Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Definition

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold Act, is a federal law passed in 2002 aimed at regulating campaign financing in U.S. elections. It sought to eliminate soft money contributions to political parties and set stricter limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations could contribute to candidates, thus influencing the dynamics of political funding and the electoral process.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was designed to combat the influence of money in politics by banning soft money contributions to national party committees.
2. BCRA imposed stricter limits on individual contributions to candidates and increased transparency by requiring disclosure of campaign financing sources.
3. The act also included provisions to regulate 'issue ads' that aired close to elections, requiring them to disclose their sponsors.
4. Despite its intentions, the BCRA faced significant challenges and criticism, particularly after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which undermined some of its key provisions.
5. As a result of Citizens United v. FEC, independent expenditures by corporations and unions have surged, raising concerns about the potential for excessive spending in elections.

Review Questions

• How did the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act change the landscape of campaign financing in the U.S.?
  • The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act significantly changed the landscape of campaign financing by banning soft money contributions to national parties and instituting stricter limits on individual donations to candidates. This aimed to reduce the overwhelming influence of large donations and improve the integrity of the electoral process. By requiring greater transparency in campaign finance, BCRA sought to make political funding more accountable and lessen corruption risks associated with money in politics.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in achieving its goals regarding campaign finance regulation.
  • While the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was designed to limit the influence of money in politics and increase transparency, its effectiveness has been debated. Initially, it succeeded in reducing soft money contributions and imposing stricter limits on individual donations. However, the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC invalidated key provisions of BCRA, allowing for unlimited spending by corporations and unions on independent political expenditures, which raised new concerns about the very influence BCRA sought to mitigate.
• Assess the long-term implications of the Citizens United v. FEC decision on the goals of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and future campaign finance laws.
  • The Citizens United v. FEC decision has profound long-term implications for the goals of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and future campaign finance laws. By enabling unlimited spending by corporations and unions, it essentially counteracted BCRA's attempts at curbing big money's influence in elections. This shift has led to a significant increase in outside spending, transforming how campaigns are funded and potentially skewing political representation toward those with substantial financial resources. The ruling has sparked ongoing debates about reforming campaign finance laws to address these challenges while preserving free speech principles.

Related terms

Soft Money: Donations to political parties for activities that do not directly support a specific candidate, which were largely unrestricted until BCRA limited these contributions.

Political Action Committee (PAC): A committee formed by organizations or individuals to raise and spend money to elect or defeat candidates, often playing a significant role in campaign financing.

Citizens United v. FEC: A landmark Supreme Court case in 2010 that ruled parts of BCRA unconstitutional, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.