The article, Super PACs’ Spend Freely as Control of New York Senate Hangs in Balance, is about the power of Super PACs on New York Senate campaign. Money plays an important role on opening the gate for candidates to successfully win during their campaigns. The Super PACs become very active and spent a lot of money to support the candidates during the elections. The groups spend a great amount of money in the media to support their candidates. There is no limit of how much a “Super PAC” can spend to support his or her candidacy. Due to the unlimited amount of money, the balance of power among different contributions may bring negative effect in American elections. Both Democrat and Republican candidates receive a support from the money of their …show more content…
There are dozen groups spending around $14 millions in State Senate races in order to support the campaigns (McKinley, 2016). Those groups spend “hundreds of thousands of dollars a day into television ads, direct mail, digital media and other types of campaign support” (McKinley, 2016). Back in 2014, the amount of money that they spent on television advertising going over $9 million (McKinley, 2016). The power of broadcast media, including television and radio, contribute a lot to the candidates throughout their campaign because broadcast media is able to reach many people. The media influence public opinion through certain numbers of important ways. The media has the power to “shape what issues Americans think about and what opinions American hold about those issues” (Ginsberg et al., 2012). Besides, the media also has the power to “influence how the American people interpret political events and results” (Ginsberg et al., 2012). The media also plays a part in “the process of preparing the public to take a particular view of an event or political actor” (Ginsberg et al., 2012). Both Republican and Democrat candidates need to have a support and gain attention from the people through the media. During the 2016 campaign, a PAC, which is called New Yorkers for a Balanced Albany, “put about $330,000 into ads against the senator’s opponent, John Brooks, a longtime Republican and retired insurance executive running as a Democrat” (McKinley, 2016). The media is a sort of business. The media can choose to present news and public affairs in a way they know that it will grab the most attention from the public and produce the greatest revenue. Spending large amounts of money on the media helps a candidate to promote himself or herself during their campaign. Therefore, the media and the diversity of contributors clearly help candidates to have certain control over
In this article Mary Kate Cary opens up with the supreme court decision to not restrict the use of corporate funds in political advertising so that she can make her point that big money ads are not the most effective way for candidates to reach American constituents. She argues that social media is a new way for politicians to connect with citizens. Her five claim are that Americans can now, choose the media they wish to consume, share the media they choose the share, like posts they agree with and dislike posts they do not agree with, connect with others on social media, and donate to candidate campaigns online. With these claims she comes to the conclusion that politicians want to go around mainstream media so that they can connect directly with the voters.
in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to
Media concentration allows news reporters to fall victim to source bias, commercial impulse, and pack journalism. Together, all three of the aforementioned factors become known as horse race journalism, a cause for great concern in campaign media. In complying with horse race journalism, media outlets exclude third party candidates, reinforce the idea that politics is merely a game, and dismiss issues that directly affect voters and their day to day lives. Through horse race journalism, the media is mobilized in impeding an active form of the democratic debate in American politics. Even across the wide range of human values and beliefs, it is easy to see that campaign media coverage must be changed, if not for us, then for our children. It is imperative that we discern the flaws of the media and follow our civic duty to demand better media
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.
Large campaign contributions from individuals, groups, and corporations have always been a hot topic in politics. Money and popularity are how elections are won. Whomever has the most money, and the most contributions is able to get their name out into the eye of the public. Usually, in American presidential elections, the most well funded parties are the Republican, and Democratic parties. By November 26, 2011, Barack Obama along with the democratic party, and Priorities USA Action Super PAC raised 1072.6 million dollars for their campaign, while Mitt Romney, the Republican party and Restore Our Future Super PAC raised 992.5 million dollars total for their campaign. Almost
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.
An article published in yester years (2010) mentioned that in the campaign spending may hit $2 billion, but the same year (2010) $6.8 billion were collected by the candidates via special interest groups and political parties, this abundant money was pumped into the race of election in order to win. This article has put up an statistical data or chart which consists of spending’s by the special interest groups and the political parties on the race of the house and the senate election on that particular year (2010)
of a political campaign, to hit hardest at those who are in power or running
But it has also had a negative effect on elections, making presidential candidates seem like celebrities at times and making it easier to publicize mistakes made by candidates. Television can be viewed as the medium between the public and candidates. It is the source that allows the public to know what is going on with the candidate and vice versa. As Frank Stanton, president of the Columbia Broadcasting System, put it, “The sky is the limit.” Before television, candidates would travel the country, meeting voters and gaining supporters.
The Power of the Media in Politics The mass media possesses a great deal of influence in society and politics in the United States. Newspapers, radio, magazines and television. are able to use their own judgment when reporting current events. The The power of the mass media is an asset to the government in some instances and a stumbling block in others. Recent technology and regulations related to The media have improved the means by which the public can get information.
In the US, mass media plays a significant role in politics. One of the key roles mass media plays in politics includes the airing of the platforms of various politicians. The media influences the view of people on politics and politicians. As the opinion of individuals is affected, the results of the votes are consequently changed (Holden, 2016).
Policymaking is a political process which is affected by various social and economic factors (Hofferbert, 1974) and media systems play an integral role in shaping the social context in which policies are developed. Through the media, citizens learn how government policies will affect them, and governments gain feedback on their policies and programs. Media systems act as the primary channels between those who might want to influence policy and the policymakers '' controlling the scope of political discourse and regulating the flow of information. Textbook policymaking follows an orderly sequence where problems are identified, solutions devised, policies adopted, implemented, and lastly evaluated (Mazamanian & Sabatier, 1989). In reality, the policy process is more fluid, where policies are formed through the struggle of ideas of various advocacy coalitions (Sabatier, 1991) in what has been described as a policy primeval soup (Kingdon, 1995). The policies, on which the media focuses can, and often does, play an important part in determining the focal issues for policymakers.
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." This quote by A.J. Liebling illustrates the reality of where the media stands in today's society. Over the past twenty years there has been an increase in power throughout the media with regard to politics. The media's original purpose was to inform the public of the relevant events that occurred around the world. The job of the media is to search out the truth and relay that news to the people. The media has the power to inform the people but often times the stories given to the public are distorted for one reason or another. Using slant and sensationalism, the media has begun to shape our views in society and the process by which we choose our leaders. There was once a time when the government used the media as a medium to influence voters, committees, communities etc. Recently, it has been the presidents of major media outlets that have not only exercised power over the public but also made their presences felt in government and in the halls of congress. When the word democracy is thrown about it usually has to do with the rights or original intentions for a group or organization. The first group intended to be influenced by the media was the informed voter. Political parties along with the government used a variety of media resources to persuade the voter or in effect receive a vote for their cause. Returning to the thought of ?democracy? the question is, what was the original intention of the media with relation to the theme of democracy and the informed voter? To analyze this thought thoroughly one must first grasp an understanding of the basic definition of democracy.
The current role of mass media in politics has definitely played a significant role in how view and react to certain events and issues of the nation. Newspapers, magazines, television and radio are some of the ways information is passed onto many of the citizens. The World Wide Web is also an information superhighway, but not all of the sources on the Internet are credible. Therefore, I will only focus on the main three types of media: written, viewed, and audible, and how they affect whether or not democracy is being upheld in the land of the free. The media includes several different outlets through which people can receive information on politics, such as radio, television, advertising and mailings. When campaigning, politicians spend large quantities of money on media to reach voters, concentrating on voters who are undecided. Politicians may use television commercials, advertisements or mailings to point out potentially negative qualities in their opponents while extolling their own virtues. The media can also influence politics by deciding what news the public needs to hear. Often, there are more potential news stories available to the media than time or space to devote to them, so the media chooses the stories that are the most important and the most sensational for the public to hear. This choice can often be shaped,
In our democratic society, mass media is the driving force of public opinion. Media sources such as Internet, newspaper, news-broadcasts, etc, play significant roles in shaping a person’s understanding and perception about the events occurred in our daily lives. As long as the newspapers, internet, network television, etc, continued to be easily accessible to the public, the media will continue to have an influence in shaping its opinions. Factors such as agenda-setting, framing and priming help shape the public opinions. Agenda-setting is when the media focuses their attention on selected issues on which the public will form opinion on, whereas framing allows the media to select certain aspects about the problem and then make them appear more salient. Similarly, priming works by repeatedly exposing certain issues to public. As the issues get more exposure, the individual will be more likely to recall or retain the information in their minds. This paper will discuss these three factors played out systemically by media and how our opinions are constantly being influence and shape by them.