GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
We are not a democracy, yet we do have a voice in our own government. Elections are the choice microphones for many citizens. There on Election Day, they have the right of making their voices heard; however, many interest groups and a few individuals seem to have a louder voice due to campaign financing:
No U.S. official should be beholden to one or a few groups. And no group or individual should have a greater claim on our elected leaders than any other. That’s the way it should work. But it is growing clear to more and more Americans that it doesn’t (McCarthy 24).
Recently, it has been the trend to try to make sure the opinions and concerns of minorities are duly noted and pondered on. The only problem seen with this comes about whenever the minority “buy” the attention of politicians. Typically, minorities are more than a number. The grossly rich, while small in number and percent, have never counted as a minority, but these are the only ones who can afford to give enough support to a candidate to draw attention to them. Again, we see an aristocratic government. Even interest groups of true minorities can’t give enough to impress anyone.
Now that we have seen the dangers of campaign financing, we should go back and find out how it started. Max McCarthy speaks of a time when everything got worse in politics. This was not to imply that everything had been perfect before, but once the media gets involved, things tend to go differently. Many years ago, the media began to play a vital role in the political education of our citizens, with radios and televisions. Before, only those with real authority had any complete knowledge of what went on with governmental politics. As each candidate was brought closer and closer to the American people, they actually started to care about things that before were nicely kept secrets. The opinions of these, now seemingly real people, instead of future historical figures, were actually heard, and the people actually knew who they were voting for. With the start of this new technology, campaigning was much easier; all that was needed was enough money to get the name recognition:
As campaign costs have skyrocketed in recent years, the percentages contributed by the parties and small individual donors have declined . . . An ever-growing...
... middle of paper ...
...www. Fec.gov
Connolly, Ceci. 1999. "Washington Post Magazine". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/gore 040499_full.htm.
Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, and Daniel R. Ortiz. ed. 1997. Campaign Finance Reform. The Brookings Institution.
Emenhiser, JeDon. 1999. http://www.sorrel.humboldt.edu/~jae1/paper.html
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weit. 1997. We The People: An Introduction to American Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Goidel, Robert K., Donald A. Gross, and Todd G. Sheilds. 1967. Money Matters: Consequenses of Campaign Financing Reform in the U.S. House Elections. Rowman & Little field Publishers, Inc. Lanham, New York.
Malbin, Micheal J. 1991. Money and Politics in the U.S.: Financing Elections in the 1980s. Chatham House Publishers, Inc. Box One, Chatham, New Jersey.
McCarthy, Max. 1972. Elections For Sale. Hough Mifflin Company, Boston.
Pelletier, Paul.1999. "Closing the Deal: Ten Fundraising Tips". Campaigns and
Elections (May):56-59.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, despite being backed by 75 percent of House Republicans, and 41 percent of Senate Republicans, caused immense controversy in Washington. Senator James Buckley sued the secretary of the senate Frances Valeo on the Constitutionality of FECA. In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United.
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
Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing
A democracy is a form of government where the people rule directly on everything that has an effect on their everyday lives. In a democracy the government’s power is from the people and it relies on them to use that power. Citizen’s rights to the decisions made by the government can be handled directly by entering their positions personally or by representatives. Since government decisions are not made by the majority vote except for in a small amount of all lawmaking, the United States is not a direct democracy. The United States contains elements of a democracy and a republic. A republic is a government where the people rule indirectly through elected officials. Since the United States combines these two forms of government, it is generally
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.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, et al. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. 9th ed. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2013. Print."Voter Turnout." Nonprofit Vote. Nonprofit Vote, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
This past summer, when I lived and worked in Washington, DC—first as a U.S. Senate Page and then as a Congressional Intern—I gained invaluable experience and insight to the American political system. It is amazing how much one can learn from simply overhearing the conversations of Members of Congress on a daily basis. Working on the floor of the Senate and then in the back rooms of a Congressional office were two entirely different experiences, each teaching me in a distinctive way about how our political system functions. While I most definitely became aware of how bureaucratic and slow our democratic system can be, I also discovered that with a commitment to unity and prosperity for the common good, great feats are attainable through government.
The subject of campaign finance reform sounds so dull, but it is necessary to understand that reform helps to keep the society flowing smoothly. Therefore, what is the current status of campaign finance reform? In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed by Congress. It was also known as the McCain-Feingold Act (Sidlow, 2013, p.213). It banned soft money at federal levels and regulated campaign ads from interest groups because the enormous amount of money spent by interest groups for their ads had the appearance of corruption (South University Online, 2013). There is so much money floating around right now that I fear the common man may soon have little say in what happens in this country. Now the super PACs and 501c's are spreading their influences too. Can reform be a realistic expectation of the American political process?
Many people argue that the legislative branch is run by few big interest groups because of their massive contributions against very small contributions from individuals. In a democratic society, power must be shared equally among its citizens, but is that the case in the United States? The answer is simply no, and by limiting their overall spending on elections, policymakers will listen and pay more attention to the public interest over the special interest. Also, by revealing the freeloaders’ names, people will have more knowledge of who is representing them and who has tended to benefit those who made contributions to their campaigns. Finally, prohibiting the spending on food, entertainment and gifts to legislative branch employee will also reduce the corruption in the legislative
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary Democracy is a form of government by the people; especially: rule of the majority(Webster). This is what the United States is represented as, and this is based on the United States Constitution from which the United states draws all legal powers. In Robert Dahls book How democratic Is the American Constitution? He challenges this idea by trying to appeal to his readers in a way that they may view the United States Constitution in a different light. Dahl does this by pointing out flaws that the Constitution has and, draws on facts based on the other democracies around the world that the United States is compared too. He points out how many democratic ideas and innovations have a occurred since the conception of the American Constitution yet it has only adopted some of those idea.
Schmidt, Shelley, and Bardes. American Politics and Government Today. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999, pgs. 325-327.
Schmidt, Steffen W., Mack C. Shelly II, Barbara A. Bardes. American Government and Politics Today: 2010-2011 Brief Edition. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2011
Ken Kollman, The American Political System, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2012), 25, 322-323, 330, 449.
The minority rights in a democratic society appear to even out with the majority rule in an unusual way. There are some incidents where the minority may have loss, but on the other hand won. For example, when Rosa Parks didn’t give up her seat on that hot Alabama day, she stood up to the majority tyranny. The majority won by putting her in jail, however; the minority prevailed by establishing the civil rights movements.