, Feingold said House prosecutors must have "every reasonable opportunity" to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton should be removed from office on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Feingold ultimately voted against conviction on all charges.

In 2001, Feingold voted for the confirmation of Attorney General John Ashcroft. This decision was not popular with his party, but Feingold explained that he voted based on respect for the right for a President to choose his Cabinet, not because of his own personal opinions on Ashcroft.^[13]

Feingold has also been an opponent of NAFTA and other free trade agreements – a popular position among many pro-fair trade Democrats – but at odds with the pro-free trade Democratic wing, including the Democratic Leadership Council.

In May 2006, Feingold voted to support the Salazar Amendment, which would have declared English the "common language" of the country, but dissented in the vote for the Inhofe Amendment, which would have made English the "national language" of the United States.^[14][15]

On December 21, 2004, Feingold wrote an article for popular webzine, Salon.com, regarding his golfing trip to Greenville, Alabama.^[16] After noting how friendly the people were, and that Wisconsin had many similar places, he expressed his sorrow that such a poverty-stricken area was "the reddest spot on the whole map," despite Republican policies that Feingold considered incredibly destructive to the lives of the poor and middle class. Alabama Governor Bob Riley and Greenville Mayor Dexter McLendon, both Republicans, were perturbed at Feingold's description of "check-cashing stores and abject trailer parks, and some of the hardest-used cars for sale on a very rundown lot." McLendon invited Feingold back for a more complete tour of the city, and Feingold agreed. He visited the city on March 28, 2005, making amends and increasing speculation about his presidential plans for 2008.^[17]

In May 2006, Feingold voted in favor of bill S.2611,^[18] an immigration reform bill that, among other things, would almost double the number of H-1B visas.

As one of the strongest opponents of capital punishment in the Senate, Feingold co-sponsored, along with Jon Corzine (who would later, as Governor of New Jersey, sign an abolition bill in his state), the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act in 2002.^[19] In the 111th Congress, Feingold introduced the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2009.^[20]

On January 26, 2009 Feingold, Tom Harkin and Robert Byrd were the sole Democrats to vote against confirmation of Timothy Geithner to be United States Secretary of the Treasury (Independent Bernie Sanders, who caucused with Democrats, also voted against Geithner's confirmation).^[21]

Feingold has supported various measures to assist veterans. He cosponsored the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, which was enacted in October 2009. In 2010 he was named "Legislator of the Year" by the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers.^[22]

Campaign finance reform[link]

Feingold is perhaps best known for his work alongside Senator John McCain on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 – better-known as the McCain-Feingold Act – which took almost seven years to pass.

On July 14, 2005, Feingold introduced a bill in the Senate that would ban lobbyists from giving gifts to senators and impose a $50,000 fine for violating the ban; force lawmakers to sign statements saying that lobbyists did not pay their travel expenses; forbid lawmakers from traveling on corporate jets; bar congressmen, staffers, and executive branch officials from serving as lobbyists for two years after leaving office; and require that lobbying reports be disclosed on a quarterly, rather than semi-annual, basis.^[23] The bill is the Senate version of a bill by Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA), who co-wrote the House version of McCain-Feingold, and Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). Neither version came to a vote. The Feingold-McCain bill was initially waiting completion of McCain hearings on the issue, but the Jack Abramoff scandal put it in the spotlight, along with several other more recent reform proposals.

Government spending[link]

Feingold is also a well-known advocate for reductions in pork barrel spending and corporate welfare. Citizens Against Government Waste, the Concord Coalition, and Taxpayers for Common Sense – three nonpartisan organizations dedicated to those causes – have repeatedly commended him.^[24]

Feingold was elected to Congress on a promise not to accept pay raises while in office, and has so far returned over $70,000 in such raises to the U.S. Treasury.^[25] In addition, he is notoriously frugal in his office's spending, and sends back the money that he does not use. In one six-month period in 1999, for example, his office received $1.787 million in appropriations and returned $145,000, a higher percentage than any other senator's office.^[26] Since becoming a Senator in 1993, Feingold has returned to the U.S. Treasury $3.2 million from his office budget.^[27]

USA PATRIOT Act[link]

Feingold speaking on the Senate floor about his opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, October 25, 2001.

Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when first voted on in 2001.^[12][28] At the time, Feingold stated that provisions in the act infringed upon citizens' civil liberties.^[29]

When the bill was up for renewal in late December 2005, Feingold led a bipartisan coalition of senators – including Lisa Murkowski, Ken Salazar, Larry Craig, Dick Durbin, and John Sununu – to remove some of the Act's more controversial provisions. He led a successful filibuster against renewal of the act. This ultimately led to a compromise on some of its provisions. This compromise bill passed the Senate on March 2, 2006, by a vote of 89-10. Feingold was among the ten senators who voted nay, stating that the bill still lacked necessary protections for some civil liberties.

In 2009, when the Act was again up for re-authorization, Feingold introduced the JUSTICE Act (S. 1686) "To place reasonable safeguards on the use of surveillance and other authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act."^[30] Senator Patrick Leahy then introduced an alternative bill, about which Feingold later said "...while narrower than the JUSTICE Act that Senator Durbin and I have championed, [it] did contain several important and necessary protections for the privacy of innocent Americans." After what Feingold saw as the further watering down of civil liberty protections in the bill, it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 8 on a vote of 11-8^[31] with Feingold voting against it.^[32]

Proposed constitutional amendment[link]

Feingold announced in January 2009 that he was planning to introduce a constitutional amendment which would prohibit governors from making temporary Senate appointments instead of holding special elections. Feingold referred to recent controversies, most notably the Rod Blagojevich corruption charges and also called appointments an anachronism, which doesn't reflect the will of voters.^[33]

War in Iraq[link]

Feingold was one of 23 US senators to vote against H.J. Resolution 114, which authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq in 2002.^[34]

On August 17, 2005, he became the first senator to call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and urge that a timetable for that withdrawal be set. He called other Democrats "timid" for refusing to take action sooner, and suggested December 31, 2006, as the date for total withdrawal of troops. On the subject of Bush's assertion that a deadline would be helpful to Iraqi insurgents, Feingold said, "I think he's wrong. I think not talking about endgames is playing into our enemies' hand."^[35]

On April 27, 2006, Feingold announced that he would move to amend an appropriations bill granting $106.5 billion in emergency spending measure for Iraq and Hurricane Katrina relief to require that troops withdraw completely from Iraq.^[36]

Call for a vote of censure[link]

On March 14, 2006, Feingold introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure President Bush.^[37] This was a result of allegations of illegal wiretapping, as reported in The New York Times, that Bush did not follow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which mandates use of a surveillance court for approval of wiretaps on Americans. Feingold made a 25-minute speech on the Senate Floor, declaring that Congress must "hold the president accountable for his actions". It received support from Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, although most Democratic senators avoided expressing an opinion on it. Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont expressed support for the bill, but Feingold was able to find only three co-sponsors.

Feingold again called for Bush's censure in July 2007 for his management of the Iraq war, accusing him of mounting an "assault" against the United States Constitution.^[38]

Health care reform[link]

Feingold in 2005.

Feingold has long been an advocate for creating a system of universal health care in America. During his first run for the Senate, he endorsed the single-payer model, similar to that used by Canada. Once elected, he opposed the Clinton health care plan, saying that it did too much for the insurance industry and not enough for the uninsured. During the Bush administration, he opposed the enactment of Medicare Part D and authored a bill to require the Senate leadership to submit health care reform bills.^[39]

On July 24, 2006, at a press conference at the Martin Luther King Heritage Health Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Feingold announced that he had authored the State-Based Health Care Reform Act, a bill to create a pilot program for a system of universal healthcare under which each U.S. state would create a program to provide its citizenry with universal health insurance, and the federal government would provide the funding. The bill would create a non-partisan "Health Care Reform Task Force," which would provide five-year federal grants to two or three states. The program is expected to cost $32 billion over 10 years.^[40]

Feingold voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which passed the Senate on December 24, 2009.

Gun issues[link]

Feingold has a mixed record on gun rights and gun control issues, voting in favor of certain gun-control legislation, while also voting to expand certain gun rights. On February 24, 2004, he voted against S.1805, a bill that would have extended the Federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.^[41] In 2002, he voted for allowing airline pilots to carry firearms in cockpits.^[42] He has spoken in support of the interpretation that the Second Amendment pertains to an individual right to own firearms, and in opposition to proposals for handgun bans and mandatory firearms registration. Recently Feingold took this position when he sided with the conservative majority of the Senate and signed the Congressional amicus in District of Columbia v. Heller.^{[citation needed]}

On the other hand, he has consistently voted in favor of bills to require background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows, and to require that handguns be sold with trigger locks.

In March 2004, he explained his position in a speech on the Senate floor:

Reproductive rights[link]

Feingold co-sponsored a bill protecting the reproductive rights of women. He also co-sponsored a bill providing emergency contraception at military facilities. He signed a letter from 58 Senators to President George W. Bush urging expanding embryonic stem cell research. He voted against restricting United Nations funding for population control policies, against defining an unborn child as eligible for SCHIP, against prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion, against barring Health and Human Services grants to organizations that perform abortions, against notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions, against criminal penalties for harming an unborn fetus during another crime, against banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life, and against banning human cloning. He voted for $100 million to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptives. He supports federal funding of abortions.^[44]

Same-sex marriage[link]

On April 4, 2006, Feingold told constituents at a listening session in Kenosha, Wisconsin, that he supported the legalization of same-sex marriage. Though Feingold had once voted against passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, this was the first time that he publicly announced his support for marriage rights for same-sex couples. Feingold's comments were in response to a question about whether he supported a ballot initiative that Wisconsinites voted on in November 2006 that incorporated a ban on same-sex marriage and all civil unions (same-sex or not) into the state constitution.^[45] He joined then-Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Mark Dayton of Minnesota as one of only five senators to publicly announce their support for same-sex marriage.

On May 18, 2006, Feingold again made news with his stance on marriage when he walked out of a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee shortly before a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. After Feingold objected to both the amendment and decision of Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA at the time) to move the meeting to an area of the Capitol Building not open to the public, Specter told Feingold, "I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I. If you want to leave, good riddance." Feingold then replied, "I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman. See ya." He then left the room and did not return. Later that day, the committee voted to send the amendment to the full Senate.^[47]

On July 29, 2006, Feingold was the keynote speaker at the Human Rights Campaign's annual gala at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, California.^[48]

Political campaigns[link]

1992 U.S. Senate[link]

Feingold's senatorial career began in 1992, with a victory over incumbent Republican Senator Bob Kasten. Feingold, who had little name recognition in the state and was campaigning in a primary against a pair of millionaire opponents – Congressman Jim Moody and businessman Joe Checota – adopted several proposals to gain the electorate's attention. The most memorable of these was a series of five promises written on Feingold's garage door in the form of a contract.^[49] These were:

1. I will rely on Wisconsin citizens for most of my contributions.
2. I will live in Middleton, Wisconsin. My children will go to school here and I will spend most of my time here in Wisconsin.
3. I will accept no pay raise during my six-year term in office.
4. I will hold a "Listening Session" in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year of my six-year term in office.
5. I will hire the majority of my Senate staff from individuals who are from Wisconsin or have Wisconsin backgrounds.

Also noted was Feingold's advertising campaign, which was widely compared to that used by progressive candidate Paul Wellstone in his victorious Senate campaign in Minnesota. Shot in the form of home movies, the ads attempted to portray Feingold, who always referred to himself as "the underdog running for U.S. senate," as a down-to-earth, Capra-esque figure, taking the audience on a guided tour of the candidate's home and introducing them to his children, all of whom were enrolled in public school.^[50]

The ads also contained a significant amount of humor. One featured Feingold meeting with an Elvis Presley impersonator, who offered Feingold his endorsement.^[51] (Bob Kasten responded to the Elvis endorsement with an advertisement featuring an Elvis impersonator attacking Feingold's record.^[52]) Another showed Feingold standing next to a pair of half-sized cardboard cut-outs of his opponents, refusing to "stoop to their level" as the two were shown literally slinging mud at one another.^[50]

During the primary campaign, Feingold unveiled an 82-point plan that aimed to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term.^[53] The plan, which called for, among other things, a raise in taxes and cuts in the defense budget, was derided as "extremist" by Republicans and "too liberal" by his Democratic opponents. Feingold also announced his support for strict campaign finance reform and a national health care system and voiced his opposition to term limits and new tax cuts.^[54]

Feingold won by positioning himself as a quirky underdog who offered voters an alternative to what was seen by many as negative campaigning of opponents Jim Moody and Joe Checota.^[55] On primary day, Feingold, whose support had shown in the single digits throughout much of the campaign, surged to victory with 70 percent of the vote.^[54] Seven weeks later, while Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Ross Perot split the Wisconsin presidential vote 41%-37%-21%, Feingold beat Kasten by a margin of 53 percent to 46 percent.^[55]

1998 U.S. Senate[link]

During his 1998 re-election campaign, Feingold once again eschewed big-money campaigning, despite the fact that the National Republican Senatorial Committee had targeted him for defeat.^[56][57] Feingold placed a cap on his own fundraising, refusing to raise or spend more than $3.8 million (one dollar for every citizen of Wisconsin) during the campaign.^[58] In addition, he placed the same limits on his fundraising that he would have faced under the McCain-Feingold bill. He refused to allow his party to raise any soft money to air ads favoring him, and he requested that several lobby groups, including the AFL-CIO and the League of Conservation Voters, refrain from airing pro-Feingold "issue ads."^[59] His Republican opponent, Representative Mark Neumann, also limited himself to $3.8 million in spending, but allowed soft money to be used in his favor by a variety of pro-Republican groups.^[58] Other Democrats and supporters were angry at Feingold for "putting his career at risk" with these self-imposed limits.^[59] On election day, a strong showing in the Democratic strongholds of Milwaukee and Madison allowed Feingold to win by around two percent.^[60]

2004 U.S. Senate[link]

In the 2004 Senate election, Feingold defeated the Republican candidate and construction magnate Tim Michels by 12 percent (56 percent-44 percent), earning a third term. During the campaign, Feingold refrained from imposing spending caps on himself as he had in the past, and raised and spent almost $11 million. Although critics attempted to use that fact to paint him as a hypocrite, Feingold's records showed that more than 90 percent of the money came from individuals, that the average contribution was $60, and that a majority of it was raised from Wisconsin residents.^[61] Feingold won some counties that supported a second term for Republican President George W. Bush.^[62]

In late December 2004, Feingold was appointed to be one of four deputy whips for the Senate Democrats. Feingold pledged that the new role would not sway his "maverick stance" within the party or the chamber.^[63]

2008 possible Presidential bid[link]

Feingold on the campaign trail, stumping for Maria Cantwell (D-WA), October 2006.

In late January 2005, Feingold told the Tiger Bay Club of Volusia County, Florida that he intended to travel around the country before deciding whether or not to run in 2008.^[64] In March 2005, his Senate campaign staff registered the domain www.russfeingold08.com, as well as the .org and .net versions.^[65] On June 1, 2005, Feingold launched a political action committee (PAC), the Progressive Patriots Fund; launching a PAC is seen as an important step in running for President. A "draft Feingold" movement was established, independent of the senator's campaign.^[66]

On August 17, 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. Senator of either party to suggest a firm date for American withdrawal from the Iraq war, saying that he favored a complete withdrawal by no later than December 31, 2006.^[35]

On September 22, 2005, during the hearing on Judge John Roberts's nomination for Chief Justice of the United States, Feingold was one of three Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of sending Roberts's nomination to the floor for a full vote. He also announced that he would vote to confirm Roberts. (Feingold graduated in the same Harvard Law School class (1979) as Roberts, as did Spencer Abraham, former U.S. senator from Michigan and former United States Secretary of Energy.) Many members of the Democratic blogosphere predicted that this vote would have a negative impact on his presidential aspirations, but Feingold's supporters pointed out that this was not the first time Feingold voted in favor of Bush's judicial nominees. However, Feingold voted against Samuel Alito in committee and voted against cloture of debate regarding Alito's nomination on the Senate floor.^[67]

Although Feingold usually received support in the single digits in opinion polls featuring various potential Democratic presidential candidates, he was highly popular among Democratic grassroots activists.

Following Democratic victories in the November 2006 mid-term elections, Feingold announced that he would not run for president in 2008. He said that running for president would detract from his focus on the Senate, and the likely prying into his recent divorce "would dismantle both my professional life (in the Senate) and my personal life."^[2] In his parting comments, he warned his supporters against supporting anyone for the presidency who voted for the Iraq War, whether they later regretted it or not, saying his first choice for president in 2008 was someone who voted against the war, and his second choice is someone who wasn't in Congress but spoke out against the war at the time.^[68]

On February 22, 2008, he stated that he voted for Barack Obama as the Democratic Party nominee for the 2008 presidential election.^[69]

2010 Senate election loss[link]

Feingold was defeated for re-election on November 2, 2010 by Oshkosh businessman Ron Johnson by a margin of 52% - 47%.^[70]

Electoral history[link]

After the Senate[link]

Following his defeat, Feingold announced that he "will teach an elective course called Current Legal Issues: The U.S. Senate . . . to upper-level law students" at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee,^[72]; has written a book titled While America Sleeps: A Wake-Up Call to the Post-9/11 World; and plans to support President Barack Obama in his reelection bid in the 2012 presidential election.^[73] In February 2012, it was announced that Feingold would be a co-chair for President Obama's campaign.^[74]

Personal life[link]

Feingold has been married and divorced twice. Russ and Sue Feingold were married from 1977 until 1986. They had two children, Jessica and Ellen. He then married Mary Speerschneider (also previously divorced) on January 20, 1991. Mary (née Erpenbach) had previously been married to Timm Speerschneider, a Madison attorney, with whom she had two children: Sam and Ted. Sen. Feingold's 2003 income tax return showed two home mortgages and ownership of an $8,000 1998 Buick.^[75] On April 11, 2005, Russ and Mary Feingold jointly announced that they would be seeking a divorce.^[76] Feingold resides in Middleton, Wisconsin. He is a member of Beth Hillel Temple in Kenosha, Wisconsin.^[7]

Biographies[link]

• Feingold: A New Democratic Party. by Sanford D. Horwitt. ISBN 1-4165-3492-X

References[link]