Independent Expenditure

Definition

Independent expenditure refers to money spent by individuals or groups to advocate for or against a political candidate or issue, without coordinating with any candidate's campaign. This type of spending is distinct because it allows entities like corporations and unions to influence elections while remaining separate from the official campaign activities, thereby raising important questions about the influence of money in politics and voter manipulation.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Independent expenditures are not subject to the same contribution limits that apply to direct campaign contributions, allowing for potentially unlimited spending.
2. These expenditures can take various forms, including advertisements, mailings, and digital campaigns promoting or opposing candidates.
3. The rise of independent expenditures has led to increased scrutiny over how much influence wealthy individuals and organizations have in elections.
4. Super PACs emerged following the Citizens United decision, playing a major role in elections by allowing massive amounts of money to be funneled into independent expenditures.
5. While independent expenditures must remain uncoordinated with candidates' campaigns, there are concerns about 'soft money' being used indirectly to support candidates.

Review Questions

• How do independent expenditures differ from direct campaign contributions in terms of regulations and impact on elections?
  • Independent expenditures differ significantly from direct campaign contributions mainly because they are not subject to the same limits imposed by election laws. While contributions to candidates are capped, independent expenditures can be made in unlimited amounts, allowing for more substantial financial influence. This difference can dramatically affect election outcomes, as larger spending can amplify messages and increase visibility for particular candidates or issues without the constraints faced by direct contributions.
• Discuss the implications of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling on independent expenditures and the role of Super PACs in contemporary elections.
  • The Citizens United v. FEC ruling drastically changed the landscape of campaign finance by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures. This led to the creation of Super PACs, which can raise funds from any source but must operate independently from candidates' campaigns. As a result, elections have seen an influx of money that raises questions about fairness and the potential for undue influence on political outcomes by wealthy donors.
• Evaluate the potential consequences of unrestricted independent expenditures on the democratic process and public perception of electoral integrity.
  • Unrestricted independent expenditures can have significant consequences for the democratic process by amplifying the voices of wealthy individuals and groups while overshadowing ordinary voters. This dynamic can lead to a perception that elections are more about money than merit, potentially disenfranchising citizens who feel their votes carry less weight. The prevalence of high-stakes spending might also contribute to cynicism regarding electoral integrity, as voters may perceive that outcomes are influenced more by financial power than by genuine democratic choice.

Related terms

Super PACs: Political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions for independent expenditures, provided they do not coordinate with candidates' campaigns.

Campaign Contribution: Monetary donations made directly to a candidate's campaign, which are subject to limits and regulations under campaign finance laws.

Citizens United v. FEC:

A landmark Supreme Court case that ruled that independent expenditures by corporations and unions cannot be limited under the First Amendment, significantly altering the landscape of campaign finance.