Cash On Hands Case Analysis

The election of members to Congress in the United States of America is contingent on the financial muscles of the candidates and their supporters. It all starts with a deep pocket investment. The recently concluded election will yield a new administration with new cabinet members. The election of Donald Trump as the next U.S President is partly attributable to the synergy and efforts made by some of the most influential people in the Republican Convention. With Trump already appointing some of his chief strategists, it is necessary to conduct a deeper analysis of the financial input of other members of the Congress in an attempt to gain seats.

Regulating soft money has been difficult because of constitutional issues that protect First Amendment rights, and Congress’ rights over regulating political parties must be focused on preventing fraud or corruption (Mason, 1997). Soft money is used to mobilize campaigns by using the money to support voter registration drives, and other similar activities designed to jump start a candidates’ campaign (Brennan Center, 2000). For this reason, soft money is important to an election campaign, and recently the amount of soft money raised for campaigns has skyrocketed. It has become a concern because it is largely unregulated and can be used to gain an unfair

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 opponents. (4 “Money Is the Victor in 2002 Midterm Elections,” Center for Responsive Politics, Nov. 6, 2002. 5 “2004 Election Outcome: Money Wins,” Center for Responsive Politics, Nov. 3,

The Issues The radio program draws an overall picture of the subprime mortgage crisis, how the subprime market was created, how the crisis happened, what were the result and its impact. (See appendix A - my summary of the case) The primary issues in this case are: why did the

Campaign Finance Reform 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

Campaign Financing is the process of giving money to either a Super PAC or the candidate themselves. A Super PAC is an organization

In the Presidential race of 2008, it is estimated that the combined spending of outside groups, political parties, and candidates totaled to over five billion dollars (Beneson and Tarr 2012). American politics has created a culture of “political elites” that requires every candidate to raise millions of dollars. Although organizations like the FEC tracks these large sums of money, the amount of money a person must spend publicizing and promoting themselves has become uncontrollable. Jeb Bush’s Super PAC has already raised over 103 million dollars and filmed countless hours of interviews of the Candidate, skirting regulations within McCain-Feingold that prevent outside sources from directly creating scripts and advertisements with the Bush campaign (Miller and Elliot 2015). Although Bush and his supporters may have the constitutional right to raise millions of dollars, and publish deceptive advertisements, their actions still promote a sentiment of power that should not be allotted to one person. Regardless of the strides that have been made to reduce corruption within campaign finance reform, and support citizen’s most basic freedoms to support whichever candidate they wish, the entire campaign process has become too politically elite. The necessity for million dollar campaigns and extensive financial backing prevents

Campaign finance reform is a movement in the United States to help change the involvement of money in American political campaigns (Boundless, 2015). “ Throughout the history of campaign finance reform, three main areas have consistently been the target of regulation: contributions, expenditures, and advertising. Over the years Congress has instituted limits on how much individuals or organizations may contribute to federal campaign committees and political groups, how much campaign committees may spend during the course of an election, and how much money might be used for advertising expenses during a campaign” (Smith, 2010). To help limit contributions, expenditures, and advertising Congress has passed laws which are known as campaign finance

Let's dig deeper. According to my calculations he spent quite a bit less than half the money to win than the Democrats. (This may come in handy with a country that is $21 trillion in debt.) Trump spent roughly $5.00 per vote while Hillary spent nearly $13.00 per vote. When you're talking about over 59 million votes, thats BIG.

The gun-control groups with this kind of money are newer, and they’re just starting to figure it out.” She added, “How that will play out remains to be seen.” A Grassroots Game Gun-control advocates have started to model themselves after their biggest rival, the NRA, by closely tracking — and

In April I reported on Trump shortchanging Veterans' charities by only distributing a fraction of the six-million dollars he claimed his website raised when he skipped the GOP debate in fear of facing Megyn Kelly. While researching my Veterans article, I discovered that Trump has made no charitable contributions to

politics and its effect on elections and public policy. This site allows me to see the numeric value for individuals and corporations who donated to a specific presidential candidate. I will have to allow for the fact that several corporations and individuals donated to multiple candidates within the same party. My goal is to both examine donations given to parties and to specific candidates to allow for a more complete measurement. I also must keep in mind that some donations will be under the names of companies and businesses whose leaders may receive a cabinet position. I will measure my independent variable by a scale of 0-200 in dollars, thousands. Again, I am choosing this coding as it is done by Herberlig and Larson (2007). These dollar ranges encompass the majority of the donations given by individuals or cooperation’s to specific parties, thus a higher score would theoretically mean a higher chance that an individual will be chosen for a cabinet appointment. Meaning, there should be a positive correlation between the dependent, the nominees, and the independents, the nominees who did and the campaign donations. There should be a negative correlation among nominees who show low campaign donations and those that did not get

To evaluate the question as to whether minority candidates are disadvantaged in campaign funding support, a dataset constructed of the amount of monetary support for a candidate, candidate characteristics, and district characteristics, is needed. The difficulty in the data collection effort is the small number of minority candidates running in

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

a) Cash Withdrawals Salaries expense is considered deductible by a business according to Publication 535, if the amount is ordinary, necessary, and reasonable. Ordinary means that the expense occurs regularly and necessary means that the expense facilitates the reaching of desirable business goals. The IRS scrutinizes compensation paid to the owner over