Funding In Elections

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

Americans only see few ways to affect real change on government because politicians are too reliant upon large donations. Groups contribute money, and later on receive a kickback of bill that favors them or supports their positions. “Candidates who raise lots of money say it indicates broad support. Candidates with little money point out that voters, not donors, decide elections” (2012 Presidential). Candidates spend large amount of time fundraising, which decreases people’s confidence in the government’s ability to do their

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)

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.

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.

To accommodate the financial difficulty of competing nominees the 1974 Election Expenses Act was implemented, and in 2004 Bill C-24. The 1974 Election Expenses Act introduced restrictions to the amount that candidates and parties could spend on elections, as well as gave tax deductions to sponsors, and partial reimbursement to parties and candidates wining more than 15 percent of the vote. Bill C-24 introduced restrictions once again on sponsorship spending placing boundaries on who can sponsor and caps on how much can be sponsored, while giving parties subsidies for each vote they received in the last election. By placing these restrictions and caps on spending, the competition in the financial field became less of an issue. The facts that these barriers have been acknowledged and attempts have been made remedy these burdens, not only benefited women’s likelihood to get nominated, but made competing playing field equal. Candidates who did not find finance as a burden were restricted to a cap, therefore made it more likely that all candidates would have around the same amount of money to spend on their promotion. Both men and women have to go through the same nomination process to become a candidate for elections; whether they choose to pursue the legislative route is based on personal choice, not political inequality.

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

With the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye.      There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.

majority plays only a small role in it. A few would argue that placing a limit on how

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.

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

This is important because as a democratic society everyone should have an equal opportunity to be a part of our government. The outcomes of elections are certainly not set in stone, but we can tell from opinion polls and early voting polls who is the likely candidate to win. If we see that a candidate that is winning in the polls has a lot of financial support behind him then we can assume that he has the greater chance of winning.

Reform agendas presented by the candidates result in vibrant democratic politics, which requires the conscious participation of citizens. It provides a chance for citizens to engage in political activity with others. Political campaigns enable the citizens to contribute to the nomination process thus choosing the best candidate in their party. American politics involves candidates who mostly make unambiguous statements thus conveying their message to the citizens effectively. This means that the citizens have a solid basis on which to make decisions during the nominations and the elections. Distortions in communication due to misstatements are reduced by the accuracy and lack of ambiguity in information communicated the candidates (Schmidt, Shelley, & Bardes, 2009). The campaigns are effective since they result in the election of candidate with the most promising policies and reforms. The focus of the campaigns is national and social issues, which results in election and nomination of candidates that are nationalistic and with ideologies that are acceptable by most of the citizens.