Global Economy And The American Dream

As citizens of the United State of America, one of our most important rights is that of which to vote. By voting, the general population has a say in who its leaders are. Votes for local, state, and even federal representatives directly reflect who the constituents want in office. However, America’s highest office is not elected by a vote of the people. Instead we use a confusing and outdated system called the Electoral College. Our president is not elected by the people, but by 538 electors who can legally vote for whomever they choose. Several times in our nations history an elector has voted against the people’s will. Three presidents have been elected into office by the electoral college and

In a court case in 2010, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the ability to spend virtually limitless money on an election was given under first amendment protection. With this ruling, Political Action Committees, or super PACs, have become tremendously influential when it comes to elections. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs cannot directly donate any raised money directly to this political candidate. While these parties can not directly donate this raised money, and must be independent of the candidate they support or oppose, there is a huge debate of the unclear line involved with who can be a part of these super PACs. For example, Obama had his Republican challenger and former aides of his office supporting his super PAC.

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

That is one reason why the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging type of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable organizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impact upon the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinating with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and clear of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party.

elections all the way to choosing the next president of the united states. In recent years however there has been an upsurge of people making an independent political action committees called super PAC. Super PACs are unique due to them being allowed to spend an unlimited amount of funds in support which ever candidate they choose. there are however some strings attach to super PACs such as them not being allowed to give money they have collected directly to the candidate or coordinating with the candidate's own political action committee. Super PACs have created a issue on whether it is fair to the opponents of whoever is running against them if they do not have a super PAC, because they can not match the amount of spending a person has spent on political ads or other forms to help get votes when compared to people who have a super PAC helping them.

We usually vote for people who we agree with or also share the same beliefs and ideas as us. This is another way that “the people rule”, we get to choose who our senators are or even our president. Even though they may be the ones making decisions we still get a say in who is making those decisions.

Its removal will lead to the decreased influence of capital on the candidates and their platform. More importantly, those who are elected will create policies rooted from ideologies, single issues, ideas and leadership, instead of money coercing certain political actions. Further, those in office will not face particular interest group pressures (brought by the super PAC contributions) that undermine the democratic process. Instead, a diversified range of interests and interest groups can be considered by politicians if super PACs do not exist. As a result, the pressing issues will be prioritized in the decision agenda, not the most powerful (in contributions) interest group’s prime concern. Lastly, a similar approach has been adopted by several countries, which means that we can use their nation’s progress with the reform, as a

Below is a tally of the money raised and spent through September by the presidential candidates, the national party committees and the primary “super PACs” whose sole purpose is to support a candidate. Contribution and spending totals do not include money raised or held by each candidate’s “victory fund,” a joint fund-raising committee that will distribute funds to the campaigns and party committees. In addition to these committees, nonprofit groups that do not have to file with the Federal Election Commission and other super PACs have spent at least $65 million more on television advertising, almost all of it against President Obama or in support of Mitt

This article discusses campaign finance law and its connection to the 2016 election and candidates. The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was the first attempt to regulate campaign finance. It sought to prevent the political corruption the Watergate Scandal had opened America's eyes to. This act required that information about money contributions and its contributors be available. This meant campaign donors could no longer be anonymous. The act also limited the amount of money political action committees (PAC) or special I treat groups could donate, it however did not limit the amount individuals could donate. Moreover, in 1976, the Buckley v. Valero Supreme Court decision meant that there also would not be a limit on the amount of

What We Don’t Know About Campaign Finance Does Hurt Us. “No matter what your social issue, if you want to solve it get the money out of politics. Only then will lawmakers vote for their people rather than their pocketbooks.” Jack E. Lohman. Money corrupts politics, and when contributions are being made to candidates it is not in the best interest of the American people. Campaign Finance is out of control in today’s political races. Candidates are taking money from wherever and whoever they can get it. Soft money is flowing through elections without care or caution. People who make these contributions do not share the views of the average citizen, so politicians end up representing the wrong people. Money decides

In addition, if people lose faith in the election process, our democracy’s integrity can be harmed. The Supreme Court ruled the fact that wealthy corporations had the financial means to support candidates did not mean that people would lose faith in the election process. In the Court’s view, financial support is but a part of the election process and no evidence supports the idea that candidates bend to contributors’ pressure.

Transparency is an essential characteristic and quality to have in an organization, workplace, business, leadership, government, etc. Transparency creates an open communication and trust but, without transparency, distortion is the result. The push to this distortion was the court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United case which opened up the gates for independent organizations to begin to raise and spend exceptional amounts on political advertising just like Super PAC. As I said before a lot of the money comes from corporations and interest groups. For instance, during the 2014 midterm election, Super PACs and other groups spent about $4 billion just to influence the voters. But it is not

“Most PACs represent business, labor or ideological interests. PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC. PACs may receive up to $5,000 from any one individual, PAC or party committee per calendar year.” (Opensecrets) Super PACS are allowed to give as much and receive as much they want as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the candidates who they give to. With that said I feel they both play a role that’s not really in light and is helping on the side with additional funds and support coming in. PACS can also hurt campaigners they don’t approve of with various media sources like “running ads or sending mail or communicating in other ways with messages that specifically advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate.” (Opensecrets) Over all I feel the pacs are just another group try to get what they want out of the government and are just people looking out for their own interests so I don’t they really help or hurt democracy and the process as a whole but more or less are trying to help

Running a campaign is similar to running a financial institution because it consists of investors who expect to see profit in return. A campaign costs millions of dollars to ”[remind citizens] of their ultimate power—the vote [which is involved in campaigns]” (USHISTORY.ORG, 2016). Financial donations cause the “cost of American campaigns to increase [and has had] an important implication for strategy ” (Sides, et al, 2015, p. 83). The monetary aspects of financing campaigns have impacted the decisions of political candidates, and the representation of the people as a whole. The United States is heading in the wrong direction when tackling this issue of campaign finance; therefore, it is exemplified in the Supreme Court decisions in

“America is the land of opportunity”; this is what the United States reflects to the world. The American Dream is something many people aspire to achieve. It is a belief that anyone can be successful if they work hard enough for what they want. It is considered to be a ‘perfect life’; it can be filled with money, happiness or even love - there are many definitions of what this means. Whether the dream is big or small, it has inspired many people from all over the world to leave their country, culture and family for a better life in the United States. But what if the American Dream doesn’t exist anymore? What if the American Dream has been engraved in the human psyche to believe it’s still true and thriving? So, who can truly achieve the American Dream now? Today, the American Dream is only projected by those who are residing at the top of the social ladder. These are people who benefit from the middle and lower class. They have neither transformed our society with knowledge or had any other function than to receive. These people are, as Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-Prize winning economist, calls “ranks seekers”. Ranks seekers are people that somehow have managed to get a piece of the pie rather than making it bigger. They are monopolists. To the one percent, the American Dream is a marketing strategy. The rich will get richer, and the poor will stay poor - with this said, how bad is inequality within the upper, middle and lower class? According to Stiglitz, the United States has