Analytical Essay: The Effect Of Money On Presidential Elections

Money is both the nectar and poison of the human race. This fact has never been more applicable than to modern politics. Nearly all assets to a candidate for political office, such a media advertisements, travel expenses and campaign supplies rely on fiscal support. In an age when electronic media rules supreme, money has never been more important. Today, it has become necessary for political campaigns to pour massive amounts of funding into television, Internet, radio and print ads in order to run a competitive campaign. These ads are the most prominent form of communication between a candidate and the sovereigns, and therefore, a candidate’s ability to use ads can not be inhibited. This correlation between money and politics has many

In the 2016 election cycle, over 1.4 billion dollars was given to presidential candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016a). This is more than any other presidential election cycle in history (Price 2016). Another billion dollars was given to U.S. House of Representatives candidates, and about 600 million dollars was given to U.S. Senate candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016b). The majority of this money went to funding the candidates’ campaigns. This money controlled whose ads voter’s saw on television and which candidates were able to afford to travel the country campaigning for votes. In many cases, the candidate with the most money available won their election. Most campaigns are financed in large part by a small number

‘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)

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

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.

Political campaign financing refers to all finances that have been raised and expended in order to promote political candidates, parties, and initiatives. According to a survey conducted in November 2018, when questioned “Do you know what political campaign financing is?” approximately 50% of respondents answered yes, 27% answered no and 23% answered that they had heard of it. The same survey relayed that only 4% of participants had positive views, 35% had negative views and the remaining 61% were unsure of their views on campaign financing. Yet when asked the question “Regarding the role of money in American political campaigns, what level of influence do you think money has?” 96% of respondents said too much,

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

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.

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

The right of free speech granted to all citizens in the first amendment, the necessity of funding expensive political campaigns, and the fact that small donations make a candidate responsive to the needs of their constituents, all make any restrictions on campaign financing unneeded and onerous. Congress should strike down any bills attempting to reform this essential part of the U.S. election process. Any further restrictions on donations to political campaigns will prove detrimental to the United States functioning system of elections by limiting individuals’ freedom of speech, making our candidate’s campaigns underfunded and unresponsive to the needs of the American people.

rate so high. Because the party is much more likely to spend the soft money in places

In a country built from unparalleled equality, our election system is not inclusive of the less affluent candidates. Inevitably, monetary funding has become a centralized focus point for American politics and has provided a reckless entry way for candidates not prepared for the presidency. Taking this current election for example, Hillary Clinton, democratic presidential candidate, received a donation of 25.6 million dollars from the Hedge-Fund, this being only a small fraction of her over all funding. Contrastingly, Jill Stein, Green Party Candidate, has only received 3.2 million dollars in total funding for her campaign. The difference is striking. Providing a

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

Money is a form of payment in America, money has little to much value. It can be seen as a coin or as paper, which has been issued legally by the government. Money can be used in exchange for certain things a person or group desires. With money in peoples' hands, it can drive them to make certain decisions with much power. People in politics use a form of money to pay for their beliefs in the United States of America. For many years, elections have been organized based on privately funded campaigns. When a candidate is running for presidency it becomes very expensive and difficult to manage on their own. Therefore if the candidate is wealthy, their campaign is set to go and continue. If the candidate needs financial assistance in order to

After the Citizen United vs. the FEC Supreme Court ruling, in favor of Citizens United, political campaigns have the ability to raise much greater funds through organizations called super PACs. According to Michael Beckel a political reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, “Officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees”— and unofficially dubbed “super PACs”—these political action committees are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations” (Beckel 655). On top of the ability to raise unlimited funds, the individuals donating are not required to disclose their names. This could lead to some serious corruption. Super PACs can run as much advertisement either for or against a political candidate, seriously swaying the way citizen’s vote and view a candidate. In fact “super PACs are allowed to use 100 percent of the funds they raise to influence elections” (Beckel 656). No one expected this Supreme Court ruling to have an impact so fast. As stated in an article published by The Nation, “The total number of TV ads for House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in 2010 was 2,870,000. This was a 250 percent increase over the number of TV ads