The Influence of Money on American Elections
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.
As a result of the court case Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett, it was decided that citizens should be encouraged to help in financing campaigns. When there is increased participation from citizens, self-governance is greatly facilitated. The goal of public financing is to push citizens to help the political candidate of their choice financially. Many reformers have suggested that there is too much money in politics. Statistically, this is proven to be wrong. In the 2008 election, there were 64% of Americans that were eligible to vote. There were only about 10% that give money to the campaigns, and not even 0.5% who are responsible for the bulk amount of money collected by the politicians (Overton, 2012).
Political Action Committees (PACS) are interest groups that help raise money. They do this on a voluntary basis so they can help the candidate in which they favor. PACS tend to contribute more to incumbents. There are three different types of money that is contributed to elections. There is interested money. This money comes from individuals or groups and is used to influence the result of an election. There is also soft money. It is an unlimited amount of money that is raised by political parties. Lastly, there is hard money. It is limited and fully disclosed (Trautman, 2013).
In 2002, the Bipart...
... middle of paper ...
...ndidates are able to start campaigning sooner and advertise themselves, they are able to win over more votes. IF they continue campaigning, they can continue to collect and raise more money to keep campaigning. Since Obama was able to collect the largest amount of contributions, he was able to publicize a lot more than any other candidate and therefore, win the election. He was able to campaign up until the day of the election because of the amount of money he collected.
Works Cited
2012 presidential race. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
Overton, S. (2012). Matching Political Contributions. Minnesota Law Review, 96(5), 1694-1731.
Parti, T., & Levinthal, D. (2012, November 17). 5 month takeaways from 2012. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83655.html
Trautman. (2013, October 21). Campaigns and elections.
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
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to
Should we enact a campaign finance reform and ban soft money contributions? Campaign finance is among the top governmental and social issues of today's society. The truth is that today's campaigns are being financed by members of supported political parties that can afford to send their candidate to the top. These contributions are known as soft money contributions. Soft money can be defined as, unlimited union and corporate donations to political parties that allow special interest power brokers to have their way in Washington. Ultimately, These contributions are taking away pure democracy that is given to today's citizens. I, particularly, am interested in this issue because I would like to see the potential that our leaders have by running a successful campaign without large amounts of soft money contributions. It is important that candidates take our democratic system seriously and not toy around with our involvement in today's governmental system. Soft money contributions amounted to $487 million in the last election cycle, up from $271 million in 1996 and $86 million in 1992, according to the Federal Election Commission.
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.
At the basis of the campaign finance reform movement is the belief that everyone should have an equal say in the government, and that wealthy individuals or special interest groups should not be able to manipulate the system through excessive contributions to unduly influence elections. The more expensive it becomes to finance a campaign, the more important the money becomes, and subsequently the less involved the candidate becomes in listening to the "voices of the average Americans." The Federal Election Commission, established in 1974, was the first independent institution created to monitor and enforce the campaign finance reforms that were designed to limit [individual or corporate] contributions that would disproportionately influence a federal election. The Commission also tries to ensure that the campaign finance information is accessible to the public, because "disclosure…is the single greatest check on the excesses of campaign finance," (Sabato).
Critics indicate that Super PACs have the influence to buy elections and override the average voter’s opinions in a participatory democracy. In the same context, they will also argue that the wealthy minority of donors to a Super PAC dictate over the views of the majority, which will eventually lead to corrupt politics and diminish democracy in the process. Many will argue in justification of Super PACs, asserting they are perfectly democratic under the Constitution’s First Amendment. An example of one of these arguments is made by a Joel M. Gora, a political professor at the Brooklyn Law School (Gora, 2013). Gora’s article is primarily a defense of Super PACs and of the First Amendment principles and imperatives they embody and reflect. In
Political campaigns are very significant in American politics and elections. It is the period before the electorate makes political decisions in the form of elections. The attention of the citizens towards politics intensifies as the date of the elections draws near. The salience of voters improves as the election date draws near and could manifest in the form of increased media attention. Political discussions, campaign interest, strength of the intention to vote, and knowledge about the candidates are other manifestations of increased salience of voters. Another indication of improved intensity is the effort put by the candidates and their political parties in the campaigns. Parties increase their efforts in the campaign by increasing the funds disbursed for the campaign such as increasing the amount of TV advertisement (Brady, Johnston, & Sides, 2007). The increase may also be a result of redistribution of the overall campaign amount, which increases the effect of the campaign to the media and some voters.
Being corporate lobbying and campaign finance the main characters in outlining the choices that politicians decides; this is because corporations as well those moneyed individuals are the major contributors and campaigns funding for elected officials. Corporations benefit from elected officials once in office as they incline to pass policies that are favorable to the corporations and the wealthy. Nichols noted that with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, an estimated of ten billion dollars was spent in the 2012 election, as people are permitted to donate limitless campaign donations. High percentage of this money is used in negative political advertising, as a tactic to drive voters to vote for other party, mainly between Democrats and Republicans being the most prominent parties. Since the negative attack ads causes citizens not to vote, it provokes self-governance to be more present in society. Nichols suggested the creation of reforms to battle and disassemble the “money-and-media election” that unfortunately is shifting the United States into a Dollarocracy. Nichols mentions possible reforms such a “Constitutional amendment” which secures the right to vote for all citizens over eighteen-years-old, better communication and
What We Don’t Know About Campaign Finance Does Hurt Us. “No matter what your social issue, if you want to solve it get the money out of politics. Only then will lawmakers vote for their people rather than their pocketbooks.” Jack E. Lohman. Money corrupts politics, and when contributions are being made to candidates it is not in the best interest of the American people. Campaign Finance is out of control in today’s political races. Candidates are taking money from wherever and whoever they can get it. Soft money is flowing through elections without care or caution. People who make these contributions do not share the views of the average citizen, so politicians end up representing the wrong people. Money decides races, sometimes leaving the better man but lighter spender out of a position. Candidates make decisions based on what will help them financially that what is better for the people. Contributions by industry are made not in the interest of the people, sometimes hurting them in ways they don’t even know. No matter what the opposition may say campaign finance reform is needed urgently to keep our democracy as our founders intended it. People and corporations that make the largest donations to campaigns do not share views with the general population. Politicians will listen to those who give them money so that they can depend on that money being there again when it is time for reelection. Yet individual donors making a $200 dollar or more contribution make up only .33% of the population. This extremely small percentage of mostly wealthy individuals gain the power to influence politicians to their liking. The idea that these people should have power to affect government more than those with less money goes against the concept of equality for all, which is what made this country great. People who make large donations do not share the same views on most issues as the general population. Robert L. Borosage and Ruy Teixeira report that while 53 percent of voters want stricter regulations on businesses and corporations, to give workers a fair salary and working conditions, 58 percent of campaign donors want to see less control over the businesses and corporations of America. Donors also want less government spending with lower taxes, while the majority of citizens want a larger, more powerful government. A very tiny part of our populat...
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.
Citizens United v. FEC was the landmark court case regarding the political spending of large corporations. Since this allows companies to throw as much money as they want to the political elector of their choice, essentially the Supreme Court has handed more power to the small sector of the population that dominates the economy. One year after this decision was made a poll was taken showing that spending from outside groups had jumped to $294.2 million in 2010 as compared to the $68.9 million spent in 2006 (Kromm). Almost half of that money came from just 10 groups and in 60 out of 75 congressional races, the candidate benefitting the most from outside spending won at an 80 percent win rate. The money that pours into elections is well hidden because independent groups are not required by law to disclose their donations. 7 of the 10 groups did not provide any donor information but they donated nearly $138.5 million, that’s half of the total donations in 2010! A Survey USA poll found out that, when asked whether corporate campaign contributions represent “free speech” or “bribes”, 77 percent of the American population said “bribes” (Kromm).
The advocacy explosion is strongly linked to the decline of the American political party and the role of the political parties in elections. As interest groups have gained more power and had a larger control over politics and political goods the power that is exerted by political parties has dwindled. The power of the interest group has grown larger with the amount of members and the financial rewards that have come with the new members. In elections interest groups do not usually participate directly with the candidate or the election. Berry points out that “Groups often try to leverage their endorsement to obtain support for one of their priorities” (Berry, 53). With interest groups spreading their resources around the actual election can be affected very minimally by the many interest groups that contribute money to the election. However, the candidates who obtain political office through the help of special interest money still owe some sort of loyalty to the interest group regardless of which party wins the election. This loyalty and the promise of more money in the future gives the elected of...
Money has an impact on elections in two major ways. First, it takes large amounts of money to get people elected, meaning that if the candidate does not have the support of wealthy individuals or companies, they cannot run for office. Second, lobbying plays an important role, with the amount of money that they may have they could have a larger impact on legislation. I do not believe that the American democracy functions as fully democratic. I believe that because of the influences money and economic status has on piece of elections it is difficult to represent the whole population in a fair way. Things such as required a government issued id such as a driver’s license, requiring registration before the day of voting (42 states), and often fees