A Soldier Lays Dying On The Battlefield, Cannonballs Fly Overhead

From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700’s you had to be a white male landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has over the election process and politicians. While money has it’s

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

The government of the United States is bought and sold like stocks. Billionaires and corporations have poured an incomprehensible amount of money into thousands of political campaigns. According to opensecrets.org, the average cost to win a senate race is now $11,474,362. For the 2016 presidential race alone the Koch brothers plan on spending $889 million. It is nearly impossible to win an election without the support of billionaires and corporations. The impact that money has on elections has spiraled of control. A political revolution to fix the power the wealthy have in politics is already happening. Senator Bernie Sanders is the one leading this revolution. Even without the revolutionary policies, Sanders would set in place to end the American Oligarchy his campaign is still important. Sanders leading by example and showing the country that it is possible to run a campaign without support from the elite. Sanders campaign has raised $75 million so far with an average donation of only $25. If

It is time that the voters are the only one’s deciding elections. Candidates should be running on issues, not money. They should not be allowed to get money from wealthy investors, who keep the playing field unlevel. Any person who wants to run for office, and is qualified to run for office, should be able to regardless if they have a lot of money to set up a campaign or not. It is time for Campaign Finance Reform.

‘Despite several attempts to regulate campaign finance, money increasingly dominates the U.S. Electoral process and is the main factor contributing to a candidates success’ Discuss (30 marks)

Amidst the late 19th century, the rise of political machines tantalized the longing, from many, for a post-Civil War reconstruction which would have been punctuated by an ethical, aiding government. The aforementioned political machines were small networks which offered services to voters in exchange for economic or political gains. While these groups aided many groups, including immigrants, many political machines fell victim to corruption. The reason being, once the candidates from said machine came into office, these men would use their political standing for personal gain. For instance in the case of the Tweed Ring Scandal, William Tweed, the boss of the Democratic political machine, headed a group of politicians who sought to defraud New York. The provided excerpt, which outlines one scheme which was orchestrated by Mr. Tweed, reads “One scheme, the construction of the New York County Courthouse, involved extravagant graft. The project cost taxpayers $13 million, while

Of course, such influence establishes a tyranny of the rich that our forefathers clearly wanted to prevent. Senator Russ Feingold, a proponent of campaign finance reform, said, "The current campaign finance system is fueling the transformation of our representative democracy into a corporate democracy creating a political system that allots power in direct relation to the amount of money an individual or interest group can contribute" (Campaign Finance Reform). The horror of such a governmental system has fueled the cries for campaign finance reform.

Monetary value has had significant influence in determining the outcome of elections. The input and strategies put forward by different forces determine the organizational scheme and the ability to grab most of the seats. Although money has been linked to corrupt deals in many countries, with leaders amassing power through corrupt and underhand methods, especially in Africa, this is not the case of the same monetary influence witnessed in America. The conventions of the U.S.A raise a lot of money in preparation for campaigns and elections to constitute a good number of representatives. The paper, therefore, looks at the effect of money in the recently concluded elections of the Congress, giving a deeper view of the 113th and 114th Congress election of the two major conventions.

The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committee's

One of the issues I am most passionate about is that of money in American politics. Increasing campaign costs, coupled with a decrease in the number of donors contributing to those campaigns, is a disturbing trend which has caused many to feel the need to question the state of our democracy—myself included. The problem of mainstream political corruption and legalized bribery is one that I was made aware of three years ago, and has since become one of the things keeping me up at night most often.

Then-current president Theodore Roosevelt was extremely active on the campaign trail, promoting Taft’s name with great fervor. Roosevelt and Taft’s alliance is one of the earliest and most significant examples of politicians working together to reach individual goals. Taft would benefit by receiving the Presidential Office, and Roosevelt would have his policies continue through the new administration. Over the course of American History, there has been a pattern of politicians collaborating for a somewhat secretive or deceitful goal. Throughout the entire century following Progressive Era reforms, corruption has found its footing again in American Politics; the efforts towards reducing corporate involvement or individual meddling in the political process have not accomplished their goal. Corruption continued, sometimes by the individuals who spoke so vehemently against practices of that nature. This essay will explore the triumphs and failures of Progressive Reform, using Roosevelt’s behaviour during Taft’s presidency

With the introduction of “soft” money in politics, elections no longer go to the best candidate, but simply to the richer one. Soft money is defined as unregulated money that is given to the political parties that ends up being used by candidates in an election. In last year’s elections, the Republican and Democratic parties raised more than one-half of a billion dollars in soft money. Current politicians are pushing the envelope farther than any previous administrations when it comes to finding loopholes in the legal system for campaign fundraising. The legal limit that any one person can contribute to a given candidate or campaign is one thousand dollars. There is, however, no limit on the amount of money one

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) was the backlash against the dark-money disaster of the 1972 reelection campaign for Richard Nixon who "raked in $20 million in secret donation[s]" (Kroll, 2012). For one thing, proponents for less stringent rules are not denying that corruption exist because contributions given directly to candidates is, but independent expenditures are not.

Elections in the past are very similar to elections in the modern world. Parenti even stated that “Elections were contested by candidates who were either wealthy themselves or were bankrolled by wealthy backers” (Parenti 52). Of course, in order to win these elections, candidates often used bribery. He continues by stating that in order for one to increase their chances of winning is by

America is vastly known as a country boundlessly pursuing equality in all facets of life. In this seemingly endless quest for equal opportunity, there has been one lurking negation; our election system. The addition to equal representation in public funding and on the ballot will create variability and allow Americans to entrust their vote in a political format that more closely aligns with democratic philosophy. Therefore, a shift away from a bipartisan, a two party, dominated election system would not only be a healthy change for American electoral satisfaction, but for the future of third party politics. Unfortunately affluence and inherent wealth have played a large role in this divide between a true democratic election and our present biased, broken, and benyne system.