Common Dreams NewsCenter

We Can't Do It Without You!

Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives | Search

Home > Progressive Community > NewsWire > For Immediate Release
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
FEBRUARY 2, 2004
3:43 PM
Dana Mason,, 202.546.9707
Higher Contribution Limits Lead to Increased Fundraising by Presidential Candidates
Reform Group Points to Rise in Large Hard Money Contributions

WASHINGTON - February 2 - More than one-quarter of funds collected by presidential hopefuls in 2003 were raised as a direct result of the contribution limit increases under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), according to U.S. PIRG’s analysis of year-end 2003 Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. Furthermore, the political parties have collected nearly as much in hard money contributions in 2003 as they received in hard and soft money contributions combined in 1999, the last comparable pre-presidential election year. Hard money contributions raised by the parties in 2003 are likely to exceed the combined 1999 figure when all the reports are filed.

“It is more clear than ever that hard money is the currency of elections,” said U.S. PIRG Democracy Advocate Dana Mason. “Not only do candidates have a greater incentive to appeal to wealthy donors who can contribute twice as much under the new campaign finance law, but party fundraising has not decreased. The doubled hard money limits have prevented us from getting any big money out of the system.”

U.S. PIRG’s analysis shows that candidates raised the bulk of their contributions from large contributors and a smaller percentage of their funds from small donors. For example:

  • 2004 presidential candidates have raised 26% of donations in contributions that would NOT have been permitted before BCRA’s doubling of limits. (1)
  • 2004 presidential primary contestants have raised 66% of their funds in contributions at or above $1000, up from 61% in the 2000 race.
  • With one committee yet to file a 2003 year-end report with the FEC, political parties raised $275,408,400 in hard money in 2003, compared to $282,358,665 in both hard and soft money in 1999.
  • The average amount raised by the candidates increased from $16,255,545 in 1999 to $23,353,077 in 2003, an increase of 44 percent.

“Donors who can afford to write $2,000 checks continue to decide who will be able to compete in elections, while the voices of ordinary Americans are drowned out in a flood of big money,” said Mason.

The new campaign finance law, recently upheld by the Supreme Court, doubled the amount that individuals may contribute directly to candidates for federal office from $1,000 to $2,000. Barely one-tenth of 1% of the voting age population made a maximum contribution of $1,000 to a 2002 congressional candidate, but these large contributions accounted for nearly 56% of the candidates’ individual fundraising. U.S. PIRG supports lowering the contribution limits to levels that average Americans can afford, allowing citizens to participate in a more meaningful way in the electoral process.

U.S. PIRG pointed out that the presidential public financing system has been another casualty of the higher limits. As candidates are able to raise more money from fewer donors, it becomes much easier to forego public financing with its accompanying voluntary spending limits. When, as occurred in the 2002 congressional elections, 94% of the candidates who raise the most money win the general elections, candidates can ill afford to fall behind in the fundraising race. In 2003, with a number of the major candidates refusing public funds in the primaries in order to spend freely and remain competitive, advocates for public financing say the system is sorely in need of reform.

“Presidential campaigns should be contests of ideas, not battles for big bucks,” said U.S. PIRG Senior Democracy Advocate Adam Lioz. “Successful candidates should have to appeal to a broad spectrum of society, not just to the economic elite. That’s why U.S. PIRG is working to improve the presidential public financing system, increase incentives for small donors through a tax credit for small donations, and reduce the limit on political contributions.”

U.S. PIRG is the national advocacy office for the state Public Interest Research Groups. State PIRGs are non-profit, non-partisan, public interest advocacy organizations.

(1) Candidates who accept general election public financing are permitted to raise money only for the primary. The contribution limit for the primary was $1,000 until November 6, 2002 when it was doubled to $2,000.


Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Common Dreams NewsCenter is a non-profit news service
providing breaking news and views for the Progressive Community.

The press release posted here has been provided to Common Dreams NewsWire by one of the many progressive organizations who make up America's Progressive Community. If you wish to comment on this press release or would like more information, please contact the organization directly.
*all times Eastern US (GMT-5:00)

Making News?
Read our Guidelines for Submitting News Releases is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization.

Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives | Search

To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.