Political Campaign Contributions Of The United States Essay

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

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.

In 1974, FECA–the Federal Election Campaign Act–a campaign finance law, was amended to place legal limits on campaign elections to a maximum of $1,000 per individual and $5,000 per PAC–political action committee–for each primary, election and runoff. However, FECA neglected to take into account the effects of inflation. Since 1974, inflation has caused $1,000 today to equate to only $240 in 1974, less than a fourth of the originally intended amount. Due to this, candidates need to raise four times the amount of money that they did 41 years ago when the act was amended. Consequently, candidates must focus more on fundraising and have less time to meet citizens and tend to their official

‘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)

The 1970s began a more active era of campaign finance reform. The passing of the Revenue Act of 1971 allows citizens to contribute one dollar to a presidential candidate’s campaign fund by checking a box on their federal income tax returns. Along with the Revenue Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act was also passed in 1971. This law institutes disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees of donations more than $100. This law also sets a spending limit of $50,000

It’s an implied threat: “if you don’t treat us well we’ll give you less and they’ll be ahead.” Having donators like companies and individuals that donate a fair amount of money towards the party they choose will affect the views and decisions of politics and influences them, as these donors will want their voices to be heard. But some individuals like to keep their donations are secret from the public and are able to donate a certain amount and split that up into smaller donations and give it to parties. According to ABC News (2017), ‘‘We don't know the source of 49 percent of the money received by our major parties last financial year. That means in the year leading up to a federal election, politicians and their parties derived $77 million from undisclosed sources. And it's entirely legal.’’ This tells us that almost half of the donations that have been donated by individuals or organisations does not have a source from where the money came from and can potentially be ‘Dark Money’ (funds donate to influence elections, and donors don’t have to be

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.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a "law that requires all candidates to fully disclose all contributions and expenditures in excess of $100." (pg.161) This law proved very helpful because in 1968, before they really started pushing disclosure, candidates would report spending $8.5 million but four years later candidates were reporting that they had spent about $88.9 million. It was a giant leap in what they were spending, over ten times the said amount. The FECA also made it to where "it was permissible for corporations and labor unions to set up separate, segregated funds that could be used for a political purpose." (pg.161) Having this created a lot of PACs that would give political parties and interest groups money to running

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

     Rather than government providing millions of dollars for the campaign and putting harsh restricts on individual donations, I believe that the limits should not be put on the American people but on the candidates themselves. Spending on the campaign has gotten out of control within the last decade. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spend on mobile campaigns, advertisements, and media exposure. This funding could easily go towards other areas of society, benefiting the very people that the candidates wish to govern. Rather than directing negative attention, I believe that candidates should reach out to the public to gain support. Campaigning for presidency should not be about winning or who raises the most money. Presidency should be about protecting and caring for the American people. The conduct of campaigns should be monitored in order to limit spending and to prevent negative advertising towards opposite candidates.

It is a reality universally agreed upon that there is a baseless aggregate of wealth that is expended in electoral campaigns in the United States of America. One does not need to investigate any further than the previous federal election, where the unmitigated sum of affluence was greater than the vox populi of Earth, to comprehend the actuality that the immersion of money in politics has developed into a concern that must be amended. Furthermore, if this issue is permitted to continue, then the entire American campaign system remains tainted due to the fact that the politician with more wealth is able to propagandize better. It is essential that the regulations of campaign finance are reformed in the United States; for in modern politics, money has an abundant amount of influence and sway over individual votes, which in turn abolishes political equality.

In COMP 101, I chose to write about congressional fundraising. Congressional fundraising is a new and serious problem facing the United States’ political system. In order to fix the problems of congressional fundraising, we need to spread awareness of this problem. This essay will discuss the targeted audience, my political cartoon and my overall experience in this class.

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.

This is where “soft money” plays a role, it is the loophole used by politicians to remove the cap on their fundraising (Gill). “Soft money” is a donation made to National Party Committees rather than a political candidate. This money cannot be directly used to promote candidates, but it can be used to promote a political party’s interests. This means that a political party cannot run a campaign advertisement that directly ask viewers to vote for the party’s candidate, but they can run advertisements that include the candidate promoting the party. There is also no limitations on how “soft money” can be used to portray candidates of other political parties, meaning that it can be freely used to finance political attack ads. The biggest issue with “soft money’ is that Federal Election Commission does not