Author's Keywords: Keywords: campaign finance, congressional elections, PACs, soft, money, interest groups, democracy	Convention Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p66188_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Hall, Richard. and Lin, Ann. "Campaign Finance Reform After the BCRA: Thinking Outside the Box" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, 2002 <Not Available>. 2009-05-27 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p66188_index.html>

Hall, R. L. and Lin, A. C. , 2002-08-28 "Campaign Finance Reform After the BCRA: Thinking Outside the Box" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-27 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p66188_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: We sketch the outlines of a new approach to federal campaign finance reform. Admittedly problematic, we invite the reader to explore the plan's virtues and vices and to think creatively about alternatives to a system that, even after the BCRA of 2002, leaves post-election policymaking contaminated by advantages given to moneyed interests. The main idea is to authorize and endow a private ?expenditure equalizing committee? (EEC) ? a nonprofit entity, whose single mission would be to minimize inequalities in spending across candidates for the same congressional office. The committee would provide matching grants to candidates who are being significantly outspent by their opponent. Committee subsidies could go to challengers or incumbents; conservatives or liberals; Republicans, Democrats or, occasionally, independent or third party candidates. The plan is distinctive in that it imposes no further regulations on candidates, parties, PACs, and other campaign actors, who then try to (and eventually do) circumvent the restrictions. Instead, the proposal would restructure the incentives of these actors so that they act, willingly and rationally, in ways beneficial to the campaign finance system. It should increase the competitiveness of congressional elections, curtail the money chase, and diminish interest group influence in post-election policymaking. Importantly, it would advance such goals but avoid the First Amendment problems that have made effective campaign finance reform so difficult to design in the past. Problems of financing and political viability would be substantial, at the very least, and we begin to explore solutions to them.

Has the Implementation of the BCRA Made an Impact on the Effect of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections? Evidence from the 2002 and the 2004 Election

Incumbent Spending and Campaign Finance Reform in State Supreme Court Elections