Money Politics : Finding A Fair Approach For Campaigns

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.

‘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)

Over the years Campaigning in the U.S. has changed drastically because of technological advances, the internet, social media, and the real-time information sharing across the globe. One study suggest that over the years, examining 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, political advertising has become more negative. The Wesleyan Media Project’s charts states and 2004 election 45 percent of the ads were negative, where in 2012 about 65 percent of the ads were negative.1 There are many speculations on why these negative ads are increasing with every election, but one fact is that campaigns can use negativity to bring attention to a certain topic and sometimes benefit from the free media coverage if the controversy is popular enough.

In this day and age, political advertisements are stretched to the limits of toleration. Many of them focus more on the shortcomings of their opponents rather than the ideas and plans they have for the country. Often, the ads are nothing more than superficial smears aiming to tarnish the image of the target nominee. If the ads where kept cleaner and were more focused on important

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

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.

Another way television misleads its viewers is by the way that they present candidates for an election of politicians. They spend all their time and money trying to put together a commercial that only puts down the other candidate. How are voters supposed to know whom to vote for if all they are presented with is negative ideas about each candidate? Television also tries to persuade us to vote for a certain proposition. Voters are also lured into voting for or against a proposition by listening to the music being played in the background of the commercial. An example of this type of situation may be the campaign on proposition 5 dealing with the Indian Casinos. They play sad, and convincing, music in the background of their commercial so the viewers can soften their hearts and vote “yes” on their proposition. Television is powerful enough to make our shopping easier. Actually, it is making us lazier. TV stations such as the Home Shopping Network make shopping as easy as dialing some numbers on a touch tone phone. People are also convinced to buy a certain product because a celebrity is presenting it. For example: if supermodel Cindy Crawford presents make-up, ladies will buy it and wear it because they believe that it will make them look like her.

As Election Day approaches, especially during presidential campaigns, critics of politics decry low voter turnout. Advertising can be

Since the 1970s and the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley vs. Valeo (1976), outside campaign expenditures have been allowed during elections. These expenditures were restricted to certain subject areas, largely issue advocacy, and had to provide disclosures of contributors (Jacobson, 1985). Since the early 2000s, disclosure of corporate and private entities has decreased significantly, which is a concern (Youn, 2011); because corporations and other entities can now spend unlimited funds on electioneering communication that attempts to sway the electoral outcomes that are not disclosed (Dowling and Miller, 2014; Briffault, 2012). Moreover, general exposure to these

It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political

     When candidates develop a plan of attack for campaign advertising, they tend to aim for at least four types of commercials. One form or type of commercial is those which play on the fears of countrymen. Fear

Political campaigns are very significant in American politics and elections. It is the period before the electorate makes political decisions in the form of elections. The attention of the citizens towards politics intensifies as the date of the elections draws near. The salience of voters improves as the election date draws near and could manifest in the form of increased media attention. Political discussions, campaign interest, strength of the intention to vote, and knowledge about the candidates are other manifestations of increased salience of voters. Another indication of improved intensity is the effort put by the candidates and their political parties in the campaigns. Parties increase their efforts in the