The escalating cost of campaigning for Congress, especially the cost of political advertisements on television, has turned many senators and representatives into part-time legislators and full-time fundraisers. The “money chase” continues even in nonelection years, as members build up large campaign chests. Although the quest for campaign financing places a wearisome burden on members of Congress, they still have great advantage over rival candidates who try to unseat them. Organized interest groups traditionally donated more money to those already holding office, in recognition of the power of their office and the likelihood of their reelection. Incumbents also have the advantage of greater visibility in the news media, a paid staff to assist them, and the franking privilege to keep their names before their constituents. The growing imbalance in fund-raising between incumbents and challengers has been a major reason for the high rate of reelection to Congress and has provoked demands for reform in campaign fundraising and even for limiting the number of terms that members of Congress may serve.
The Federal Election Commission requires all congressional candidates to file statements showing all the funds they raised and spent. Federal election laws also limit individual contributions to campaigns, but in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo the Supreme Court ruled that it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech to set any restriction on the amount of money that wealthy people could spend on their own campaigns. Many members of Congress complain that this ruling gives unfair advantage to wealthy candidates.
The largest share of money for congressional campaigns comes from political action committees (PACs) representing various special interest groups. The predominance of PACs has raised concern that these contributors are attempting to “buy” special influence over legislation. In 1991, the Senate ethics committee investigated five senators who received campaign contributions from wealthy savings and loan banker Charles Keating. The Keating Five investigation questioned whether the senators had intervened with a government agency on behalf of Keating's bank because he was a constituent or because he had contributed financially to their campaigns. The ethics committee found that four of the senators had used poor judgment but had not violated Senate rules. A fifth senator, Alan Cranston (Democrat–California)—who had raised nearly a million dollars in campaign funds from Keating— was reprimanded by the full Senate for engaging in “an impermissible pattern of conduct.”
See also Incumbents
Sources
- David B. Magleby and Candice J. Nelson, The Money Chase: Congressional Campaign Finance Reform (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990)
