The Pros And Cons Of Political Spending

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.

According to Michael Stinnett who wrote an article about the negative consequences of super PACs on elections he says Super PACs “allowing wealthy donors to buy elections”(Stinnett). His fear is due to Super PACs having very lax campaigning rules and regulations it has the potential to let the wealthy few give all of their money to people who once in office support bills and law that will be beneficial for the donors. Michael Stinnett even went as far as saying “Super PACs are a pernicious influence on society and should be abolished”(Stinnett). Not only does he has this negative feeling about Super PACS, But he shares them with approximately two-thirds of americans who understand the new rules according to a new study done by the pew research center (pew

In recent elections on the congressional level as well as for President we see the growing influences of interest groups in the form of PAC’s and Super PAC’s to back candidates. Super PAC’s can spend an unrestricted amount money to support a certain problems or candidate but cannot donate directly to the campaigns. PAC’s work with campaigns directly reallocating donations to candidates and parties.

I agree that, deep down, there is something wrong with the way in which campaigns in the United States are financed. There is little doubt that large corporations and/or special interest groups have a “quid pro quo” expectation attached to the outlay of large sums of money (an expectation of a direct exchange of campaign contributions for favorable government treatment).

New PACs formed with each election year and they had the ability to fund a candidate of their choice, and to force that candidate to try to carry out the organization's goals, no matter how detrimental. Ultimately, PACs lead to Super PACs, which, in addition to sharing many attributes to PACs, can raise and donate significantly larger sums of money, and hide the names of their donors for long periods of time. Additionally, Independent Expenditures organizations face no restrictions on the amount of money they can raise, and 501(c) groups can completely conceal the identities of their donors for the duration of an election season. In fact, 501(c) groups have become so powerful that they provide approximately half the money used during election seasons with the hope of swaying citizens to vote for their favored candidate. (Karlan 13) These organizations clearly demonstrate the effect and the power that money holds in both elections and the government in general. However, Pamela S. Karlan, a professor of law at Stanford Law School, shares this message: “However, money is only one symptom of a deeper political pathology.” This serves as a reminder that dollar bills can not singularly take blame for the uncertainty in our

The case “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” was to regulate the spendings of candidates campaign, but it failed to succeed. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Bentley, 2017) The case was ruled in favor of big business donating private funds to campaigns. They argued because the first amendment protects the right to speak of many corporations and unions, whether or not people see them as human, therefore the are aloud to donate money to a candidate. (Bentley, 2017) In the academic journal written by Bentley, he States the Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued, " although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis." This meaning the government cannot enforce spending limits on private donors due to the government not being able to identify the big businesses as "corrupted". Since the government cannot label an organization as corrupt or unjust, therefore the donor can continue to assist the candidate. The main problem is the United States of America seems to avoid this. There is a clear problem with Citizens United being able to continue donating money to candidates without giving them so much power. This can be stopped through a constitutional amendment to strip away the corporations of their rights. (Bentley, 2017) By doing this, there will be a very successful campaign for future candidates due to there being an equal amount of money being distributed to them

Considering that Campaign Financing decreases the say of poor people, adds to corruption in the government and gives inequitable power to corporations Congress needs to pass a bill restricting the amount an individual, unions or corporation can give to a Super PAC. Being able to give unlimited money to Super PACs let money run the government which is not how our founding fathers intended. They intended for the US to be a democracy where every citizen has an equal say. As of now there is no limit on how much money can be contributed to a Super PAC which is a major problem in our political system.

The Supreme Court years ago defined monetary campaign contributions as a form of speech and allowed them to be limited because of fears that corporate money corrupts elections. (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) The ruling upheld limits on contributions to individual candidates and on contributions to multiple candidates by persons or groups.

Considering the presidential primary season is underway, there is a lot of debate around whether or not Super PACs are considered a form of corruption in government. Many Americans believe that because of Super PACs, the elected candidate will favor the ideals of the large-contributors who helped fund their campaign “indirectly”. This paper seeks to analyze the extent to which Super PACs may corrupt democracy. Using surveys from the Brennan Center for Justice and data from both Yale and Seton Hall Law, we discover theories on how people view Super PACs and their role in American democracy. The conclusion of our research suggests that Super PACs are undemocratic in both the sense that only a very small proportion of Americans actually get to

Hundreds of New Jersey's movers and shakers are currently headed to Washington aboard an Amtrak train — but for the first time in six years, Gov. Chris Christie won't be there to meet them when they arrive.

In the land of politics, the more money that one has is the better. This is no exception when it comes to campaigns and elections. The goal of any political campaign is to get their nominee the votes they need to win. Whether this is through negative or positive campaign tactics, one thing can fuel a campaigns success is money. Money in a campaign means that more advertising can be bought. This is the perfect way to get the candidate seen by the public and is also a way to paint a negative picture of the other candidate. However, questions can be raised where does the money that funds campaigns or campaign advertisement come from, should there be regulations imposed to monitor where it comes from and what part of the campaign does this money fund? Questions like these and more were answered in the Supreme Court Case Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commissions and many were not happy about this ruling.

United States Senator Bernie Sanders has consistently attempted to get money out of politics through numerous methods, negating the current widespread practice of money’s primacy over the needs of the many. Senator Sanders is currently attempting to overturn Citizens-United, a “disastrous Supreme Court decision”(Sanders, Bernie) which allows infinite dollars to be syphoned into our electoral politics, causing widespread corruption in the highest levels of our government. Furthermore, he continues to advocate for the DISCLOSE act(H.J.Res. 64 (107th)), which would provide the groundwork for legislation to protect the corruptness and transparency of all federal elections by enacting disclosure requisites for all contributions. Instead of the now corruptible means for politicians to get the money behind their campaign, Bernie strives toward public funding of elections in order promote an election where the best

The funding of political campaigns and lobbying is one area where the freedom of “speech” should defiantly be restricted. In the 2000s, a series of court cases that culminated in Citizens United v. FEC have destroyed the ability of the American people to properly regulate election spending. As a result of this, the government has become massively corrupt, the government is now even less accountable to the American people, and the country has been greatly destabilized. Of course, these problems all can be fixed in order to create a better America.

In American society, campaign finance reform is continuously a topic of discussion. This year’s 2016 election will be the most expensive campaign with presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton is running for office. By this coming November, campaign spending for all candidates spending for all candidates who ran in this year’s election will be an estimated total of 4.4 billion dollars (“Do We Really Need”). For campaign finance to experience reform, we must first acknowledge that the current system is broken. Campaign finance should be restricted and monitored, laws can create more incentive for candidates to disclose political spending. Disclosing Political spending helps voters make informed decisions at the ballot box, and fosters trust in the political process (“Do We Really Need”). States regulate campaign finance in three ways by disclosure and reporting requirements, setting contribution limits to candidate campaign, and by providing a method for public financing of elections. Candidates who run for Federal Office as President of the United States, Vice President, and Senator or House of Representatives have the responsibility to contact the Federal Election Commission to obtain forms and information regarding Federal Campaign requirements and filing deadlines (De Gruyter). States use public financing of elections is by providing means by which candidates can accept public funds to conduct their campaign. If a candidate takes into this program making

Now to introduce some important information about the length and spending of presidential elections. If we were to enact the Federal Election limits act, the “continuing the trend of ever-increasing campaign spending in the country, the U.S. presidential election was estimated to have cost about $6 billion, making it the most expensive election to date,” would’ve never been possible. This law would make it so the U.S doesn’t take 8 months for the election process to be finished. Fake news and controversy wouldn’t be created fast enough to blackmail the candidates. When do you think the president has time to actually work when they’re not worried about being re-elected? I think the president should be helping the country more than helping