Hvilket af følgende er blevet eliminere som et resultat af reformer i kampagnefinansiering i 2002?
Campaign finance reform in the United States
En bestemmelse i den topartistiske lov om reform af kampagnerne fra 2002 ("McCain-Feingold") krævede, at det upartiske General Accounting Office skulle foretage en undersøgelse af programmerne for rene valg i Arizona og Maine. Rapporten, der blev offentliggjort i maj 2003, viste, at ingen af systemernes mål endnu var nået, men advarede om, at det på grund af den relativt korte tid, programmerne havde været på plads, "er for tidligt at afgøre, i hvilket omfang målene for Maines og Arizonas offentlige finansieringsprogrammer er blevet opfyldt... [og] vi kommer ikke med nogen anbefalinger i denne rapport." En undersøgelse fra 2006 foretaget af Center for Governmental Studies (en fortaler for en reform af kampagnefinansieringen) viste, at Clean Elections-programmer resulterede i flere kandidater, mere konkurrence, større vælgerdeltagelse og mindre påvirkningsudøvelse. I 2008 fandt en række undersøgelser foretaget af Center for Competitive Politics (som generelt er imod regulering og skatteyderfinansierede politiske kampagner)" imidlertid, at programmerne i Maine, Arizona og New Jersey ikke havde nået deres erklærede mål, herunder at vælge flere kvinder, reducere statsudgifterne, reducere særinteressernes indflydelse på valget, bringe flere forskellige baggrunde ind i den lovgivende forsamling eller opfylde de fleste andre erklærede mål, herunder øget konkurrence eller vælgerdeltagelse. Disse rapporter bekræftede resultaterne af en tidligere undersøgelse af Arizonas program foretaget af det konservative/libertære Goldwater Institute.
Campaign finance reform in the United States
A clause in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold") required the nonpartisan General Accounting Office to conduct a study of clean elections programs in Arizona and Maine. The report, issued in May 2003, found none of the objectives of the systems had yet been attained, but cautioned that because of the relatively short time the programs had been in place, "it is too soon to determine the extent to which the goals of Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing programs are being met... [and] We are not making any recommendations in this report." A 2006 study by the Center for Governmental Studies (an advocate for campaign finance reform) found that Clean Elections programs resulted in more candidates, more competition, more voter participation, and less influence-peddling. In 2008, however, a series of studies conducted by the Center for Competitive Politics, (which generally opposes regulation and taxpayer funded political campaigns)" found that the programs in Maine, Arizona, and New Jersey had failed to accomplish their stated goals, including electing more women, reducing government spending, reducing special interest influence on elections, bringing more diverse backgrounds into the legislature, or meeting most other stated objectives, including increasing competition or voter participation. These reports confirmed the results of an earlier study by the conservative/libertarian Goldwater Institute on Arizona's program.
Campaign finance reform in the United States