The Bush, An American Politician And Politician

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

In recent elections on the congressional level as well as for President we see the growing influences of interest groups in the form of PAC’s and Super PAC’s to back candidates. Super PAC’s can spend an unrestricted amount money to support a certain problems or candidate but cannot donate directly to the campaigns. PAC’s work with campaigns directly reallocating donations to candidates and parties.

John Ellis Bush known as JEB was born February 11, 1953 in Texas. He served as governor in Florida from 1999 to 2007. Bush is known for his moderate stance on immigration and common core. JEB is the son of former Preseident George H.W Bush. JEB also has 3 kids named George Bush, Noelle and John Jr. JEb worked as a volunteer on his dad campaign in 1980 saying that " My dad is the greatest man i have ever met or will meet." JEB is fluent in Spanish and graduated from the University of Texas. JEb has a degree in Latin America affairs which is very impressive. JEB is also the only Republican to serve two-four year terms as a governor of Florida.

"First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty" by Bill Minutaglio, details the history and upbringing of this year's Republican candidate and gives insight as to the impact his family heritage has had on him as a person, and who and what has influenced him as a politician. The biography is mostly nonjudgmental towards George W. Bush, but does paint an image of him and his family that is exactly what he has been trying to deny throughout his whole political life: he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and has led a largely unremarkable life that has left him unqualified as a candidate for President of the United States.

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

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committee's

The Adams’, Roosevelt’s, Kennedy’s, and even Clinton’s earned the ability to have their name represent power and respect. The Bush’s have not earned that ability, but they will continue to try. One Bush was enough, but we had to endure a 2nd, and entertain the possibility of a 3rd. Jeb Bush just plainly does not have “it”, but that did not stop his establishment fueled Super PAC from raising him millions of dollars. The populace has shown that they are looking for an outsider, and Jeb Bush is the furthest thing from it. He may have been more successful if ran in 2012, when he would have been a Bushier version of Mitt Romney, but in 2016 his campaign has faltered heavily. We are seeing that the “Smart” Bush is not all that smart. He is not charismatic or quick on his feet (saying Margaret Thatcher should be on the $10 bill was ill-advised), so he just has his record and name to run on. His reputation as Governor is marred by the Terry Schiavo case, but he did bring in job growth and balanced budgets. Running on his family name might not yield the best of returns, as the taste of his brother has not yet left the national pallet. Jeb!, despite all his faults, is one of the most practical people running. He is statesmanlike, has knowledge on the issues, and seems to have a genuine desire to help the American people. Jeb likely won’t win the nomination, but the GOP could do a lot

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

No one knows how much of that money came from corporate treasures. The courts five to four decision said that is it OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The courts decision also stated that the first amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

The Supreme Court also sited in that same ruling that, “In a free society by our Constitution, it is not the government, but the people-individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees-who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign” (Keena 6). While it may be a violation of freedom of speech to limit television ads, many of today’s candidates have made a mockery of the existing legislature regarding campaign financing. Ex-president Bill Clinton bent the rules and laws more than possibly any elected official ever, and certainly farther than anyone since Richard Nixon. Thad Cochran, a veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, stated, “Clinton used his own party and had it operated out of the campaign office, which was the White House, to coordinate expenditures by the Democratic Party and his election campaign in an unlimited amount, using soft money to pay for the ads, with his own chief-of-staff making the decisions about the kind of advertising, and Clinton himself was involved in writing some of the ads that were actually run by the Democratic Party using soft money” (Williams 10). No elected official had ever gone so far as to run soft money ads out of his own office, let alone rewrite the ads himself. It is cases such as this one that are prime examples for why there is such a need for new laws to govern campaign financing.

Moreover, they believed Trump’s novelty act as the “outsider” would soon wear out and make GOP voters collectively come to their senses and coalesce behind either Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, the party’s blue-eyed boys. This cocksure feeling has now given way to one of dread as Trump keeps notching victories in the primary season. A new Rasmussen poll puts Trump 15 points clear of closest rival Ted Cruz. More worryingly, 24% of Trump’s base will “very likely” vote for him if he runs as an independent, effectively torching GOP hopes of preventing a Democratic three-peat in the White House.

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.

After the Citizen United vs. the FEC Supreme Court ruling, in favor of Citizens United, political campaigns have the ability to raise much greater funds through organizations called super PACs. According to Michael Beckel a political reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, “Officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees”— and unofficially dubbed “super PACs”—these political action committees are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations” (Beckel 655). On top of the ability to raise unlimited funds, the individuals donating are not required to disclose their names. This could lead to some serious corruption. Super PACs can run as much advertisement either for or against a political candidate, seriously swaying the way citizen’s vote and view a candidate. In fact “super PACs are allowed to use 100 percent of the funds they raise to influence elections” (Beckel 656). No one expected this Supreme Court ruling to have an impact so fast. As stated in an article published by The Nation, “The total number of TV ads for House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in 2010 was 2,870,000. This was a 250 percent increase over the number of TV ads