Campaign Finance Reform

• CFR gives huge advantage to incumbent since challengers are limited in the amount of advertising they can put out
• CFR encourages independently wealthy candidates to run instead of the common citizens. The average joe is more reliant on donated funds and is more likely to have to deal with complicated compliance laws. Wealthy people are not necessarily smarter, more ethical, or better leaders.
• CFL actually helps maintain the status quo since it makes it harder for challengers to get in and shake things up
• CFR always favors the incumbent, since incumbents receive the benefit of name recognition. Also, an incumbent can run a campaign from his office seat through pork-barrel projects, etc., which a challenger cannot do as effectively. Challengers often spend large amounts of money to get elected simply to offset the other advantages that an incumbent has.
• In the pre-reform days, a single rich benefactor could fund a dark-horse candidate’s campaign early on, while he devoted his time to connecting with the voters, as did George McGovern in 1972. Now a candidate must have great personal wealth or enough connections to find thousands of donors all willing to make the maximum allowed contributions. Thus the very reforms that were supposed to open up the electoral process have actually limited it to the rich and party favorites.
• CFL's increase the media’s power to control elections. The media can slant news to favor certain candidates, while the less favored opposition cannot offset media bias without spending more money.
• Anything you do to make it harder for a challenger to get his message out makes it easier for the incumbent to ignore his constituents.
• CFL increases the power and importance of parties. It makes it harder for third parties to enter since the the two existing parties have the lawyers, accountants, and technical experts to comply with laws
• Do you think a politician would really pass a law that would make it harder for him/her to get elected?