Political Party Funding
Political parties require funds so that they can pay for election
campaigns and wages and so forth. Donations can range from a mere £5 a
year to millions of pounds, or funding for offices and equipment.
Frequently, a party spends a lot more money in a year than they will
receive in donations or membership fees. To see how the parties are
funded, it is best to look at them individually.
The Liberal Democrats, in comparison to the big two, have a relatively
small income of about £3m. For the Lib Dems, their 85,000 members are
vital for their existence, as they lack support from institutions and
wealthy individuals, which gives them a handicap when it comes to
elections. Also, their members are vitally important for election
campaigns, as the Lib Dems lack support from a newspaper and cannot
afford to spend huge amounts of money. This means that they have to
spread their resources very thinly across constituencies, and as a
result will not gain many votes as they struggle to get their
manifesto across.
The Conservatives have increasingly worrying money woes, as their
income is continuing to drop. Even though they have more money on
paper than they did a while ago, it is not in line with inflation, so
they are losing money. A big reason for this is their drop in
membership. In the 1950s, the Conservatives could boast a membership
of over 2m, but that has fallen to 330,000. The Conservatives have
enjoyed huge donations from wealthy people and businesses (in the
early 90s especially), though there is a sleaze factor in this.
Wealthy families of Brunei, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have donated huge
amounts to the Tory party, and got military help in return for their
generosity. They also received funding by Li Ka-Shing and Rong Yiren;
in return they received passports to come to this country. The
Conservatives have been criticised for being funded by a handful of
wealthy individuals.
The bulk of Labours income comes from the Trade Unions, though they
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
Powerful. Representative. Influential. These are some of the various words that are utilized to describe how political parties have been and continue to be a dominating force in American politics. Political parties have established organization throughout society by creating a two party system, the Democrats and the Republicans, within institutions as well as the general public. Over the years, political parties have been an essential aspect of American politics and have given American citizens an opportunity to express their opinions. Political parties provide all eligible citizens the opportunity to participate in politics by selecting a party that best defines and implements their views. In addition, political parties play an important role in educating American citizens and encouraging them to vote. Political parties also allow America to sustain a democratic form of government, in which the people have a voice that matters. The formation of political parties has contributed to America becoming a democracy and has helped to ensure that America does not develop into a dictatorship. Therefore, political parties are beneficial for American politics and have a positive impact on society by uniting and organizing Americans with similar political viewpoints, mobilizing voters, and striving to maintain a democracy to protect America from a dictatorship.
Clark, Todd and Christian Garciga. "Recent Inflation Trends." Economic Trends (07482922), 14 Jan. 2016, pp. 5-11. EBSCOhost, cco.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=112325646&site=ehost-live.
There have been laws put into place to reform the campaign finance system in the United States. It is apparent that money greatly influences American elections and it has massive effects upon the outcome of recent elections. The laws encourage citizens to participate in elections. Although it may be unknown to many, money greatly influenced the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.
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.
Political parties have been around since almost the beginning of this great country. Although George Washington strongly opposed political parties, and also warned the nation to stay away from forming political parties, the first political parties were formed right under his own nose. In George Washington’s cabinet was where the first parties started. The cause of these parties was simply differences in views. The thought of leaders of these two completely different parties was Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson started what then was known of as Republican or the Anti-Federalist. On the other hand Hamilton started what was known of as the Federalist Party. Both of these parties formed in the seventeen hundreds. These two parties have evolved into today being known as the Democratic, and the Republican parties. On the contrary one of the largest third party groups, the tea party was formed just recently in the year two thousand and nine. All three of these political parties effect our government today.
Party identification is the political party that an individual categorizes them self with. Political parties came about as a way to organize citizens with similar beliefs and attitudes. These parties then attempt to influence the government by electing members into office. Today there are two main parties people can identify: Republican and Democrat. There is also a third choice, being an Independent, but for the purpose of this paper this group will not be recognized as a political party. These reasons will be discussed later. There are many different theories as to why people do or do not identify with a political party, including social psychology, issue related, and psychological attachments. I believe the social psychology theory has the right idea. Sociology is about studying human society and how it develops and functions. So, it makes sense that social factors would have a big impact on whether we identify with a political party or not.
People always tell you that there are two subjects never to bring up at a dinner party, one is religion and the other is politics. Why is that? It is because both subjects invoke very strong emotions. Rather than saying something inappropriate, most people avoid talking about religion altogether. But get those same people in a room and ask their political opinions, that is a different story. For many reasons, people are vocal about their political beliefs (Bentz, 2013). Unfortunately, individuals will judge people by their political beliefs first, without notice to other important aspects of their lives. And that is the reason that politics is not brought up in dinner parties.
As political parties adapt to the norms or beliefs of the society the parties’ definition changes along with this adaptation. Firstly, the three aspects of a political party organization, party in government and party in the electorate. Party organization is the parties’ leaders and professionals who give their time, money and skills to their specific party. They are the ones who run the party at the national, state and local levels. Volunteers for the party are under this. The leaders of the party organization would be Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus and Democratic National Committee Chairman Donna Brazil. The party in government are the party candidates and office holders, who are a part of the three branches of government
The first main attempt to regulate campaign financing occurred in 1971 with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The act set requirements for disclosure of contributions to federal campaigns, both presidential and congressional. The main regulation to financing occurred though after its amendment in 1974. After reports of big financial abuses in the 1972 presidential election and the Watergate scandal, people wanted more constraints on financing particularly those from special interest groups. The act required strict disclosure of campaign donations. Candidates had to name all contributors who donated more than $200 a year. They also set up contribution limits and expenditure limits. Individuals could not contribute more than $1,000 to a candidate and political action committees (PACs) could not contribute more than $5,000. There were also limits on expenditures from a candidate’s personal fund and on total campaign expenditures (The FEC, 2011).
In 1790, the United States had just recently broke free from the British crown and united under the cause of liberty. But in spite of this, Americans saw political rifts brought about by the rise of political parties. The rise of political parties in 1790 was caused by general distrust, disagreements on policies, and constitutional disagreements between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties, which were led by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, respectively.
The “advocacy explosion” in the United States in the 20th century has been caused by the extreme increase in the number of interest groups in the United States. The general public views the increase and the groups themselves as a cancer that has come to the body of American politics and is spreading. The explosion in the number of interest groups and interest group members and finances has had an effect on the decline of the American political party and partisanship, the effect on democracy and the public interest, and the bias that has come with interest group competition.
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
I’ve loved politics since I was in 6th grade, I didn’t always have the best understanding of it all when I was younger but I was able to recognize that there were a lot of citizens who were disgruntled with their government’s progress. For example, as of August 2014, congresses’ approval rating is only 14% (Riffkin, 2014). As I’ve aged I realized that the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate money and personal spending limits have made the government a less effective tool for the American citizens and that is why I’ve chosen to write on the influence of money in politics. I believe this is the most important political issue that we currently face because we are unable to pass the bills that reflect the views of the American people