Campaign reform financing is a very serious issue in our government today. Many debate the fact if the reform is even needed. The campaigns are bringing into much money and are asking too much of the businessmen. The "soft money" contributions are becoming out of hand, and something needs too be done. Do we need a reform? Should we leave our system how it is? Should we stop "soft money" all together? How should we deal with these issues? .
First we need to under stand what "soft money" is. "Soft money" is an unregulated and unlimited contribution to political parties and campaigns (Kohlberg 1). The parties and the candidates are constantly asking big corporations and business for contributions to their campaigns. Executives are becoming tired of constant appeals for "soft money" funds that may not even serve their interests (Borrus 34). "Soft money" has risen twenty- five percent in the past four years. "Soft money' is a travesty," gripes Robert Stuart, the former chairmen or Quaker Oats (35). Business Week took a poll from 400 top executives of the major contributors to campaigns. Of those 400 two thirds wanted to put a stop to "soft money" contributions. Some say that "soft money" is going to bankrupt our democracy (Kohlberg 1).
Now we have to take a look at what our government is doing to aid or revoke the reform. In 1907 Congress passed the Tillman Act. The Tillman Act prohibited corporations and national banks from contribution money to federal campaigns (presidential and congressional) (Janger 26). Also congress has put restrictions that only one thousand dollars can be given to a candidate, a given indivdual can give only twenty thousand dollars to a given party. In 1976 the Supreme Court heard Buckley v. Valeo. The out come was the ban of all limits on political spending. The court ruled that donations were a form of free speech. Congress tried to solve the finance problem in a three-step movement.