Campaign Finance Reform

American elections should not be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests

Under the current system, powerful interests decide who will have the money to get on the ballot and run a credible campaign. Voters are left with fewer choices and candidates more accountable to their large donors than constituents.

Background

The Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission will significantly expand the role that the most powerful corporations play in election financing.

In a shocking burst of judicial activism, the Supreme Court decided that corporations should be treated in the same manner as ordinary citizens and be allowed to spend the massive amounts of money they accumulate on direct attack ads for or against Members of Congress.
Since the Tillman Act of 1907, Congress has banned direct corporate contributions to federal electoral campaigns. Corporations, unions, and other big money players have since looked for ways to evade the prohibitions by spending money on independent expenditures – ads, mostly, favoring or opposing candidates thinly veiled as issue advocacy.

This egregious decision turns back the clock on over 60 years of precedent. Lifting the ban on corporate money could further diminish the public voice in a system that already favors monied special interests, and will certainly lessen the public trust in our officials.

NJPIRG is working in concert with Senate and House Leadership to help move a legislative fix to slam shut the floodgates that today’s decision has opened.