Campaign Reform: Interest Groups,Parties,and Candidates

Abstract

The rapid rise of private interest group campaign financing since the 1970s has prompted responses from both citizen organizations and the federal and state governments. The conversion of presidential campaigns from private to public funding has been the most important example of this at the federal level, and more recently, congressional campaign financing has been nearly adopted. The record of campaign finance reform at the state level ranges more widely. Nearly all states have an independent enforcement agency and require candidate disclosure of campaign-financing data. Most states impose some limitation or ban on private groups and organizations in regard to campaign contributions, and many supplement private donations with taxpayer funds, which allows for more stringent restrictions on private groups and candidates. A few states now prevent immediate employment of former public officials in lobbying positions, and others have prohibited all gift and social lobbying outlays.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Candice J. Nelson , “Money and Its Role in the Election,” in America's Choice: The Election of 1992, ed. William Crotty (Guilford, CT: Dushkin, 1993), pp. 108-109.

2. Ibid., p. 107.

3. Herbert E. Alexander and Monica Bauer , Financing the 1988 Election (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), p. 41.

4. “Campaign Finance Reform Key to Ending Gridlock” (editorial), Lincoln Journal, 13 May 1993.

citing Cynthia Opheim , “Explaining the Differences in State Lobbying Regulation,” Western Political Quarterly, 44:409 (June 1991).

6. Hugh Bone , “The 1990 Election in Washington,” Comparative State Politics, 14(4):11 (Sept. 1993).

7. Rob Gurwit , “The Mirage of Reform,” in State Government, ed. Thad L. Beyle (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1993), p. 49.

8. Thomas H. Kean , The Politics of Inclusion (New York: Free Press, 1988), pp. 138-139.

9. Richard Morin , “Change Is Still in the Air,” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 22-28 Mar. 1993, p. 37.

10.

10. Kay L. Schlozman and John T. Tierney , Organized Interests and American Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1986), p. 269.

11.

11. David C. Saffell , “Cleaning up the Ohio Legislature,” Comparative State Politics, 15(2):29-37 (Apr. 1994).

12.

12. Keon S. Chi , Campaign Finance Reform (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 1993), p. 19.

13.

13. The ad costs are largely covered by interest group contributions, which represent the fastest-growing portion of top candidates' campaign receipts.