Research Paper Of Political Writing Assignment

Campaign Finance Reform in California 2000-2016
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Campaign Finance Reform in California 2000-2016
In the political scenes, there is no other topic that has been more contentious than the role of finance. In essence, the election of a member to any office is premeditated on the respective individual will use public funds. Based on the many cases of corruption in public offices, campaign finance has further engineered the course of this conversation. Consequently, these circumstances have compelled many Americans into thinking that campaign finance has a significant role in corrupting influence on Congress (Bowler & Donovan, 2016). Several factors confer to this conclusion. Related attitudes towards this type of money are strengthened by the fact the finance is structured by partisan interests. Related information also raises questions on the sources of this cash and the amount spent which are factors that heighten the suspicion further. The unfounded basis on the need for the large amounts of money and more so, their sources which are usually from large corporations has led to reforms in the approach that is to be used in financing candidates. The subsequent discussion offers more insight into the campaign finance reforms and the profound positivity that the reforms have had particularly under the public limelight which is always keen to admonish any unethical behavior among politicians.
The California finance regulatory systems consist of several elements. Among them include voluntary limits on campaign expenditures, public disclosure of campaign finances, limits on campaign contributions to candidates and other political organizations, and incentives to abide by expenditure limits. Other parameters included access to public funds for campaign purposes (Feingold, 1998). The disposition among these factors creates significant loopholes that those in privileged positions have sought to use even at the expense of democracy. This being a contentious issue, opinions on the necessary regulations have varied across various circles. Some parties believe that limiting contributions or expenditures is a futile move while others think that the act of disclosing what an individual or organization has contributed evades the primary principles of privacy. On a much deeper analysis, some hold the belief that only comprehensive systems whose major role to provide public funds can address this issue. This alternative comes forth because people believe that the private fundraising mechanism is responsible for the corrupting influence of money in politics. California has enacted several political reforms to queer these grievances which eventually escalate to the public governance arena.
Proposition 34
Some of the California reforms have been as a result of change in attitude among voters. Among them is Campaign Contributions and Spending Limits Act of 2000 also known as California Proposition 34. The proposition placed a limit on the amount of money that an individual could contribute to candidates for statewide elective offices and for the California State Legislature. It was a major coup for the citizens of California and more importantly, their decision was respected. Also, the proponents of Proposition 208 were against this ideal. Proposition 208 was enacted in 1996 through the voting process but the cap was at $250 per election from each donor.
In conjunction with the follow-up legislation, proposition 34 enhanced on-line reporting of large contributions, prohibited specific lobbyist contributions, limited candidate-to-candidate transfers, imposed contribution limits, and provided for voluntary spending limits where in exchange of this honor, the candidate would access ballot pamphlets. California upholds the proposition to date. The most profound impact of this legislation was in the California judicial system where elected judges are independent from the executive and legislature branches of the government (Jones, 2012). However, these judges are required to follow strict rules and regulations as outlined under the American Bar Association (ABA). According to Bonneau and Cann (2009), this legislation has advanced competition between the challengers and the incumbents. It implies that although the incumbent could have an added advantage over popularity, the power of the financing model facilitates other challengers to close this gap. In addition, the campaign finance laws have provided a better manner of money regulation around these camps in a manner that can be monitored and thus, prevented the possible case of corruption in the legislative chain (Primo, Jacobsmeier, & Milyo, 2007). Although questions still linger on the viability of the current procedures, this model provides at least a control mechanism which raises public confidence to some extent although not fully.
Proposition 89 and Proposition 15
Another initiative measure to ever come before the California voters was Proposition 89 on the November 7, 2006. In this case, the California residents were to vote for a proposition that called for a “clean money” system of campaign which has been adopted in states such as Arizona and Maine. Although it was defeated by a significant margin the proposition declared that for an electoral candidate to receive large amount of public funds, they were required to collect a set threshold in small denominations of five dollars for qualifying contributions. Once they have achieved this fate, they were required not to spend any more than what they had collected. The proposition placed further restraints on direct corporate contributions and also a limit on the contributions that non-participating candidates may accept. Unfortunately, the proposition was defeated significantly.
In June 2010, a simila...