The Monetary Aspects Of Financing Campaigns

907 Words4 Pages
Running a campaign is similar to running a financial institution because it consists of investors who expect to see profit in return. A campaign costs millions of dollars to ”[remind citizens] of their ultimate power—the vote [which is involved in campaigns]” (USHISTORY.ORG, 2016). Financial donations cause the “cost of American campaigns to increase [and has had] an important implication for strategy ” (Sides, et al, 2015, p. 83). The monetary aspects of financing campaigns have impacted the decisions of political candidates, and the representation of the people as a whole. The United States is heading in the wrong direction when tackling this issue of campaign finance; therefore, it is exemplified in the Supreme Court decisions in…show more content…
This is important, the Supreme Court saw the impact of money, if you limit the quantity of money, your restricting issues from occurring (Lipsitz, Lecture 5). This was a great effort to limit corruption.
These efforts begin to spiral out of control the discussion of Citizens United v. FEC, and Speechnow v. FEC comes into play. The Supreme Court decisions in these two cases in 2010, basically reflects a citizens right under the constitution to the freedom of speech, but endorses corruption within campaigns. The decisions the Supreme Court made, basically threw out all bans on contributions to political campaigns, giving candidates to accept unlimited amounts of monetary gifts from corporations and/or union to support his/her cause. This leads to campaigns becoming corrupted by monetary gifts, which is not good. Thus, the campaign is being run by the people who actually contributed these monetary gifts, and not by the candidate him or herself.
According to Lessig’s Ted Talk, to run in an election a candidate must be highly supported by the funders and the people. Specifically, it is the funders who vote, who are 0.05% of people who give a candidate the maximum monetary support. This is a keen problem specifically, because this 0.05% is now in control of the outcomes of the election (Lessig, Video file). The candidates, who are being supported by these funders, are indebted to keep these funders happy because they are supporting them dearly. This goes
Get Access