Reforming Campaign Finance With the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations and labor unions to contribute unlimited funds to political parties in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, campaign finance has perhaps become more unbalanced than ever. Already, the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act have only served to create a few extra steps for groups to take in order for them to contribute funds to the political parties of their choosing, and though the latter is more stringent in attempting to reign in the campaign contributions, loopholes built into the law such as the establishment of 501c’s actually allow groups to contribute to parties and candidates anonymously. Even the Citizens United case reflects an unfair ability to contribute to one party or the other, despite seeming to balance things by allowing both corporations and unions to make unlimited contributions, due to the virtually limitless resources corporations can draw on, versus the limited funds unions can take in since they are not designed to profit. Thus, campaign reform must be moved in an effort to create more fairness, and it must cut the ability for those with unlimited resources to steal elections over the majority of people who might not have the funds to help their cause. Thus, the best way I can see is by enacting a law that abolishes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and all its loopholes and creating an agency that all federal election campaign moneys must pass through before reaching the political parties. All groups and individuals wishing to donate to national elections must give all the funds they wish to donate to this agency. They must announce the party they wish to receive the funds and the intended location of where the funds would go, including the region, state, city, or nation-wide, if that is the group’s goal. All of these records will be made publicly available, including the organization or individual making the donation, which party they choose to donate to, and where that money’s intended destination is, as well as the amount they wish to donate. The agency will then appropriate 65% of the donated to the directed destination, while 35% of the funds will actually go to the opposing party for the party to use as it wishes (Note: These numbers can be adjusted). This means that a pro-life group that wants to donate funds to the Republican Party could actually see 35% of the funds it donates in the hands of Democrats who might actually be pro-choice. Conversely, environmental groups donating money to the Democrats would see 35% of their funds going to causes they actually might not support. This would force groups, corporations, and individuals to consider how much the money they spend could help the opposition defeat their causes. More importantly, it would prevent wealthy individuals and corporations from spending unlimited amounts of money in an effort to have a candidate win an election, at least without some of that money actually benefiting the other side. This agency would work wonders in changing the way campaign finance operates. People would be more encouraged to pay attention to and spend money on local elections, since the law does not require state and local level elections to have an agency that collects election money. States, of course, will be encouraged by the federal government to create such an agency if the need arises. Hard blue states and hard red states would finally allow the portion of the population whose opinions aren’t typically represented in votes to have more of a voice. The opposing party’s supporters would be more encouraged to vote in these elections, since money spent will not just benefit the side that tends to win states. For instance, Democrats in Alabama should be more encouraged to vote in the national elections as a result of this law because Democrats will be able to obtain some money and use it in ways that could excite a typically