Введение
Финансирование избирательных кампаний в Соединенных Штатах происходит на федеральном, государственном и местном уровнях за счет взносов отдельных лиц, корпораций, политических комитетов и иногда правительства. Расходы на кампании неуклонно растут, по крайней мере, с 1990 года. Например, кандидат, победивший на выборах в Палату представителей в 1990 году, потратил в среднем 407 600 долларов (407 556,0 долларов в 1990 году эквивалентны примерно <рассчитанной сумме> в последние годы), в то время как победитель в 2022 году потратил в среднем 2,79 миллиона долларов; в Сенате средние расходы на победивших кандидатов выросли с 3,87 миллиона долларов (эквивалентно <рассчитанной сумме> в последние годы) до 26,53 миллиона долларов. В 2020 году на федеральные избирательные кампании в Соединенных Штатах было потрачено почти 14 миллиардов долларов, что делает их «самой дорогой кампанией в истории США», — «более чем вдвое» больше, чем было потрачено на выборы 2016 года. Критики жалуются, что после ряда решений Верховного суда, в частности Citizens United v. FEC (2010), «очень богатым» теперь разрешено тратить неограниченные суммы на кампании (через политические комитеты, особенно «Super PACs»), и не давать избирателям знать, кто пытается повлиять на них (внося «темные деньги», которые скрывают личность донора). Общественное беспокойство по поводу влияния крупных доноров в политических кампаниях нашло отражение в опросе общественного мнения 2018 года, в котором было установлено, что 74% опрошенных американцев считают «очень» важным, чтобы «люди, которые дают много денег избранным должностным лицам», «не имели большего политического влияния, чем другие люди», 90% опрошенных американцев считают, что это «очень» или «несколько» важно, но 72% считают, что это «совсем не» или «не слишком» важно. Законы, регулирующие пожертвования, расходы и государственное финансирование кампаний, были приняты на федеральном уровне Конгрессом и применяются Федеральной избирательной комиссией (FEC), независимым федеральным агентством. Некоммерческие, неправительственные организации, такие как Центр ответственной политики, Служба защиты потребителей и Общее дело, отслеживают, как собираются и расходуются деньги. Хотя большинство расходов на кампании финансируется частными источниками (в основном через доноров, работающих в субсидируемых отраслях), государственное финансирование доступно для кандидатов в президенты Соединенных Штатов как во время праймериз, так и на всеобщих выборах. Для получения государственной субсидии необходимо выполнить требования к квалификации, а те, кто принимает государственное финансирование, обычно подлежат ограничениям по расходам. Соревнования за не федеральные должности регулируются государственным и местным законодательством. Более половины штатов разрешают корпоративные и профсоюзные взносы, некоторые штаты имеют более строгие ограничения на взносы, а некоторые штаты не имеют ограничений вообще. «Темные деньги»: расходы на оказание влияния на выборы, когда источник денег не раскрывается избирателям (см. ниже). «Мягкие деньги»: деньги, которые не должны «поддерживать выборы или поражение федерального кандидата», а вместо этого использоваться для «государственных и местных выборов и общей деятельности по «строительству партии», включая кампании по регистрации избирателей и мобилизацию избирателей». В отличие от «твердых денег», на них «нет федеральных лимитов взносов» (см. ниже). «Твердые деньги»: «регулируемые взносы (см. ниже) от отдельного лица или политического комитета федеральному кандидату, партийному комитету или другому политическому комитету, где деньги используются для федеральных выборов».
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
За десятилетия они росли намного быстрее. Джейн Майер отмечает, что в 1972 году политическое пожертвование в размере 2 миллионов долларов от страхового магната (У. Клемента Стоуна Ричарду М. Никсону) в 1972 году «вызвало общественное возмущение и способствовало движению, которое привело к реформам финансирования кампаний после Уотергейта». Но сумма, которая «считалась глубоко коррумпированной во время Уотергейта», была на сумму около 11 миллионов долларов с учетом инфляции к 2016 году, когда политическая сеть братьев Кох собрала 889 миллионов долларов для «политического военного фонда» на выборы того года. 2022 год.
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
Около 16,7 миллиарда долларов было потрачено на избирательный цикл 2021 и 2022 годов, что превышает показатель последних промежуточных выборов. Согласно OpenSecrets, из 25 крупнейших доноров на избирательный цикл 2021–2022 годов 18 — республиканцы, которые потратили на 200 миллионов долларов больше, чем демократы, и значительная часть денег демократов не была распределена. В конгрессиональных выборах 2022 года источники финансирования кампаний распределились следующим образом: OpenSecrets предоставляет разбивку расходов на президентские и конгрессиональные кампании для федеральных выборов с 1990 по 2022 год. Конгрессиональные выборы 2022 года:
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
Малые индивидуальные доноры: 19,4%
Крупные индивидуальные доноры: 52,5%
Политические комитеты: 23,4%
Самофинансирование: 2,0%
Демократы Палаты представителей: 20,9% 42% 23,1% 0,8%
Республиканцы Палаты представителей: 27,5% 59,3% 8,9% 0,0%
Демократы Сената: 35,1% 45,7% 11,2% 0,1%
Республиканцы Сената:
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
2020 год
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
В 2020 году на федеральные избирательные кампании было потрачено 14,4 миллиарда долларов, — 5,7 миллиарда долларов на президентские выборы и 8,7 миллиарда долларов на конгрессиональные выборы, — согласно OpenSecrets.org. Расходы на президентскую гонку составили почти 3,3 миллиарда долларов, что почти вдвое превышает показатель 2016 года.
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
2010 год
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
В избирательный цикл промежуточных выборов 2010 года кандидаты, политические партии и независимые группы потратили в общей сложности 3,6 миллиарда долларов на федеральные выборы. Средний победитель на выборах в Палату представителей потратил 1,4 миллиона долларов на свою кампанию. Средний победитель на выборах в Сенат потратил 9,8 миллиона долларов.
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
2008 год
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
В 2008 году кандидаты, политические партии и независимые группы потратили в общей сложности 5,3 миллиарда долларов на федеральные выборы. Сумма, потраченная только на президентскую гонку, составила 2,4 миллиарда долларов, и более 1 миллиарда долларов из этой суммы было потрачено кампаниями двух основных кандидатов: Барак Обама потратил 730 миллионов долларов в своей избирательной кампании, а Джон Маккейн — 333 миллиона долларов. Общая сумма, потраченная Обамой и Маккейном, была рекордной на тот момент.
The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 (407556.0 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years), while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million (equivalent to $3.87 in 1990 is equivalent to about <calculated amount> in recent years million in ) to $26.53 million. In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U. S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics complain that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Public concern over the influence of large donors in political campaigns was reflected in a 2018 opinion poll which found that 74% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" important that "people who give a lot of money to elected officials" "not have more political influence than other people",90% of Americans surveyed thought it was "very" or "somewhat" important but that 72% thought this was "not at all" or "not too" much the case. Laws regulating campaign donations, spending and public funding have been enacted at the federal level by the Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Nonprofit, non governmental grassroots organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics, Consumer Watchdog and Common Cause track how money is raised and spent. Although most campaign spending is privately financed (largely through donors that work in subsidized industries), public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money. Races for non federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. , some states have stricter limits on contributions, while some states have no limits at all. "Dark money": spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters (see below). Soft Money: money that is not supposed to "advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate", but instead to be used for "state and local elections and generic 'party building' activities, including voter registration campaigns and get out the vote drives". Unlike hard money, there are "no federal contribution limits" on it (see below). Hard Money: "regulated contributions (see below) "from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election"</small>
Over the decades it has risen much faster. Jane Mayer notes that in 1972 a $2 million dollar political donation by an insurance magnate (by W. Clement Stone to Richard M. Nixon) in 1972 "caused public outrage and contributed to a movement that produced the post Watergate reforms in campaign financing". But the sum that "was considered deeply corrupt during the Watergate days" was worth about $11 million adjusted for inflation by 2016, when the Koch brothers political network bundled $889 million for a "political war chest" for that year's election. 2022
An estimated $16.7 billion was spent on the 2021 and 2022 election cycle, exceeding that of the last mid term election. According to Open Secrets, of the 25 top donors for the 2021 2022 cycle, 18 are Republican, who have outspent Democrats by $200 million, and much of the Democrat's money was not disbursed. In the 2022 Congressional races, the sources of campaign contributions broke down as follows:OpenSecrets provides a breakdown of spending for presidential and congressional campaigns for federal elections from 1990 2022. 2022 Congressional races Small Individual Contributors Large Individual Contributors Political Action Committees Self Financing House Democrats 19.4% 52.5% 23.4% 2.0% House Republicans 20.9% 42% 23.1% 0.8% Senate Democrats 27.5% 59.3% 8.9% 0.0% Senate Republicans 35.1% 45.7% 11.2% 0.1%
2020
In 2020, $14.4 billion was spent on federal election campaigns — $5.7 billion for the presidential election and $8.7 billion for congressional races—according to Open Secrets. org. came to almost $3.3 billion, nearly doubling the 2016 number. 2010
In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on their campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million. 2008
In 2008, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total amount spent by Obama and McCain was a record at the time.
Влияние на получателей
Экспериментальное исследование 2016 года, опубликованное в Американском журнале политических наук, показало, что политики становились более доступными для встреч с отдельными лицами, если считали, что эти лица сделали пожертвования на их кампанию. Исследование 2011 года выявило, что "даже с учетом прошлых контрактов и других факторов, компании, которые вносили более крупные суммы денег в поддержку федеральных кандидатов, впоследствии получали больше контрактов". Исследование 2016 года в журнале "Политика" показало, что отрасли, находящиеся под контролем комитетов, сокращали свои взносы конгрессменам, недавно покинувшим эти комитеты, и немедленно увеличивали взносы новым членам комитетов, что является "доказательством того, что корпорации и бизнес-ПАК используют пожертвования для получения немедленного доступа и поддержки, предполагая, что они, по крайней мере, рассчитывают на влияние пожертвований на политику". Исследование, опубликованное в 2020 году политологом из Чикагского университета Энтони Фаулером и политологами из Северо-Западного университета Харицем Гарро и Йоргом Л. Спенкухом, не обнаружило доказательств того, что корпорации, пожертвовавшие кандидату, получали какие-либо финансовые выгоды от его победы на выборах. Однако другое исследование показало, что увеличение лоббистской деятельности снижает эффективную налоговую ставку корпорации: ожидается, что увеличение расходов на лоббирование на 1% приведет к снижению налоговой ставки корпорации в следующем году на 0,5–1,6%. Еще одно исследование, основанное на данных из 48 штатов, показало, что каждый доллар, "инвестированный" в корпоративные пожертвования на избирательные кампании, приносит 6,65 доллара в виде снижения корпоративных налогов в штате.
Влияние на успех на выборах
По крайней мере, по мнению одного ученого (Джеффри Коуэна, руководителя кафедры коммуникационного лидерства имени семьи Анненбергов в USC), расходы на избирательную кампанию не коррелируют с победой на выборах. "Нужно иметь достаточно средств, но необязательно больше всех". Предполагалось, что победа Дональда Трампа над хорошо финансируемыми соперниками демонстрирует границы влияния денег в политике. Однако, сравнив результаты выборов с объемом расходов кандидатов на выборы в Конгресс, OpenSecrets обнаружил, что, хотя "деньги не всегда гарантируют победу, как правило, это так".
Критика решений
По крайней мере, многие консерваторы, такие как бывший министр образования Бетси ДеВос и Джеймс Бопп из Фонда наследия, считают, что юридические ограничения на финансирование политики являются несправедливым ограничением свободы слова, которому следует противостоять по принципу. Бопп пишет, что "возможно, в ходе политических кампаний тратится недостаточно средств, а не слишком много", поскольку правительство больше и сильнее, чем должно быть, и часто согласен с тем, что реформа финансирования кампаний, ограничивающая расходы на политические кампании, является неконституционным ограничением "свободы слова и объединений граждан". ДеВос сравнивает ограничения на финансирование кампаний с тиранией "Большого брата" из романа "1984" и защищает использование денег для приобретения политического влияния во имя консервативного правления и "традиционных американских ценностей". На более практическом уровне, сторонники противоположного мнения (Дэвид Примо и Джеффри Милио) утверждают, что общественность была обманута "постоянным посылом", распространяемым "СМИ, политиками, группами реформаторов и учеными", о том, что деньги в политике – это плохо. На самом деле, это общественное неодобрение вызвано тем, что американцы устали от политики в целом, и деньги являются лишь "удобным пугалом". Более того, многие представления общественности о коррупции в политике не соответствуют действительности. Эксперты в области финансирования избирательных кампаний гораздо менее циничны, чем общественность, в отношении негативного влияния денег на политику.
campaign finance to the tyranny of 1984's "Big Brother", and defends the use of money to buy political influence in the service of conservative governance and "traditional American virtues". On a more practical level, Contrarians (David Primo and Jeffrey Milyo) argue that the public has been deceived by "the incessant message" propagated by 'the media, politicians, reform groups, and scholars", that money in politics is bad. In fact this public disapproval comes from Americans being fed up with politics in general and money is actually "just a convenient bugaboo". Furthermore, many things the public believes about corruption in politics are not true. Experts on campaign finance are much less cynical than the public about the nefarious influence of money in politics.</blockquote>
Государственные и местные правила взносов
Избирательные кампании за должности, не являющиеся федеральными, регулируются законодательством штатов и местных органов власти, и взносы на эти кампании не содержатся в федеральной базе данных избирательных кампаний. Более чем в половине штатов разрешены корпоративные и профсоюзные взносы в определенном объеме, зачастую аналогичном взносам от физических лиц (то есть ниже общенациональных лимитов), в то время как в ряде штатов (Алабама, Индиана, Айова, Небраска, Орегон, Пенсильвания, Техас, Юта и Вирджиния) вообще не установлены никакие ограничения.
Сбор в пакеты
Одним из последствий ограничения личных взносов от любого отдельного лица является то, что избирательные кампании привлекают "объединителей" – людей, которые могут собирать взносы от многих лиц в организации или сообществе и передавать общую сумму кампании. Кампании часто отмечают этих объединителей почетными званиями и, в некоторых случаях, эксклюзивными мероприятиями с участием кандидата. Хотя практика объединения взносов существовала в различных формах с момента принятия FECA, в 2000-х годах она приобрела более структурированный характер, что было инициировано "Пионерами Буша" для президентских кампаний Джорджа Буша-младшего в 2000 и 2004 годах. В ходе кампании 2008 года шесть ведущих кандидатов на предварительных выборах (три демократа и три республиканца) заявили о наличии в общей сложности почти двух тысяч объединителей. Широко критикуется практика награждения президентами США объединителей политическими назначениями, особенно на должности послов, где кандидаты не обладают необходимой квалификацией.
Защитные группы/группы по интересам
Лоббисты часто оказывают помощь в финансировании избирательных кампаний в Конгрессе, организуя мероприятия по сбору средств, создавая политические комитеты действий (PAC) и привлекая пожертвования от своих клиентов. Многие лоббисты становятся казначеями и сборщиками средств для членов Конгресса.
Расходы внешних организаций/независимые расходы
Организации, помимо отдельных кандидатов и их избирательных кампаний, также вносят вклад в финансирование выборов. Эти организации могут жертвовать средства на политические кампании (в соответствии с указанными выше лимитами), но кроме того они могут напрямую тратить деньги на влияние на выборы посредством так называемых "независимых расходов". Всем внешним группам, не являющимся политическими партиями – за исключением небольшого числа традиционных политических комитетов (PAC), осуществляющих независимые расходы, – разрешено принимать неограниченные суммы денег от физических лиц, корпораций или профсоюзов.
Комитеты политических действий
Федеральный закон допускает несколько типов комитетов политических действий (КПД). Связанные КПД: Закон о федеральной избирательной кампании запрещает корпорациям и профсоюзам вносить прямые взносы или осуществлять расходы в связи с федеральными выборами. Однако эти организации могут спонсировать "отдельный сегрегированный фонд" (SSF), известный как "связанный КПД". Эти КПД могут получать и собирать средства только от "ограниченного класса", который обычно состоит из руководителей и акционеров в случае корпорации и членов в случае профсоюза или другой заинтересованной группы. Взамен спонсор КПД может покрывать все административные расходы, связанные с его деятельностью и сбором средств. По состоянию на январь 2009 года было зарегистрировано 1598 корпоративных КПД, 272 связанных с профсоюзами и 995 с торговыми организациями. Не связанные КПД: Не связанные КПД финансово независимы, то есть они должны оплачивать свои административные расходы за счет собранных ими взносов. Хотя организация может оказывать финансовую поддержку не связанному КПД, эти расходы считаются взносами в КПД и подлежат ограничениям по сумме и другим требованиям закона. КПД лидеров: Избранные должностные лица и политические партии не могут вносить непосредственно кандидатам суммы, превышающие федеральный лимит. Однако они могут создать КПД лидеров, который осуществляет независимые расходы. Если эти расходы не координируются с другими кандидатами, они не подлежат ограничениям. В соответствии с правилами FEC, КПД лидеров являются не связанными КПД и могут принимать пожертвования от физических лиц и других КПД. Поскольку действующим должностным лицам легче привлекать взносы, КПД лидеров позволяют доминирующим партиям завоевывать места, принадлежащие другим партиям. КПД лидеров, спонсируемый избранным должностным лицом, не может использовать средства для поддержки собственной избирательной кампании этого должностного лица. Однако он может финансировать поездки, административные расходы, консультантов, проведение опросов и другие расходы, не связанные с кампанией. Объем средств, направляемых в КПД, растет. КПД конгресса увеличили сбор средств с 131 миллиона долларов в 1978 году до 466 миллионов долларов в 2018 году (Sides et al., 2018). Несмотря на то, что многие считают, что основная часть расходов во время политической кампании поступает от КПД, данные свидетельствуют об обратном. В ходе выборов 2016 года индивидуальные пожертвования кандидатам составили 52 процента средств, собранных кандидатами в Палату представителей, по сравнению с 32 процентами, собранными КПД (Side et al., 2018). Это противоречит распространенному в СМИ мнению о том, что КПД обладают властью в отношении расходов на выборы. В ходе выборов 2018 года КПД лидеров пожертвовали более 67 миллионов долларов федеральным кандидатам. "Супер КПД": Супер КПД отличаются от других КПД отсутствием юридических ограничений на объем средств, которые они могут привлекать от физических лиц, корпораций, профсоюзов и других групп, при условии соблюдения правил их деятельности. Официально они известны как "комитеты, осуществляющие только независимые расходы", поскольку они не могут вносить взносы в избирательные кампании кандидатов или партий, а должны осуществлять любые политические расходы независимо от кампаний. Хотя супер КПД юридически обязаны раскрывать своих доноров, некоторые из этих групп фактически являются каналами "темных денег", поскольку основную часть их финансирования невозможно проследить до первоначального донора. "Супер КПД" впервые появились на выборах 2010 года. Возможность создания супер КПД была обусловлена двумя судебными решениями. Во-первых, в январе 2010 года Верховный суд США в деле Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission постановил, что правительство не может запрещать профсоюзам и корпорациям осуществлять независимые расходы в политических целях. Через два месяца, в деле Speechnow.org v. FEC, Федеральный апелляционный суд округа Колумбия постановил, что взносы в группы, осуществляющие только независимые расходы, не могут быть ограничены по размеру и источнику. Независимые расходы продолжают расти: в 2002 году на выборы в Конгресс было потрачено 17 миллионов долларов, в 2006 году – 52 миллиона долларов, а в 2010 году – 290 миллионов долларов. В 10 штатах независимые расходы составили 19% от общей суммы денег, вложенных в кандидатов в период с 2005 по 2010 год. В трех из этих штатов независимые расходы превысили 25% от взносов, предоставленных кандидатам. Критики (такие как журналист Матеа Голд, представитель Дэвид Э. Прайс) выразили обеспокоенность тем, что супер КПД находят "креативные способы действовать совместно" с кандидатами, а регулирование их деятельности со стороны FEC является номинальным. Гибридный КПД: Гибридный КПД (иногда называемый Комитетом Кэри) аналогичен супер КПД, но может вносить ограниченные суммы денег непосредственно в кампании и комитеты, одновременно осуществляя независимые расходы в неограниченном объеме.
501c) организации
Организации 501(c)(4) "социальное благосостояние", 501(c)(5) "профсоюзы" и 501(c)(6) "торгово-промышленные палаты", в отличие от благотворительных организаций 501(c)(3), могут участвовать в политических кампаниях и выборах, при условии, что "основная цель" организации – лоббирование вопросов, а не политическая агитация, и они не обязаны публично раскрывать информацию о своих донорах.[31] Этот аспект законодательства привел к широкому использованию организаций 501(c)(4) для сбора и пожертвования средств на политическую деятельность.[32] NAACP, Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club и National Rifle Association – известные примеры организаций, которые работают как организации 501(c)(4) "социальное благосостояние" и занимаются политическим лоббированием.
527 организаций
Организация 527 или группа 527 – это тип американской организации, освобожденной от налогов, получившей название по "Разделу 527" Налогового кодекса США. Технически, почти все политические комитеты, включая комитеты кандидатов на уровне штатов, местных и федеральных органов власти, традиционные комитеты политических действий (PAC), "Супер ПАК" и политические партии являются "организациями 527". Однако в общепринятой практике этот термин обычно применяется только к организациям, которые не подпадают под регулирование законами о финансировании избирательных кампаний на уровне штатов или федеральном уровне, поскольку они не занимаются "прямым призывом" к избранию или поражению кандидата или партии. При условии соблюдения законодательства, на взносы в организации 527 не распространяются верхние пределы, и нет ограничений на круг лиц, которые могут делать взносы. На эти организации также не налагаются ограничения по расходам. Тем не менее, они обязаны регистрироваться в налоговой службе, публиковать информацию о своих донорах и регулярно представлять отчеты о взносах и расходах.
Политические партии
Комитеты политических партий могут вносить средства непосредственно кандидатам, в пределах установленных выше лимитов взносов. Национальные и региональные партийные комитеты могут также осуществлять дополнительные "скоординированные расходы", в пределах лимитов, для поддержки своих кандидатов на всеобщих выборах. Национальные партийные комитеты могут также осуществлять "независимые расходы" в неограниченном объеме для поддержки или противодействия федеральным кандидатам. Однако, начиная с 2002 года, национальным партиям запрещено принимать средства, превышающие лимиты, установленные законом FECA для избирательных кампаний.
Правила раскрытия информации
Закон о финансировании избирательных кампаний на федеральном уровне требует от комитетов кандидатов, партийных комитетов и политических комитетов (PAC) подавать периодические отчеты, раскрывающие собранные и потраченные средства. Федеральные комитеты кандидатов обязаны указывать, в частности, все политические комитеты (PAC) и партийные комитеты, делающие им взносы, а также предоставлять имена, профессии, места работы и адреса всех лиц, чьи взносы в течение избирательного цикла превышают 200 долларов. Кроме того, они должны раскрывать расходы, произведенные в пользу любого физического или юридического лица. Федеральная избирательная комиссия ведет эту базу данных и публикует информацию о кампаниях и донорах на своем веб-сайте. (Аналогичные требования к отчетности существуют во многих штатах в отношении кандидатов на государственные и местные должности, а также для политических комитетов (PAC) и партийных комитетов.) В правилах раскрытия информации о финансировании избирательных кампаний существует множество лазеек. Различные организации, включая OpenSecrets, агрегируют данные о политических взносах, чтобы получить представление о влиянии различных групп. В августе 2014 года было выпущено новое приложение для смартфонов под названием "Buypartisan", позволяющее потребителям сканировать штрих-коды товаров в продуктовых магазинах и узнавать, куда эта корпорация и ее руководители направляли свои политические взносы.
Ранние попытки регулировать деньги в кампаниях
Против этого влияния нарастала оппозиция. В 1905 году Тедди Рузвельт безуспешно пытался добиться от Конгресса принятия закона о запрете всех политических пожертвований от корпораций.
Восемь волшебных слов
Это также продемонстрировало ограниченную сферу действия законов о финансировании избирательных кампаний в отношении комитетов кандидатов и партий, а также других комитетов, основной целью которых является избрание кандидатов, или высказываний, которые "явно призывали" к избранию или поражению кандидатов. В стремлении провести различие между финансированием, которое можно ограничить, поскольку оно направлено на избрание кандидата и, следовательно, подвержено коррупции, и финансированием независимых расходов, которое не может быть ограничено из-за отсутствия угрозы коррупции, Суд в сноске 52 к данному решению перечислил восемь слов или фраз – "голосуйте за", "изберите", "поддержите", "отдайте свой голос за", "в Конгресс", "голосуйте против", "победите", "отвергните" или любые их вариации – в качестве примеров высказываний, которые квалифицируются как "явный призыв". Именно определение "явного призыва" привело к появлению групп, действующих с непрозрачным финансированием.
Случайные проверки в 1970-х годах
В 1970-х годах Федеральная избирательная комиссия проводила случайные проверки финансирования избирательных кампаний депутатов Палаты представителей. Эти проверки выявили, что нарушения в финансировании кампаний имели почти половина членов Палаты представителей. Депутаты, чьи кампании были проверены, чаще уходили в отставку. Среди тех, кто не ушел в отставку, их переизбрание стало более сложным.
FEC против Висконсина Право на жизнь (2007)
Доступ к положениям о "коммуникациях в период предвыборной кампании" в BCRA также был ограничен в постановлении Верховного суда 2007 года по делу Федеральной избирательной комиссии против Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. В деле Wisconsin Right to Life Верховный суд постановил, что ограничения на "коммуникации в период предвыборной кампании" применяются только к рекламе, которую "можно разумно истолковать как призыв к поддержке или противодействию кандидату". Таким образом, если рекламу можно было бы разумно истолковать как "рекламу по общественно значимым вопросам", она освобождалась бы от ограничений BCRA.
Citizens United против FEC (2010) и SpeechNOW.org против FEC (2010)
Закон о финансировании избирательных кампаний в Соединенных Штатах резко изменился после двух судебных решений 2010 года: решения Верховного суда по делу Citizens United v. FEC и решения апелляционного суда округа Колумбия по делу SpeechNow.org v. FEC. Согласно докладу исследовательской службы Конгресса за 2011 год, эти два решения представляют собой "наиболее фундаментальные изменения в законодательстве о финансировании избирательных кампаний за десятилетия". Citizens United, основываясь на принципах свободы слова, отменил ограничения на возможность организаций, принимающих средства от корпораций или профсоюзов, проводить агитационные кампании. Суд рассудил, что ограничения, разрешенные делом Бакли, были оправданы необходимостью предотвращения коррупции или ее видимости, и что это обоснование не распространяется на корпоративные пожертвования независимым организациям. Citizens United отменило дело 1990 года Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, в котором Верховный суд поддержал закон штата Мичиган о финансировании избирательных кампаний, запрещавший корпорациям использовать собственные средства для поддержки или противодействия кандидатам на выборах. Через два месяца единогласная коллегия из девяти судей Апелляционного суда США по округу Колумбия вынесла решение по делу SpeechNow, которое, опираясь на Citizens United, установило, что Конгресс не может ограничивать пожертвования организациям, осуществляющим только независимые расходы, то есть расходы, которые не "координируются" с избирательной кампанией кандидата. Эти решения привели к появлению PAC, специализирующихся исключительно на независимых расходах, обычно известных как "Super PACs". Super PACs, в соответствии с решениями Citizens United и SpeechNow, могут привлекать неограниченные средства от частных лиц и корпораций и использовать их для агитационной рекламы, при условии, что Super PAC не координирует свою деятельность с кандидатом.
МакКатчон против Федеральной избирательной комиссии (2014)
19 февраля 2013 года Верховный суд объявил о своем намерении рассмотреть дело "МакКатчон против Федеральной избирательной комиссии", оспаривающее ограничения на размер пожертвований, которые физические лица могут делать непосредственно политическим партиям и кандидатам на федеральные должности. 2 апреля 2014 года Суд вынес решение, признав, что установленные совокупные лимиты на взносы в избирательные кампании противоречат Первой поправке к Конституции.
Государственное финансирование кампаний
После решения суда по делу "Граждане Объединены против Федеральной избирательной комиссии" и других судебных решений, отменивших ограничения на некоторые расходы в ходе избирательных кампаний, реформаторы, обеспокоенные тем, что политическая система несправедливо смещена "в пользу немногих доноров, способных делать крупные взносы", сосредоточились на государственном финансировании политических кампаний. Например, Центр правосудия Бреннана (Brennan Center for Justice) продвигает "государственное финансирование от малых доноров", то есть систему, при которой "государственные средства соответствуют и увеличивают небольшие пожертвования", с тем расчетом, что кандидаты будут заинтересованы "привлекать множество сторонников, а не только нескольких крупных доноров". В ходе кампании 2012 года государственное финансирование также было доступно для финансирования национальных съездов основных партий. Чтобы получить субсидии на предварительных выборах (праймериз), кандидаты должны собрать не менее 5000 долларов в частном порядке как минимум в 20 штатах. Во время праймериз, в обмен на согласие ограничить свои расходы в соответствии с установленной законом формулой, кандидаты получают сопоставимые выплаты за первые 250 долларов каждого индивидуального взноса (до половины лимита расходов). Однако кандидаты, отказывающиеся от сопоставимых средств, свободны тратить столько денег, сколько смогут собрать в частном порядке. С момента начала этой программы в 1976 году и до 1992 года почти все кандидаты, имевшие на это право, принимали сопоставимые средства на предварительных выборах. В 1996 году республиканец Стив Форбс отказался от участия в программе. В 2000 году Форбс и Джордж Буш отказались от участия. В 2004 году Буш, а также демократы Джон Керри и Говард Дин решили не принимать сопоставимые средства на праймериз. В 2008 году демократы Хиллари Клинтон и Барак Обама, а также республиканцы Джон Маккейн, Руди Джулиани, Митт Ромни и Рон Пол решили не принимать средства на предварительных выборах. Республиканский Том Танкредо и демократы Крис Додд, Джо Байден и Джон Эдвардс согласились на государственное финансирование. С кампании 2012 года лишь немногие кандидаты решили принять сопоставимые средства. В 2012 году их получили только Бадди Ромер (безуспешный кандидат от партий "Американцы за перемены" и Реформ), Гэри Джонсон (впоследствии выдвинутый кандидатом от Либертарианской партии) и Джилл Стейн (впоследствии выдвинутая кандидатом от партии "Зеленых"). (Средства на праймериз не ограничены кандидатами от крупных партий.) В 2016 году сопоставимые средства на праймериз получили только Мартин О'Мэлли (демократ) и Джилл Стейн ("Зеленые"). Помимо сопоставимых средств на праймериз, программа государственного финансирования также оказывает помощь в финансировании кампаний кандидатов на всеобщих выборах от основных (и некоторых других) партий. Суммы грантов для кандидатов на всеобщих выборах от основных партий корректируются каждый год президентских выборов с учетом роста стоимости жизни. В 2012 году кандидаты на всеобщих выборах от основных партий имели право на получение 91,2 миллиона долларов из государственных средств, однако ни демократическая, ни республиканская кампании не приняли эти средства. Если кандидаты на всеобщих выборах принимают государственные средства, они соглашаются не собирать и не тратить частные средства или тратить более 50 000 долларов из собственных средств. Следовательно, кандидаты на всеобщих выборах, способные собрать сумму, превышающую предлагаемую сумму государственных средств, могут отказаться от предложения государственного финансирования в пользу частного сбора и расходования большей суммы денег. Ни один кандидат от крупной партии не отказался от государственных средств на всеобщие выборы с 1976 года, когда программа была запущена, до тех пор, пока Барак Обама не сделал это в 2008 году. Обама снова отказался от государственных средств для кампании 2012 года, как и кандидат от республиканцев Митт Ромни, что привело к первым выборам с момента запуска программы, на которых ни один из кандидатов от крупных партий не принял федеральное финансирование. Ни Дональд Трамп, ни Хиллари Клинтон не приняли федеральное финансирование на всеобщие выборы 2016 года. Ранее государственное финансирование было доступно для финансирования съездов основных (и некоторых других) партий для выдвижения кандидатов в президенты. В 2012 году каждая из основных партий имела право на получение 18,2 миллиона долларов государственных средств для своих съездов. Однако положения о государственном финансировании съездов были отменены в 2014 году. Право других партий на государственное финансирование определяется их результатами на предыдущих выборах: для квалификации необходимо набрать 5% голосов избирателей. Единственной партией, кроме республиканской и демократической, получившей государственное финансирование на всеобщих выборах, была Партия реформ, которая получила право на государственное финансирование в 1996 и 2000 годах благодаря сильным результатам Росса Перо на выборах 1992 и 1996 годов. Кроме того, кампания Джона Б. Андерсона в 1980 году получила выплаты из государственных средств после выборов, поскольку он набрал более 5% голосов избирателей. Президентская система государственного финансирования финансируется за счет отчисления в размере 3 долларов с налоговой декларации каждого налогоплательщика (это отчисление не увеличивает сумму налога, подлежащую уплате, а лишь направляет 3 доллара из общего фонда правительства в президентский фонд). Число налогоплательщиков, использующих это отчисление, неуклонно снижается с начала 1980-х годов, и к 2006 году менее 8% налогоплательщиков направляли средства в фонд, что приводило к его хронической нехватке денежных средств. Однако тот факт, что все меньше кандидатов решают претендовать на государственное финансирование, ослабил прежний дефицит средств фонда. Движение "Чистые выборы" потерпело несколько поражений в 2000-х и 2010-х годах. Предложение 89, внесенное на рассмотрение избирателей Калифорнии в ноябре 2006 года и спонсируемое Калифорнийским профсоюзом медсестер, предусматривающее государственное финансирование избирательных кампаний и строгие ограничения на взносы корпораций, было отклонено. В 2008 году неполитический Закон о справедливых выборах Калифорнии был принят законодательным собранием, и губернатор Шварценеггер подписал его, но закон вступил бы в силу только после одобрения избирателями на референдуме в 2010 году. В июне 2010 года избиратели решительно отклонили это предложение, 57% против 43%. Предложение о внедрении "Чистых выборов" в Аляске было отклонено двумя голосами против одного в 2008 году, а пилотная программа в Нью-Джерси была прекращена в 2008 году из-за опасений по поводу ее конституционности и неэффективности в достижении своих целей. В 2010 году избиратели Портленда использовали референдум для отмены закона о "чистых выборах", первоначально принятого городским советом. В 2006 году в деле Randall v. Sorrell Верховный суд постановил, что значительная часть закона Вермонта о "Чистых выборах" является неконституционной. В 2008 году решение Верховного суда по делу Davis v. Federal Election Commission показало, что ключевая часть большинства законов о "Чистых выборах" — положение, предоставляющее дополнительные средства ("спасательные средства") участвующим кандидатам, которые тратят меньше, чем не участвующие кандидаты, — является неконституционной. В 2011 году в деле Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett Верховный суд отменил положение о сопоставимых средствах закона Аризоны на основании Первой поправки к Конституции США. Массачусетс имеет гибридную систему государственного финансирования для государственных должностей с 1978 года. Налогоплательщики могут внести 1 доллар в фонд выборов штата, поставив галочку в своей годовой налоговой декларации. Кандидаты, соглашающиеся с ограничениями расходов, имеют право на получение средств из этого фонда. Кандидаты, не участвующие в программе, должны оценить свои расходы, и это повысит лимит для участвующих оппонентов, если он превысит согласованный лимит. Избиратели Сиэтла одобрили программу Democracy Voucher в 2015 году, которая предоставляет жителям города четыре ваучера по 25 долларов для пожертвований участвующим кандидатам. Ваучеры предлагались в других городах и штатах как средство диверсификации круга доноров, помощи большему числу кандидатов в выдвижении и повышения политической вовлеченности.
political deck being unfairly stacked "in favor of the few donors able to give large contributions" concentrated on public finance of political campaigns. The Brennan Center for Justice, for example, promotes "small donor public financing", i. e. a system where "public funds match and multiply small donations", the idea being candidates would be incentivized "to seek out many supporters, not just a few big donors". Through the 2012 campaign, public funding was also available to finance the major parties' national nominating conventions. To receive subsidies in the primary, candidates must qualify by privately raising $5000 each in at least 20 states. During the primaries, in exchange for agreeing to limit their spending according to a statutory formula, eligible candidates receive matching payments for the first $250 of each individual contribution (up to half of the spending limit). However, candidates who decline matching funds are free to spend as much money as they can raise privately. From the inception of this program in 1976 through 1992, almost all candidates who could qualify accepted matching funds in the primary. In 1996 Republican Steve Forbes opted out of the program. In 2000, Forbes and George W. Bush opted out. In 2004 Bush and Democrats John Kerry and Howard Dean chose not to take matching funds in the primary. In 2008, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and Republicans John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul decided not to take primary matching funds. Republican Tom Tancredo and Democrats Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards elected to take public financing. Since the 2012 primary campaign, few candidates have chosen to accept matching funds. In 2012, only Buddy Roemer (who ran unsuccessfully for the Americans Elect and Reform Party nominations), Gary Johnson (the eventual Libertarian nominee), and Jill Stein (the eventual Green Party nominee) received matching funds in the primaries. (Primary season matching funds are not limited to major party candidates.) In 2016, only Martin O'Malley (Democrat) and Jill Stein (Green) received matching funds in the primaries. In addition to primary matching funds, the public funding program also assists with funding the major party (and eligible minor party) nominees' general election campaigns. The grants for the major parties' general election nominees are adjusted each Presidential election year to account for increases in the cost of living. In 2012, the parties' general election nominees were eligible to receive $91.2 million in public funds, although neither the Democratic or Republican campaigns chose to accept those funds. If general election candidates accept public funds, they agree not to raise or spend private funds or to spend more than $50,000 of their personal resources. Hence, general election candidates who have the ability to raise more than the amount of public funds offered may decline the offer of public funds in favor of privately raising and spending a larger sum of money. No major party nominee turned down government funds for the general election from 1976, when the program was launched, until Barack Obama did so in 2008. Obama again declined government funds for the 2012 campaign, as did Republican nominee Mitt Romney, setting up the first election since the program's launch in which neither major party nominee accepted federal funding. Nor did either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton accept federal funding for the 2016 general election. Public funding was formerly available to finance the major parties' (and eligible minor parties') presidential nominating conventions. In 2012, each major party was entitled to $18.2 million in public funds for their conventions. However, the provisions for public funding of nominating conventions were eliminated in 2014. Eligibility of minor parties for public funds is based on showing in the previous election, with 5% of the popular vote needed to qualify. The only party other than the Republicans and Democrats to receive government funding in a general election was the Reform Party, which qualified for public funding in 1996 and 2000 on the basis of Ross Perot's strong showing in the 1992 and 1996 elections. In addition, John B. Anderson's 1980 campaign received payments of public funds after the election because he had attained more than 5% of the popular vote. The presidential public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check off on individual tax returns (the check off does not increase the filer's taxes, but merely directs $3 of the government's general fund to the presidential fund). The number of taxpayers who use the check off has fallen steadily since the early 1980s, until by 2006 fewer than 8 percent of taxpayers were directing money to the fund, leaving the fund chronically short of cash. However, the fact that fewer candidates have chosen to apply for public funding has alleviated the fund's former monetary shortages. The "Clean Elections" movement had several defeats in the 2000s and 2010s. Proposition 89, a California ballot proposition in November 2006, sponsored by the California Nurses Union, that would have provided for public financing of political campaigns and strict contribution limits on corporations, was defeated. In 2008, the non partisan California Fair Elections Act passed the legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger signed it, but the law did not take effect unless approved by voters in a referendum in 2010. In June 2010, voters soundly rejected the measure, 57% to 43%. A proposal to implement Clean Elections in Alaska was voted down by a two to one margin in 2008, and a pilot program in New Jersey was terminated in 2008 amid concern about its constitutionality and that the law was ineffective in accomplishing its goals. In 2010, Portland voters used a referendum to repeal the clean elections law, originally enacted by the city council. In 2006, in Randall v. Sorrell, the Supreme Court held that large parts of Vermont's Clean Elections law were unconstitutional. In 2008, the Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission suggested that a key part of most Clean Election laws—a provision granting extra money (or "rescue funds") to participating candidates who are being outspent by non participating candidates—is unconstitutional. In 2011, in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, the Supreme Court struck down the matching funds provision of Arizona's law on First Amendment grounds. Massachusetts has had a hybrid public funding system for statewide offices since 1978. Taxpayers are allowed to contribute $1 to the statewide election fund by checking a box on their annual income taxes. Candidates who agree to spending limits are eligible for money from this fund. Non participating candidates are required to estimate spending, and this will raise the limit for participating opponents if higher than the agreed to limit. Seattle voters approved the Democracy voucher program in 2015, which gives city residents four $25 vouchers to donate to participating candidates. Vouchers have been proposed in other cities and states as a means to diversify the donor pool, help more candidates run for office, and boost political engagement.
Источники данных
+ Тип данных уровень финансирования кампаний лоббирование голосование Федеральный OpenSecrets OpenSecrets; MapLight MapLightState OpenSecrets поддерживает общедоступную базу данных с информацией о финансировании кампаний для выборов на уровне штатов во всех 50 штатах, начиная с 1989 года. MapLight располагает данными на уровне штатов для Висконсина и Калифорнии. В Пенсильвании база данных, доступная для поиска общественностью, поддерживается Департаментом штата. В Калифорнии государственный секретарь ведет публичные базы данных о финансировании кампаний и лоббистской деятельности. MapLight для Висконсина и Калифорнии. Местный MapLight для нескольких населенных пунктов. Многие местные органы власти имеют собственные требования к отчетности, которые здесь не указаны.