The basic principles of democratic systems include the clear separation of financial resources between state institutions and private individuals in order to avoid influence and corruption, as well as transparency and the purity of the electoral process.

Reigning President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 US presidential race, but together with Vice President Kamala Harris, who replaced him as the now official Democratic presidential candidate, a significant part of the amount collected for the joint campaign was already under the control of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and other party committees. stood, so Biden's withdrawal did not directly affect it.

More than a third of the money was kept by Biden's main campaign committee, which served as the official Democratic vehicle for the Biden-Harris re-election campaign. Campaign funding levels and movements are tracked by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent agency of the United States government that enforces federal campaign finance laws and oversees federal elections. The official documents of the FEC suggest that these funds (that is, the funds raised by the Biden and Harris campaigns) can be used by the Harris campaign.

It should be noted here that the Campaign Financing Act regulates campaign financing, advertising, accounting and campaign-related procedures. In addition to Supreme Court practice, federal campaign finance is regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The relevant regulations of the FEC stipulate that "the campaign custodian appointed by the main campaign committee of the political party's presidential candidate is also the campaign custodian of the political party's vice-presidential candidate." Biden's main campaign committee included Harris in joint FEC filings as a presidential candidate, and after Biden withdrew from the race anyway, the committee simply updated his FEC registration to simply replace Biden's name with Harris's.

The FEC and FECA do not regulate the situation where an incumbent vice president runs for re-election and then becomes a presidential candidate before being formally renominated at his or her party's convention. The FEC has never suggested that an incumbent vice president should establish his own campaign committee at any time, nor has it provided specific guidance as to when one would be necessary; recently, all incumbent presidential and vice presidential candidates have run for president together, sharing a single committee before and after formal renominations.

The Harris campaign is understandably relying on this precedent, so experts say it is also possible under current federal regulations that all or at least part of the Biden-Harris campaign money could be diverted to the DNC, which can receive an unlimited number of transfers from candidates. , and these can even double the legal contribution limits of presidential election campaigns.

Minnesota governor Tim Walz and Kamala Harris's vice presidential candidate received significant federal funding under the American Rescue Plan (ARP) during the COVID-19 epidemic, but he used some of this money for purposes unrelated to the treatment of the epidemic. For example, more than $4.3 million was used to cover parking costs for state workers, and $1 million was spent on a feasibility study for paid family leave. Another $1 million was spent on a state gun safety advertising campaign.

A significant part of these funds were not used to deal with the direct effects of the epidemic, but for other projects deemed important by the governor. This opaque money management practice raises the suspicion that there may be some connection between the funds used by Walz and the campaign of Kamala Harris.

Indeed, Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign raised significant amounts of money, and although there is no direct evidence that the COVID-19 aid was spent on Harris' campaign, the fact that Governor Walz previously handled federal funds in a non-transparent manner raises questions about the origin and use of campaign funds.

The US Presidential Election Financing Program provides federal funds to eligible candidates to cover their campaign expenses during the primaries and general elections. The program uses taxpayer money for the following purposes: - To supplement the first $250 of personal contributions for eligible presidential candidates participating in the primary campaign. In the general elections, for the financial support of the candidates of the major parties, as well as to help the candidates of the smaller, eligible parties.

Funding for the program comes from federal income taxes: the tax return form gives taxpayers the option to designate $3 for the Presidential Campaign Fund. This tax option — which does not affect the amount of tax payable — is the only source of federal public funding.

Between 1976 and 2012, public funding was available for presidential nominating conventions of major political parties and provided partial support for conventions of eligible minor parties. However, legislation passed in 2014 ended this support for conventions.

A December 13, 2023 Stanford University study looked at how the loosening of U.S. campaign finance laws over the past few decades affects the economy:

The results of the research show that increased campaign funding had a positive effect on economic performance. Between 2005 and 2016, states where restrictions were removed saw total state income (state GDP or adjusted gross income) increase by about 2%. This increase primarily affected the income of employees: wages rose by up to 3% in the affected states. In addition, capital gains also increased. Overall, rising campaign finance increased aggregate economic output and employment, benefiting both workers and business owners.

According to the study, political competition has increased as a result of the relaxation. State-level political rounds became more intense: the probability of a political change in the affected states increased (regardless of whether the given state had a Democrat or Republican governor). As a result of the decision, political polarization in the affected states decreased, as the newly elected actors pursued a more moderate policy.

Wider political participation, brought about by the increase in political influence of new firms, contributed to the improvement of the local business environment.

And Stanford University's July 2024 research reveals that a decision in the Citizens United case that removed restrictions on campaign financing brought surprising economic benefits to the United States. Greg Buchak and his colleagues found that the ruling boosted wages and jobs in affected states, especially among younger and smaller businesses. According to the research, all this has a beneficial effect on the labor market.

Although research has shown that the decision resulted in economic growth, Buchak cautions that the policy has changed significantly since then and that the long-term effects are not yet fully understood. Based on the results, the new campaign financing is not necessarily ideal from the point of view of democracy, but the decision improved the economic situation.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 US 310, 2010): a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court regarding campaign finance laws and freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The panel of judges ruled 5-4 that the First Amendment's free speech clause prohibits the federal government from restricting independent political campaign spending by corporations, nonprofits, unions and other associations. It should be noted that the Statista Research Department's summary of July 5, 2024 shows that, with the exception of a few years, Democratic candidates almost always spent more in terms of the total expenditures of presidential candidates between 1984 and 2024.

Source: alaptorvenyblog.hu

Cover photo: X/Kamala Harris