The Role Of Money In American Politics

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.

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

“Corruption, improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another its forms include bribery, extortion, and the misuse of inside information. It exists where there is community indifference or a lack of enforcement policies.”(Encyclopedia Britannica). Today political Corruption in all forms exists in every country in the world. In some countries it is more prominent then in others, but no matter where you go it still occurs. Recently in mid 2013 some political corruption was brought to light in New York. “Since 2007, state senators have been more likely to be arrested then to lose their seats in a general election,” (New York Public Interest Research group). In April of 2013 New York State

Americans only see few ways to affect real change on government because politicians are too reliant upon large donations. Groups contribute money, and later on receive a kickback of bill that favors them or supports their positions. “Candidates who raise lots of money say it indicates broad support. Candidates with little money point out that voters, not donors, decide elections” (2012 Presidential). Candidates spend large amount of time fundraising, which decreases people’s confidence in the government’s ability to do their

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.

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.

Monetary value has had significant influence in determining the outcome of elections. The input and strategies put forward by different forces determine the organizational scheme and the ability to grab most of the seats. Although money has been linked to corrupt deals in many countries, with leaders amassing power through corrupt and underhand methods, especially in Africa, this is not the case of the same monetary influence witnessed in America. The conventions of the U.S.A raise a lot of money in preparation for campaigns and elections to constitute a good number of representatives. The paper, therefore, looks at the effect of money in the recently concluded elections of the Congress, giving a deeper view of the 113th and 114th Congress election of the two major conventions.

The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committee's

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

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

Many times the American people have asked themselves why certain topics take precedent over other topics that may seem worthy of attention. The common speculation is that money from special interest groups have infiltrated re-election campaigns are the ones who really have the power and last say on what occurs in government. Many people have campaigned in order to pass a reform that would disclose how a political campaign is funded or set a limitation on how much can be donated to a specific campaign. Some people may argue that doing so may infringe on the rights of voters and their decision on how much to donate or that it prevents individuals from expressing their opinions on political issues, but by not having rules in place on what can

People search far and wide all the time to find the truth. According to Shana Lebowitz, “humans actually judge people psychologically based on their face, if they are able to trust another person” (P1). Americans in-particular have had an issue all throughout their country with both corruption and money flooding their political system ultimately preventing positive social change. The questions on campaign finance reform stems in two very different directions in political debate. One, is “Money Free Speech?" Two does it actually promote corruption like some political observers say and if so can it be stopped? Politian’s are first and foremost supposed to be a servant to the people regardless of their background, not to business and or themselves.

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.

rate so high. Because the party is much more likely to spend the soft money in places

Since part of the money is being used to buy off politicians, it is corrupting our political system on all levels,