Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 was the first major change in US federal campaign finance law in a quarter of a century. Many attempts at reform had failed in that period. Few members of Congress were enthusiasts for reform, the two parties and two chambers had conflicting interests to protect, successive presidents did not promote the issue and public pressure for reform was weak. When reform was achieved in 2002, many of these formidable obstacles remained in place. This paper draws on the literature of public interest reform and policy innovation to attribute the change to a policy entrepreneur whose resources had undergone a sharp increase, the neutralization of opposition, the impact of an event (the bankruptcy of the Enron Corporation) and membership turnover in Congress. The substantial support for the bill in Congress from Democrats, the party with most to lose from reform, is attributed to the inescapability of past commitments.
1 Mann, Thomas E., ‘Linking Knowledge and Action: Political Science and Campaign Finance Reform’, Perspectives on Politics, 1 (2003), p. 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Martha Derthick and Paul J. Quirk, The Politics of Deregulation, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 1985; Gary Mucciaroni, Reversals of Fortune: Public Policy and Private Interests, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 1995; Adam D. Sheingate, The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State: Institutions and Interest Group Power in the United States, France and Japan, Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2001; Patashnik, Eric, ‘After Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability of Policy Reform’, Governance, 16 (2003), pp. 203–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).Google Scholar
4 ‘Bill Summary and Status’, www.thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin.Google Scholar
5 David B. Magleby, ‘Prospects for Reform’, in Margaret Latus Nugent and John R. Johannes (eds), Money, Elections, and Democracy: Reforming Congressional Campaign Finance, Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 1990, pp. 245–62.Google Scholar
6 David R. Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
7 Frank Sorauf, ‘Public Opinion on Campaign Finance’, in Nugent and Johannes, Money, Elections, and Democracy, p. 213.Google Scholar
8 Shaw, Greg M. and Ragland, Amy S., ‘The Polls – Trends: Political Reform’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (2000), pp. 206–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 David Rapp, ‘Senate Votes to Restrict PAC Contributions’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 16 August 1986; Craig Alston, ‘Showdown on Spending Limits Moves Towards White House’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 4 August 1990; Beth Donovan, ‘Overhaul of Election Funding Unlikely to Become Law’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 11 April 1992; Beth Donovan, ‘House Takes First Step in Overhauling System’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 27 November 1993.Google Scholar
10 Greg D. Kubiak, The Gilded Dome: The U.S. Senate and Campaign Finance Reform, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1994, p. 205.Google Scholar
11 Robert E. Mutch, ‘The Reinvigorated Reform Debate’, in John C. Green (ed.), Financing the 1996 Election, Armonk, NY, M. E. Sharpe, 1999, pp. 215–40. Dean McSweeney, ‘Parties, Corruption and Campaign Finance in America’, in Robert Williams (ed.), Party Finance and Political Corruption, Houndmills, Macmillan, 2000, pp. 37–60.Google Scholar
12 Mutch, ‘The Reinvigorated Reform Debate’, p. 228.Google Scholar
13 Anthony Corrado, ‘Financing the 2000 Elections’, in Gerald M. Pomper et al., The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations, New York, Chatham House, 2001, p. 93.Google Scholar
14 Candice J. Nelson, ‘Spending in the 2000 Elections’, in David B. Magleby (ed.), Financing the 2000 Election, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 2002, p. 24.Google Scholar
15 Anthony Corrado, ‘Financing the 2000 Presidential Election’ in Magleby, Financing the 2000 Election, p. 102; Diane Dwyre and Robin Kolodny, ‘Throwing Out the Rule Book: Party Financing of the 2000 Elections’, in Magleby, Financing the 2000 Election, p. 133.Google Scholar
16 John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy, New York, Harper and Row, 1984; Derthick and Quirk, The Politics of Deregulation; Mucciaroni, Reversals of Fortune; Patashnik, ‘After Public Interest Prevails’.Google Scholar
17 Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, pp. 188–93.Google Scholar
18 ABCnews.com, ‘Election Coverage’, www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote.Google Scholar
19 Pew Research Centre, ‘Economy, Education, Social Security Dominate the Public's Policy Agenda’, www.people-press.og/reports, accessed 6 September, 2001.Google Scholar
20 John C. Fortier and Norman J. Ornstein, ‘President Bush: Legislative Strategist’, in Fred I. Greenstein (ed.), The George W. Bush Presidency, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, pp. 154–5.Google Scholar
21 Gibbs and Tumulty, ‘A New Day or A False Dawn’.Google Scholar
22 Robert F. Schiff, ‘Remarks’, Association of American Law Schools, Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 2–5 January 2003.Google Scholar
23 ‘Five Ideas for Practical Campaign Finance Reform’, www.Brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cf/reform/cf.Google Scholar
24 Marianne Holt, ‘The Surge in Party Money in Competitive 1998 Congressional Elections’, in David B. Magleby (ed.), Outside Money: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 1998 Congressional Elections, Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 2000, p. 31; David B. Magleby, ‘Conclusions and Implications’, in Magleby, Outside Money, p. 216; David B. Magleby and Eric A. Smith, ‘Party Soft Money in the 2000 Congressional Elections’, in David B. Magleby (ed.), The Other Campaign: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2000 Congressional Elections, Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 2003, p. 41.Google Scholar
25 Derek Willis, ‘Campaign Finance Kickoff’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 27 January 2001.Google Scholar
26 Don Balz, ‘In Long Battle, Small Victories Added Up’, Washington Post, 21 March 2002.Google Scholar
27 Karen Forestal, ‘Campaign Finance Passage Ends a Political Odyssey’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 23 March 2002.Google Scholar
28 Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, pp. 99–105.Google Scholar
29 Paul Alexander, Man of the People: The Life of John McCain, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2003, p. 2.Google Scholar
30 Mike Allen and Dana Millbank, ‘President's Politics of Pragmatism Helped Undermine GOP Opposition’, Washington Post, 15 February 2002.Google Scholar
31 ‘House Group Offers Campaign Reform Bill’, National Journal, 3 January 2001.Google Scholar
32 Derthick and Quirk, The Politics of Deregulation, p. 245; Mucciaroni, Reversals of Fortune, pp. 170–4.Google Scholar
33 McConnell et al. v. FEC et al., 540 U.S. (2003); Mann, ‘Linking Knowledge and Action’, pp. 78–80.Google Scholar
34 Dwyre and Kolodny, ‘Throwing Out The Rule Book’.Google Scholar
35 David B. Magleby, ‘Conclusions and Implications for Future Elections’, in Magleby, The Other Campaign, pp. 231–2; Juliet Eilperin and Thomas B. Edsall, ‘Gephardt Has Large Stake in Bill's Fate’, Washington Post, 12 July 2001.Google Scholar
36 Elizabeth Drew, Citizen McCain, New York, Simon and Schuster, 2002, pp. 19, 27.Google Scholar
37 Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar
38 Nancy Gibbs and Karen Tumulty, ‘A New Day or A False Dawn’, Time, 31 March 2001.Google Scholar
39 Washington Post/ABC News, Poll, 11–15 January 2001.Google Scholar
40 Matt Keller, Executive Director, Common Cause, author's interview, Washington, DC, 16 January 2003.Google Scholar
42 Richard Fenno, Home Style: House Members in their Districts, Boston, MA, Little, Brown, 1978, ch. 5.Google Scholar
43 Sheingate, The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State.Google Scholar
