Campaign Spending Cause Corruption

Each year billions of dollars are spent on getting candidates of various offices of government elected. Many candidates have had tremendous success through the efforts of much needed monetary contributions to their campaign. Contributors range from unions, religious leaders, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and senior citizens groups. When these groups, known as special interest groups, donate to candidate’s campaign, they expect the candidate to respond to their issues. Because special interest groups, as well as private citizens donate more and more money to campaigns, there is some concern that there is a great need for campaign finance reform.

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 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.

Another argument agrees that money increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the main factor in contributing to a candidate’s success is that candidates who spend more generally win. In 2012, Mitt Romney’s

This diminishes the potential of an elitist concentration developing in the congress. By providing each politician (whose is significant enough to qualify for such funding) an equal amount of funding to use to campaign during an election, the frugality of limited resources will cause the funds to be spent deliberately, appealing to people through a political platform and message, and not due to behemoth largesse employed to win elections. According to author of Welfare for Politicians?: Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns John Samples, “Fundraising success correlates strongly with electoral success. In 2002, 95 percent of House winners raised more than their opponents. In 2004, more than 95 percent of House winners outspent their

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

The Democratic and Republican presidential nominees for 1999 raised an astounding 126 million to finance their campaigns in the primaries (Godfrey). The U.S. national political parties raised a record 107.2 million dollars in soft money contributions in 1999 (Campaign Finance Reform). During the 1995-96 elections, public citizens estimated that an astounding 150 million dollars was spent on "phony" issue ads designed to support or oppose congressional and presidential candidates (Campaign Finance Reform). This outrageous influx of money into congressional and presidential campaigns has placed a blanket of corruption and injustice over our nation’s elections. With the rise of campaign corruption, many

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.

During local, state, or federal election there is a limited amount of time and information that a voter has to help him/her decide for which candidate he or she wants to vote. Before the ruling in Citizens United v FEC, private donations from voters were needed to provide candidates with financial means to create commercials, billboards, etc. In turn, this gave the voters a voice in who is to lead their government. Corporations were limited in the amount they could provide to their candidate of choice. After the ruling, corporations can now match every private donation and contribute an unlimited amount on top of that in order to support their candidate. This creates a problem because a corporation can potentially suffocate voters with campaign ads without the other candidates' ads being heard. Therefore creating an uneven debate and platform for Democracy to work.

election process created for fair and efficient elections. These laws, which limit political spending, serves to limit speech by restricting the average citizen’s ability to both receive and deliver political messages. Laws that restrict spending on political campaigns not only dampen freedoms of speech but but have a counter affect on our democratic society.

Candidates such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are surrounded by money. This will allow for easy unlimited funding from the citizens who agree with their views and will benefit from them winning. Presidents would obviously reward these organizations once elected in one way or another. This will allow wealthy individuals to make a much more significant impact on elections. While old PACs had a cap on how much could be donated by individuals, while prohibiting organizations and companies from donating, these new “isolates” super PACs can receive unlimited donations. A major company may decide to spend a few million dollars to support a specific candidate if it could return profit on the investment from taxation policies the winning candidate puts in place. This puts a large importance on money in the election, and less on debates and views. This is shown in the current election, with two of the candidates being some of the biggest financial influencers in the United States. Donald Trump is one of the faces of the business world and has huge influences in the business world. Hillary Clinton was a former first lady and has many large backings. This election has two of the biggest iconic faces in this country, most likely due to this new

Throughout the book, the writers describe the roles of the billionaires, corporations, politicians, and the media in the “money-and-media election process”. I believe the arguments that they made and the pieces evidence they use to support theirs claims are valid. I also believe that these problems are as serious as the authors describe within the key points they explain. There are many points made by these writers regarding these roles that these groups listed previously hold. One point made by Nichols and McChesney was that corporations hold the power to cast votes on issues with the money and resources that they hold. This is a product of the court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which gave powers to the corporations as if they were people. If the corporations vote with their money and resources, normal citizens’ votes seem to be obsolete, a common perception of American. This may be one reason why voter turnout is so low in this nation, people feel like they

I believe these donations should go towards supporting their political party, in this case Republicans, in order for campaigning and also putting it towards doing good in the country. One positive I see in is that this is mainly to benefit the future of America. The American Crossroads main focus is about fixing the future for their future generations by mainly standing up for families, small businesses and communities against power thirsty politicians and wealthy unions. They have been seen creating commercials on television and through advertisements in the mail some supporting and some opposing specific candidates. When voters are truly revealed to some of the negative and bashful things about a candidate they like, this could sway their opinion to vote for a different

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.