The Politics of Campaign Finance Essay

The Populist movement was a rising third party of angry farmers and factory workers. The idea behind this movement was to take the power away from bankers and business leaders. Baum was a supporter of William Jennings Bryan, presidential candidate for Democratic Party. Bryan supported the laboring class of the economy, his main concern was “adding silver to the nation’s gold standard” (49). They wanted money to be silver based since silver was available in the Mid-West and in doing so; the banks would no longer be able to manipulate the money supply. The goal of the participants of the party such as Baum was to break the power of the concentrated corporates. During the same time in 1890’s a severe depressions caused businesses to go bankrupt, farmers to sell their lands and factories were being shut down leaving workers unemployed. The Populist Party believed that switching to silver would pump money in the economy and would at least keep the businesses going.

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.

Dating back many decades, it appears that lobbying and politics have always gone hand and hand on any political stage. Lobbying has always had a strong presence in the legislation system. Lobbying is the process of offering campaign contributions, bribes, or information to policymakers for the purpose of achieving favorable policy outcomes. Conventional wisdom suggests that lobbying is the preferred mean for exerting political influence in rich countries and corruption in poor countries. The legislation is meant to benefit society and ensure that citizens are having their voices heard, instead of hindering them in favour of the multi-national corporations. Lobbying has a negative influence on legislations in both developed and developing

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.

‘Despite several attempts to regulate campaign finance, money increasingly dominates the U.S. Electoral process and is the main factor contributing to a candidates success’ Discuss (30 marks)

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

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.

John Adams made a deal with Henry Clay to help him win the election in return Adams would make him Secretary Of State. In 1828 Andrew Jackson ran for presidency, he beat Adams by a landslide because he became very unpopular during the 4 years he was president. Andrew appealed to most common people, that's what helped him win the election, he used a direct campaign towards people.

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 late nineteenth century was a power struggle between the democratic and the republicans parties of the United States. The struggle between these two parties eventually led to the populist party’s emergence. As a result of how the populist party built trust and united certain people, this was evident by the combined effort of individuals who have otherwise never united together before. The party rose to fame with the advent of the them listening to the concern of the people. However, the party saw its fame quickly dwindle during the election of 1896, with silver being the cause of this downfall.

During the Gilded Age, the Democrats and Republicans dominated the political realm. As farmers began to confront financial insecurity and poverty due to falling agricultural prices, the Farmer’s Alliance formed. The Farmer’s Alliance was an agricultural movement that mobilized farmers to help in the reestablishment of economic stability. The Alliance did not get involved in politics, until they evolved into the Populist Party. The Populist Party was a new political rebellion that stood on the platform of democratic restoration, economic opportunity, direct elections of Senators, the formation of labor unions, referendum, income tax and public ownership of railroads (Foner, 638). The Populist Party also wanted to change from the Gold Standard to the Silver Standard to ensure that dollars issued were backed by silver. Under those conditions, the Sherman’s Silver Purchase Act passed, which attempted to assist farmers by the government purchasing more silver for coinage. As presidential elections of 1896 began, the Populist Party tried to appeal to Americans with their rhetoric, however, they did not accrue many Populist votes because of the inadequacy of their appeal to the American people. They ended up riding on the coattail of the Democratic Party, which ended up losing. The Populist Party was unable to emerge as an individual political party, but the changes they stood

Cleveland was the leader of the pro-business Bourbon Democrats who opposed high tariffs, Free Silver, inflation, imperialism, and subsidies to business, farmers, or veterans. His crusade for political reform and fiscal conservatism made him an icon for American conservatives of the era.[2] Cleveland won praise for his honesty, self-reliance, integrity, and commitment to the principles of classical liberalism.[3] He relentlessly fought political corruption, patronage, and bossism. Indeed, as a reformer his prestige was so strong that the like-minded wing of the Republican Party, called "Mugwumps", largely bolted the GOP presidential ticket and swung to his support in the 1884

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

With the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye.      There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.

In his discussion of campaign finance regulation, Christiano argues that with cases of gatekeeper mechanism and opinion formation mechanism, campaign expenditures should be regulated to prevent “drowning out” of the opinions of nonaffluents. He proposes that certain regulations will actually help protect and promote freedom of expression, and suggests to limit expenditures and distribute vouchers during campaign periods. Using a prima facie equation, I will argue against the claim that Christiano’s restrictions interfere unduly with freedom of expression and defend his proposal as a valid resolution to the problem of “drowning out.”