The Decision Making Process Of Governmental Officials

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.

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.

Daniel R. Ortiz’s writing, The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform states that those who argue for campaign finance reform, violate the democratic theory in the name of defending it. This article reveals the paradox between campaign finance reform and other types of regulation of political process. Although the paradox is unavoidable, along with discomforting, it should be made evident.

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.

Since the creation of the United States government, political lobbying has played a large role in influencing the creation and modification of laws. The act of lobbying is to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body (Dictionary.com). There has always been controversy surrounding the political lobbying system, due to the potential of corruption through bribery. Two important pieces of legislation became laws as a result of this controversy. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 and the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were created to prevent potential abuse within the political lobbying system.

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

The Fair Elections Now Act was introduced by Senator Durbin of Illinois in February 2014, and it would change the way Congressional candidates can finance their elections. The Act stipulates that qualified Congressional candidates would earn grants, matching funds, and television vouchers based on a minimum amount of small-dollar contributions from their local community (Durbin, 2015). This bill has still not been adopted, or accepted into law. This type of campaign finance reform is needed for Presidential elections as well.

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

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

First, Lazarus argued that most members of Congress received small donations from the same organizations for which they pursed earmarks. While this is not illegal, it certainly is not ethical. In the most glaring cases, at least five United States Representatives received over $100,000 due to earmarks. Lazarus points out that these numbers do not include donations made to members by lobbying firms on behalf of the companies seeking earmarks, as well as, money donated by individuals associated with those companies. Taking all of these factors into account, Lazarus concluded that on average members received $30,000 in campaign donations per earmark. Finally, supporters of the ban on earmarks argue that only the most skilled or powerful politicians will secure beneficial earmarks for their constituents. Therefore, the areas that need federal aid the most will not be fairly served by earmarks, unless their representative is particularly skilled or

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.

The United States of America for over a century has been an a model of exemplary constitutional democracy. In order to uphold its reputation the United States has passed laws and created agencies to make sure the government is transparent. The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (FECA), is one of these. It forms the foundation of current federal campaign finance law in the United States. FECA's main goal is to put limits on contributions to federal candidates and political parties, a system for disclosure and voluntary public financing for presidential candidates. However America’s reputation for justice, law, and equality has been tarnished by abuses to campaign finance law that aid in electing the varying political faces that

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.

The rational decision-making model describes a series of steps that decision makers should consider if their goal is to maximize the quality of their outcome. In other words, if you want to make sure that you make the best choice, going through the formal steps of the rational decision-making model may make sense. The following are the steps taken to come to a rational decision: 1. Identify the problem, 2. Establish decision criteria, 3. Weigh decision criteria, 4. Generate alternatives, 5. Evaluate the alternative, 6. Choose the best alternative, 7. Implement the decision, 8. Evaluate the decision.

Decision-making is very vital in the study of administration. Decision-making is the act of deciding the best choice or alternative that brings success or advantage to a situation that will ensure maximum benefits and least risk. Probability can be applied to decision-making in public administration because it is possible to estimate the probability of occurrence of specific events. A part of decision-making in relationship to public administration has to do with goals. The probability of you meeting those goals depends on decision-making. For example a restaurant owner has received more revenue on Thursdays than on any other day And less Revenue on Saturdays than any other day. The owner has looked at everything that could have influenced his sales. The owner realized that the only things that were different on Thursdays than any other day was the chief special and the drink special. According to the receipts of the last four Thursdays the probability that a customer orders a drink special is 60%. The probability that a customer orders the chief special is 50%. The probability of them ordering both is 42%. This shows the restaurant owner that Thursdays drink special should be considered on both Thursdays and Saturdays.