The Election Of Trump And Hilary

The campaign finance reform demonstrates some vital roles in a country’s government. It can be understood that the bill can be taken for advantage, but at the same time it can also be destructive. Elizabeth states “There are real concerns money poses about equality and corruption, but the cure is often worse than the disease” (Renstrom). The three important roles are the reform, the contribution, and the security.

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

“Money talks” is an expression many form as a simple analogy to the problem associated with wealth today. However, the value of money is not to be taken in vain as money does not always showcase the attributes of knowledge and power. At the same time, those who do possess money do, in some cases, possess the attributes commonly associated with the wealthier class. “Money and Class in America” wrote by Lewis Lapham in 1988, showcases the pessimistic feelings Lapham has towards the American faith in money. Lapham believes that Americans are at a loss to hold the majesty of money at bay. Though I agree with Lapham to a point, I also believe that the assumptions of Americans do apply to a point.

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.

In American society, wealth has played a particularly significant role in shaping the culture and standards set for our country. With every dilemma that has occurred, money was been an underlying deciding factor in the end. John.F.Kennedy makes this very clear in his statement on lowering the prices of steel, all the way Jennifer Price's take on people being obsessed with a money, even Scott Russell’s article on the status quo Americans believe determines one's happiness and success. All of these passages tie together to show just how money influences our very own society.

One of the issues I am most passionate about is that of money in American politics. Increasing campaign costs, coupled with a decrease in the number of donors contributing to those campaigns, is a disturbing trend which has caused many to feel the need to question the state of our democracy—myself included. The problem of mainstream political corruption and legalized bribery is one that I was made aware of three years ago, and has since become one of the things keeping me up at night most often.

Vladeck (2002, para.14) addresses the issue of monetary power and its impact on universal health care coverage in the United States further pointing out that while politicians in the United States were able to succeed without huge electoral support, they couldn’t succeed without money behind them. As industry began to grow in the United States and contracts came up for large infrastructure projects such as the railroad, building canals or bridges and mining, the concept of political donations in return for lucrative contracts began to get established. Vladeck (2002, para16) also points out that wealthy groups and individuals have always been

The process of law making is shadowed in comparison to the process of getting reelected (Kettl). I deem that in modern democracy the Jacksonian idea is completely abolished by today’s government. The Jacksonian democracy expanded voter participation and gave light to the political era of the common citizen (Ginsberg). The idea that the President or even Congress serves the people over themselves is completely non-existent in today’s democracy. As a result, the relationship of government to economic and political power is becoming deeper. Money has always played a role in the democracy of the United States, but in modern democracy money is the key to reelection and power (Ginsberg); which gives little meaning to the idea of democracy. Money can provide a gateway for a candidate who may not even be fully competent to hold an office in Congress or the Presidency, but money is so powerful that people will still see them as a viable candidate and ultimately vote for them because their campaign is

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

Money is a form of payment in America, money has little to much value. It can be seen as a coin or as paper, which has been issued legally by the government. Money can be used in exchange for certain things a person or group desires. With money in peoples' hands, it can drive them to make certain decisions with much power. People in politics use a form of money to pay for their beliefs in the United States of America. For many years, elections have been organized based on privately funded campaigns. When a candidate is running for presidency it becomes very expensive and difficult to manage on their own. Therefore if the candidate is wealthy, their campaign is set to go and continue. If the candidate needs financial assistance in order to

In a country built from unparalleled equality, our election system is not inclusive of the less affluent candidates. Inevitably, monetary funding has become a centralized focus point for American politics and has provided a reckless entry way for candidates not prepared for the presidency. Taking this current election for example, Hillary Clinton, democratic presidential candidate, received a donation of 25.6 million dollars from the Hedge-Fund, this being only a small fraction of her over all funding. Contrastingly, Jill Stein, Green Party Candidate, has only received 3.2 million dollars in total funding for her campaign. The difference is striking. Providing a

In the government there is money being used to buy the results that the rich desire due to the mobilization of business that occurred in the mid 1970’s. Businesman united so that regulations of the government would not negatively impact the income of the wealthiest people who owned businesses and corporations.Corporations became more aggressive when it came to politics. For this reason, people such as the Koch brothers used their wealth and power to control the government to have policies that favored their business.

The conclusion that Woll reaches, that financial power is not simply a product of superior resources but more of a long term relationship between finance and the state is coherent with the idea that not only is the state influenced by finance, but also how finance needs the state (Datz

Prevalent flaws within most modern democracies are evident in their social and economic systems. One such problem, in a system that advocates freedom to do whatever you please, is the consequential wealth disparity (Wong, Oct. 24 lecture, tutorial). Aristotle once said that, “democracy is the form of government in which… the free are the many and the rich are the few”. This highlights a paradox of democracy in that it attempts to be equal to all, yet often the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and an increasing wealth divide will influence governance. Constant writes (pg. 12), “wealth is a power more readily available at any moment… more

Money is extremely relevant in International relations because money makes vast amounts of people and goods go around the world to exchange skills and money respectively. Bonds are the main link between money and the international system, due to the fact that governments spend more than they can raise in tax resulting in them selling bonds to make up for their credit, furthermore bad debts within banks are the reason countries go bankrupt therefore loaning money from other countries hence money influences foreign policy because states are always power seeking. The pursuit of power can without a doubt be related to money and this money can be found if a state associates itself with the economies of other states.