The Corruption Of The Democratic System

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

Americans only see few ways to affect real change on government because politicians are too reliant upon large donations. Groups contribute money, and later on receive a kickback of bill that favors them or supports their positions. “Candidates who raise lots of money say it indicates broad support. Candidates with little money point out that voters, not donors, decide elections” (2012 Presidential). Candidates spend large amount of time fundraising, which decreases people’s confidence in the government’s ability to do their

Tulia, a small town in Texas of just under five-thousand people, is a frightening example of how the judicial system is governed solely by racism as well as one corrupt man’s word. In 1999, nearly ten percent of the town’s African American population was arrested in a single drug bust. Of the forty-six people arrested, thirty-eight were African-American, furthermore all were convicted. The remaining seven arrested where know to associate more with the black community than the white in Tulia as well. With the towns income levels averaging at or below the poverty line, most arrested could not afford to hire a good attorney that cared or had the time to care, left therefore with one provided by the state. Consequently, convictions were up to ninety years in jail for allegedly selling three and a half grams, more commonly known as an eight ball, of cocaine in drug-free zones. In was only on appeals, that the convictions where revoked on insubstantial evidence.

A further argument that compliments the idea that money increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the main factor in contributing to a candidate’s success is Congress’ attempts to try and limit its influence. The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 set limits on campaign finance but was effectively struck down in Citizens United 2010. Congress isn’t trying to set limits on the amount of events a candidate runs but rather the expenditure limits. This suggests that money increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the main factor in contributing to a candidate’s success because Congress trying to limit indicates its influence and dominance. In the UK, there is a strict campaign finance rule, which also compliments the idea that it is a dominant factor.

It is time that the voters are the only one’s deciding elections. Candidates should be running on issues, not money. They should not be allowed to get money from wealthy investors, who keep the playing field unlevel. Any person who wants to run for office, and is qualified to run for office, should be able to regardless if they have a lot of money to set up a campaign or not. It is time for Campaign Finance Reform.

The Progress movement or as many refer to as the Progressive era, was a time frame where Americans joined in varying groups to advocate reform across the United States. To elaborate, Progressives believed in widespread change for child labor, industrialization, government, racial reform, and women’s rights. Countless stories of corruption in these areas were brought to light in the Progressive era mostly due to the published writings of Muckrakers. Muckrakers, were journalists who wrote for popular magazines that attempted to expose corrupt political activities from their investigative journalism. Furthermore, I will discuss and compare these groups and their attempts for changes in the rights of child labor, women, acknowledgment of corrupt government practices, racial relations, and industrialization reform.

Of course, such influence establishes a tyranny of the rich that our forefathers clearly wanted to prevent. Senator Russ Feingold, a proponent of campaign finance reform, said, "The current campaign finance system is fueling the transformation of our representative democracy into a corporate democracy creating a political system that allots power in direct relation to the amount of money an individual or interest group can contribute" (Campaign Finance Reform). The horror of such a governmental system has fueled the cries for campaign finance reform.

           The U.S. electoral system was created to give every citizen a say in who their elected officials should be, but this system has failed miserably. The right to vote is a basic right that needs be provided to every American regardless of such traits as political party, religion, or ethnicity. It is unethical to deny a person the right to vote and historically that has been a major problem in the United States. Our election system is completely corrupt and voter rights is not the only problem, strategically drawing voting districts is also a major issue. Our current electoral system is corrupt and unethical because of gerrymandering, the breaking down of the voter rights act, and voter ID laws.

While public outcry has produced groups such as the Tea Party, who claim to favor nontraditional politics, it’s important to note that wealth is an important factor in campaigning. A person of modest income will find it more difficult to run for office than a person of a wealthy background. A person with wealth, by nature, runs in the same groups with his or her income level, and therefore has more access to raising money than a person who is not from a higher income level. A person who is not wealthy would have to do more fundraising, and acquire either larger contributions or small contributions from a greater number of people.

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.

outside spending more than doubled from 2010 through 2014, to $486 million. In some competitive races, outside expenditures accounted for as much as two-thirds of the total. Small donors don't play a role: In most cases, fewer than 1% of all contributions are $200 or less. The average contributions are in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.” (Hiltzik) This is a clear example of what is happening in current political elections, the capacity for big money and corporations to chase their interests in the political field through money gives them a huge advantage in electing individuals who are predisposed towards their practices and beholden to them for helping them get elected. A representative government is supposed to be one that provides equal representation by all people and small groups. The current system ignores this and gives preference to small groups, but only a select

Our elections are now considered a corrupt and torn apart system and “if our elections get appreciably more corrupt, extending the trajectory they were already on in 2012, the use of the term ‘democracy’ to describe the United States will be inaccurate in even the weakest sense of the term” (Nichols and McChesney). Just in the 2016 election campaigns alone, in between six and seven billion dollars were spent. All of this money was spent to win as many voters as possible to win the election. Some large businesses and other parties donate large amounts of money to the campaign that will benefit their business or values. The winner of the election then may pass policies to benefit their largest donors. It is not fair to the citizens who don't have the money to benefit themselves with policies. Every voter should have the same amount of say in each election, no matter how much money they have to give.

With great money comes great power. In the United States, the richest men and women of the country own the top 20% of wealth. The kind of money the wealthiest people in the country have, they can approve or disapprove any law passed by the government. So, money brings on power over the government. The government mostly pays attention to the monetary backbone of the country; if the backbone is not satisfied then trouble can brew. That is why the poorest people in the United States decide not to be active with politics because they feel as if their vote will make no difference. They will be in the same situation no matter who the president

Money itself is worthless; it is what we do with it that matters. Many people give enormous amounts of their earnings to ensure re-election and to keep national prominence, but many times these people become more concerned with this fame than they are with actually protecting the rights of the people. If government leaders were to focus on how to better cooperate with others and provide people with what they need, they would not have time to worry about their own prominence and wealth. The idea of putting others first, or refusing to work in politics for one's own gain, would radically change the way things work now. Without a doubt, things need to be changed in order to create more confidence in and enthusiasm for American politics. People in authority should ideally be men and women with morals, responsible work ethic, and unselfish personal goals. Government leaders should not operate according to what their personal party desires but should be concerned with what is the ethical thing to do. Ignoring the immaturity of divisive political rhetoric and the temptation of colossal amounts of money will enable a person to act honestly and uprightly. A nearly perfect government would be full of people unconcerned for themselves but devoted to helping others. This takes the spotlight off of the American dollar and shines it on the unity of the diverse people of America. Collaboration, not

Since the beginning of American history, those who are wealthy with, who have connections, and who are privileged, have the most control/influence over who gets elected into office. These people are the business owing, monopoly owning, type of people. These are the people who have thousands even millions to put into an election, in order to help candidates gain popularity points. No, this is not fair because not everybody has thousands or millions to waste on an election, but that is they things go. The way that we can unite, and come together as citizens is to go against these big businesses and business men.