Stopping the Buck Here: The Case for Campaign Spending Limits

By Krasno, Jonathan S.; Green, Donald Philip | Brookings Review, Spring 1993 | Go to article overview

Stopping the Buck Here: The Case for Campaign Spending Limits


Krasno, Jonathan S., Green, Donald Philip, Brookings Review


Everybody--the public, members of Congress, campaign contributors, and, as always, Common Cause--seems to be dissatisfied with the way congressional campaigns are financed. The call for change is loud and steady. Campaign finance reform is such a prominent issue that all three presidential candidates featured it conspicuously in their campaigns last fall. Now that the days of gridlock are over and Democrats control both Congress and the presidency, supporters of reform are optimistic that this year something will actually get done.

The problem is what to do. Incumbents complain that the current system transforms them from legislators into fundraisers who constantly hunt for money out of the fear that their next opponent will be well-financed. Challengers have a different grievance: they claim that the system is stacked against them in that it allows incumbents to raise funds far more easily than they can. The image of politicians' endless chase for money, fueled by the inevitable articles about this PAC or that, makes an already cynical public even more critical of Congress. The charge that members trade votes for contributions, however exaggerated, remains a serious concern.

There is a partisan twist to this issue, too. Because Democrats and Republicans raise money from different sources, any change in policy might affect one party more than the other. As a result, beyond agreeing that the existing system is a mess, Democrats and Republicans see eye to eye on little else. Republicans favor party campaign committees and individual contributors. Democrats want to preserve political action committees' and labor unions' role. But the fiercest point of contention is whether to slow the money chase by setting limits on the amount candidates can spend on their campaigns.

Democrats have long maintained that spending ceilings are an essential part of any campaign finance reform package. They claim that limits will both free candidates from the demands of constant fundraising and reduce the influence of monied interests. Republicans are viscerally opposed to spending limits, which they regard as a Democratic ploy that will guarantee the reelection of incumbents and, not coincidentally, a continued Democratic majority in Congress. That belief has derailed campaign finance legislation in the past, and it may prove strong enough to do it again in the current, 103rd Congress.

Last year a far-reaching campaign finance reform bill that included limits on campaign spending passed both the House and the Senate, only to be vetoed by George Bush. With Bill Clinton in the White House, the outlook for enactment will be different. But there is nothing automatic about the bill's prospects. Recent foot-dragging by the Democratic leadership suggests that some members who supported it last year did so knowing that Bush would veto it. The large turnover on Capitol Hill as a result of last fall's elections is another question mark.

The biggest hurdle for campaign reform this year, as in the past, will be the Republicans' conviction--buttressed by the preponderance of academic analysis--that a bill with spending limits is a virtual Incumbent Protection Act. But that view, which for years has stood in the way of campaign finance reform, is simply mistaken. Spending limits will not harm challengers' chances or make congressional elections less competitive.

The Republican Case for Unlimited Spending

The case against spending limits, no matter who is making it, starts with the image of the almost invulnerable incumbent. And it is a fact that incumbents rarely lose--in the past 10 years, for example, more than 95 percent of House incumbents have won reelection. Among the reasons why are the familiar perquisites of office like the franking privilege, which allows incumbents to flood their constituents' mail-boxes with self-serving missives, and the casework incumbents do to cut through government red tape and secure services for their constituents. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Stopping the Buck Here: The Case for Campaign Spending Limits
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.