• Made candidates tell the public who gave them money and how they spent it

• Put limits on how much money could be spent on ads

• Stopped candidates from using too much of their own money to fund their campaigns

But FECA wasn’t perfect. There were loopholes, which meant rich people and big corporations still found ways to influence elections with money

• Created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce rules

• Set strict limits on how much money people can donate to campaigns

• Placed limits on how much campaigns can spend

• Started a public funding system to help pay for presidential elections

These changes helped manage money in politics and made elections more clear.

• Restrictions on how much money people can give directly to candidates (hard money).

• Got rid of limits on money spent by individuals or groups to support candidates on their own (independent expenditures).

• Said that spending money on elections is a type of free speech therefore is protected by the First Amendment.

• Made a clear difference between giving money to a candidate and spending money to support them, a rule that still affects campaign finance today.

• Stopped national political parties from using unlimited money (soft money)

• Limited certain political ads close to elections

• Raised the limit on how much money people could give directly to candidates (hard money)

BCRA still had problems. Some parts of the law were later removed by the courts, and money still plays a big role in elections.

• Saying that companies and unions have the right to spend as much as they want on political ads because of free speech

• Leading to the creation of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited money to support candidates (but not directly give to them)

• Allowing big businesses and organizations to spend huge amounts of money on elections

This decision made it much easier for wealthy groups to influence politics.

• Removed limits on how much total money a person could give across multiple candidates and committees

• Allowed people to give unlimited money to as many candidates and committees as they wanted

• Kept limits on how much money a person could give to each individual candidate

This decision made it easier for wealthy people to have more influence on elections.

PACs:

• Can give money directly to candidates, but only in limited amounts

• Have strict donation limits

• Are often connected to businesses or unions

Super PACs:

• Cannot give money directly to candidates

• Can raise and spend unlimited amounts

• Must stay separate from the candidate’s campaign

Super PACs can spend as much as they want to support a candidate, as long as they don’t work directly with them.

• Money spent to support or attack candidates but not coordinated with them

• No spending limits after the Citizens United case

• Mostly used for ads and reaching voters

• Must be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC)

Spending on independent expenditures has increased in recent elections, giving outside groups more influence

• They already know lots of people who donate money

• More people recognize their name, so it’s easier to get support

• They get a lot of money from PACs

• They can raise money early, giving them a head start

This incumbent advantage makes it tough for new candidates to compete in elections.

• Limits on donations go up every two years to keep up with inflation

• People can give money directly to candidates, political parties, and PACs

• There’s no total limit on how many candidates or committees a person can donate to

• Donations over a certain amount must be reported for transparency

These rules try to allow political participation while also preventing corruption