Some people are opposed to outside money coming into local and state elections because they feel that individuals from outside the state should not have the opportunity to influence their election. If a local election receives a large amount of national attention, the internet makes it extremely easy for non-residents to donate money to one of the candidates. This extra money translates to extra advertisements and campaign staff that can help secure a victory that might not have been possible without the non-resident contributions.

Elections in the United States involve rather expensive election campaigns. Candidates and parties need to provide large sums of money in order to be competitive.

There are several ways to raise funds for the campaign, and one of them is donations from interest groups such as PAC – political action committees.

These interest groups donate campaign funds to political parties in the hope that once the party’s candidates win government positions, they will be able to pursue some of their special interests.

Elections in United States are very expensive, so that parties and candidates are forced to provide significant funds for their campaigns.

Given that donations to the election campaign, in addition to small donors, can also be very significant amounts provided by various interest groups, wealthy individuals, families, companies, etc., the question of the motive for donations arises.

The motive can certainly always be the desire to have a later influence on the elected members of the administration. So, in order for voters to have a clear picture of who is behind their candidates financially, they are legally obliged to announce the origin of campaign funds.

In this way, if someone from the government abused his position after the election and tried to gain the interest of one of his donors in some way, it would be easily revealed.

The issue of campaign finance is one of the most important in the electoral process in the United States. It is of great importance that funding be transparent and regulated by law.

Funding issues also appear as cases before the Supreme Court. One of the most significant cases is **Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission**, 2010.

The Court ruled that the government’s ban on political financing by corporations and unions was in fact a violation of the right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

This ruling meant that corporations and unions were allowed to spend their funds on federal elections – they were not allowed to give funds directly to candidates, but they were allowed to spend funds in their favor.

Many considered this decision, which was made by a narrow majority of 5:4, controversial and dangerous. They believed that it opened up numerous opportunities for corruption and abuse of the election process.

Funding for election campaigns is a very important issue and as such is regulated by federal law.

The laws distinguish between two types of funds, **hard money and soft money**. These two types of financing differ in the method of collection, the allowed amount and the allowed way of spending.

**Hard money** are funds donated to candidates for Congress and the White House directly and they can use it in their campaign. These funds are limited by the 1970 law and must be reported.

**Soft Money** are funds that parties receive for their party activities, but cannot be spent directly on the election campaign. These funds are not limited and are much easier to collect, so the parties were inclined to use them in some way in the election campaigns.

An example of soft money is the funds that are spent to finance a gathering of party members.