Since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, campaign finance reform has slowly become a talking point for a growing number of public officials.
However, according to a recent survey conducted by Monmouth University, elected officials may need to start listening to their constituents' concerns about the way candidates raise and spend money during election cycles. The topic has gone from drab to sexy, especially in the most recent cycle, with everyone from Bernie Sanders to Lindsey Graham pushing for changes to the existing campaign finance regulations.
And if this happens, you can bet compliance will become even more confusing.
A look at the findings
The survey found that nearly half of Americans polled believed that the Citizens United decision has been detrimental to presidential elections. What's more, only one in 10 said that it has been beneficial for the process. The poll revealed that 53 percent of independents, 50 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Republicans think the ruling has hurt the democratic process during presidential elections. While about 40 percent agreed that, since the decision, it has enabled potentially unqualified candidates to gain traction that they otherwise would not have experienced.
"The public is starting to worry that the Wild West nature of campaign finance is damaging the way we choose presidential candidates," Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a release.
The survey also showed some interesting findings regarding whether the rules – now five years old – help or hurt strong candidates with a viable chance at a presidential run. About one quarter (28 percent) believe that the current Federal Election Commission reporting rules make it "more likely that a qualified but lesser known candidate" will be able to get a strong support base in the run up to the election. Just under that – at 27 percent – say Citizens United makes it less likely. An even higher amount – 34 percent – say they don't think the new rules affect qualified but lesser-known candidates.
The Monmouth University study found the current campaign finance environment could be affecting the quality of candidates.So, what does the public propose we do about it?
It's one thing to claim that the system needs reform, but it's another beast entirely to come up with a way to do that. However, if lawmakers – either current or future – plan to introduce any reforms in the near future, it may help to take a note from the public.
About one-third of survey respondents said that the best way for candidates to raise money is exclusively through private donations from individuals and groups, with zero public funding allowed. However, this is down from 46 percent of respondents to the same question in 2007 – three years before the Citizens United decision.
The report on the survey's findings stated: "Those who now say that presidential campaigns should rely on private funding alone include 43 percent of Republicans, 33 percent of independents, and 23 percent of Democrats."
Furthermore, only 17 percent of respondents said campaigns should rely only on public funding, down from 22 percent who said the same in 2007. About 44 percent agree it should be a mix of both public and private funding, up from 28 percent in the pre-Citizens United survey.
So it appears that while both parties are more or less aligned with each other on the fact that Citizens United may have had a negative effect on the presidential election process, the remedy for this issue is uncertain. More emphasis on public financing? More private funding, but with stricter compliance measures and FEC reporting rules? – Opinions remain split between Republicans and Democrats.
"More emphasis on public financing? Or more private funding?"
Change could be in the works
We may be entering a period that could get messy, as if FEC and PAC reporting requirements weren't already complicated enough. According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the top concern among voters in the 2016 presidential election is the perceived influence America's most affluent individuals, richest corporations and powerful labor unions have on the democratic process.
It's become an increasingly popular talking point since 2010, and it appears 2016 could be the boiling point. While many believe it is unlikely a comprehensive constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United can gain steam quickly, changes could still be on the horizon.
If this happens, PAC reporting, and all aspects of compliance with FEC regulations, could become much more convoluted. Stay up to date and keep your corporate PAC compliant with help from PASS.