In eight pages the financing of political campaigns are examined in terms of a discussion of the issue from both perspectives and a recommendation of reform of campaign financing. Seven sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: RT13_SA041cfr.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Did Lazio appear to be harassing the first lady? And while analysts went after Lazios stance, other questions arose too. What is soft money anyway? Why is campaign reform so
important? In fact, it probably would not have been a big issue had it not been raised at the debates. But more and more, candidates are spouting the detriments of
the current system, and the people are listening. Many are embarrassed to admit that they do not know what soft money is, something that prompted the intense reaction from Lazio.
Hillary would not sign a rejection of all soft money. And so the issues that the pair were dueling over did turn to money in political campaigns and opened the
issue up for further discussion. The discussion turned to campaign finance reform and not too long afterwards, Al Gore was embarrassed by his opponent in yet another controversial debate when
the vice presidents integrity was brought up. Did Al know he was attending a fund raiser when he entered a Buddhist temple? In any event, as questions about the Clintonesque
era lingers, particularly regarding funds for political purposes, fund raising is an important issue today and should be carefully evaluated. Historically, there have been limits on fund raising efforts.
Soft money is essentially unregulated money (Gallagher PG). Hard money, on the other hand, are regulated and capped donations at $1,000 per person or $2,000 for a primary; there is
also a ban on corporate donations as a part of the regulation (PG). However, tens of millions of dollars are being raised and spent and those dollars are not
subject to the limits (PG).Limits were passed by Congress in 1974 during the fund-raising scandals of the Nixon era, but two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that the government