Politics On The World Wide Web

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,

There are few places on this Earth, if any, where the possibilities are truly endless. However, if you detach yourself from the physical world and emerge into the “online” world, you find that this just might actually be accurate in this realm. The World Wide Web has had so much to offer to us since the early 1990s, but with this comes controversy. Unleashed onto a plane of seemingly immeasurable freedom of anonymity, was the world ready for such responsibility? Since those early days when new emerging technology changed our lives immensely, have we at all become a better place, or have we bitten off more than we can chew, and doomed our human relations forever? Exploring these concepts are three in-depth articles, including: “Growing Up Tethered” by Sherry Turkle, “The Loneliness of the Interconnected” by Charles Seife, and “Cybersexism” by Laurie Penny. Although it is thought that the Internet brings the world together, it actually does not help us politically, culturally, and economically like one would believe, as it makes us unable to be independent, isolates us from different points of view, and encourages real-world violence against women and other minority groups.

In the 2016 election cycle, over 1.4 billion dollars was given to presidential candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016a). This is more than any other presidential election cycle in history (Price 2016). Another billion dollars was given to U.S. House of Representatives candidates, and about 600 million dollars was given to U.S. Senate candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016b). The majority of this money went to funding the candidates’ campaigns. This money controlled whose ads voter’s saw on television and which candidates were able to afford to travel the country campaigning for votes. In many cases, the candidate with the most money available won their election. Most campaigns are financed in large part by a small number

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

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.

Congressional elections occur every two years and it is when members if the House of Representatives and Senate are elected. An incumbent is when a congressman is up for re-election but is currently still holding office. We have long known that US incumbents enjoy profound electoral advantages in congressional elections. However contrary to speculation some evidence shows that they are on an equal playing field with contesters who are not incumbents.

Effective election campaigns have always relied on the candidates’ ability to raise money. Even in the days before television, radio and the internet, it still took money to get the word out to the people in a far-flung land. However, today’s candidates are faced with raising larger and larger amounts of money with each new election that comes along.

Money has played a large part in this shift from party-centered to candidate-centered elections. As campaigns have grown more expensive, candidates have come to rely increasingly on their own fundraising abilities or personal fortunes to win public office. For example, about $6 billion was spent on the 2012 presidential election campaigns. On average, winning candidates for a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.5 million each. Winners of each Senate seat spent an average of $9.7 million. In future elections, the cost will likely be even

Taylor discusses in chapter 4; Unequal Uptake, her take on the inequalities and realities of web 2.0, and that while the web is a great tool to be used and it does provide connectedness, we have yet to achieve true cultural democracy. With this, she takes into account of what the media boosters think about the accessibility of the internet and how it empowers those who take the time to use it. They would argue that now with the internet we are all hyper-connected and this makes us hyper-empowered, and should we thrive in using this new system become hyper-democratic. However, it is a problem to say the internet has inequalities because it is very ambiguous in terms of the web and the amount of inequalities and factors playing are quite expansive. One of the clearer issues that Taylor points out is the monetary division among internet users, where the rich can afford what is described as the super highway of web, high speed, and the secondary class of internet, wireless, is left to the financially challenged. In the participation of the rich and large monopoly companies like Amazon, Google, and so forth is what creates the difficulty for niche cultures and late bloomers to flourish using the web. But this lack of openness is not the only problem as when the web evolves it is becoming harder to maintain diversity because it is turning into a much more personalized entity, meaning the exposure to difference may be decreasing as our ‘filter bubbles’ become more apparent. She illustrates that the big difference in the real world as opposed to the virtual is that we are focused on the wrong things, things that please us, that may make us famous, etc. but we should be finding new ways to confront opportunity in order for the digital democracy to come to

All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were up for reelection in 2010. In the 2010 U.S. House election, the average amount spent by Super PACs in 87 districts was $242,580; see Table 1 and Figure 1 for average spending by outside entities and challengers. The maximum about Super PACs spent was $912,503 in Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District, where Cory Gardner (R) defeated incumbent Betsy Markey (D). The average independent expenditures by political parties in 94 districts was $1,238,897. The maximum outside party spending was $4,289,706 in Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District, where Tim Walberg (R) beat incumbent Mark Schauer (D). The average challenger spending was $704,692 in 366 districts. Figures 2, shows the

"Individuals and PACs in finance, insurance, and real estate have contributed over $2 billion to federal campaigns since 1990. Wall Street contributions increased from $60 million in 1990 to $311 million in 2005" (Wall online). "Electoral competition is achieved when qualified candidates have access to sufficient spending to become known to the voters" (Does online). Therefore the candidate must resort to any means necessary to have sufficient funds to run a successful campaign. Stricter campaign financing guidelines are needed to limit the amount of donations to candidates because interest money is a dominant factor in campaigns. It steers the ideological views of the candidate toward the Political Action Committee that donates the most

26. This document demonstrates the amount of money raised by both political parties, the democrats and republicans, in 2010 to pay for their election campaign. It reveals that campaigning is very expensive in our system. This document relates to the topic interest groups in which we covered in class. Based on the document the Democratic Party made the most money for campaigning, which can allocate for them winning the election that year.

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.

Theorists contend that representative government is headed for direct democracy by way of the Internet. Essentially what will happen is that representatives will no longer be needed because citizens will be able to use the Internet to make decisions. Grossman contends that “the more power [citizens] have to control their government and to involve themselves in making its decisions, the better” (41). Over the years citizens have been obtaining information through the media, newspapers, and other forms of mass media. The issues that arise with obtaining information through these sources are that the government can easily censor them. With the Internet comes “vastly expanded capacities for data collection, for computation, and for automation” (Kamark & Nye 22).

With the development of the Web 2.0 which made Internet participative, the Internet users are now capable of expressing themselves, interacting, and giving their opinion onto everything (products, services, brands, companies, cultural property) and on everybody, via multiple platforms on Internet. To criticize a restaurant on Cityvox, to note a seller on eBay, to denounce the actions of a brand or a company via a viral video on YouTube, to support a candidate for an election, to