Our government has declined to its least productive level ever, with the 113th Congress passing fewer than 30 bills in the last year (Desilver). However, even with this horribly low efficiency of Congress and a dismal 28% approval rating for the Republican Party, the Tea Party Legislators and movement faces little to no repercussions for their roles. The advent of the political juggernaut known as the Tea Party is the result of decades of broken promises and fear-mongering by the political right, a lapse in campaign financing restrictions, and the growing power of the angry vote. Politicians are famous and infamous for compromising. This dichotomy exists as a result of their dual roles: a representative fighting for their constituents and a legislator perpetuating government functionality.
With the help of voters supporting this proposition we can keep the clean elections act in Arizona. As the wealthy politicians get more tax cuts the average everyday American running for office stands no chance in beating his competitor without having money to back him. In Arizona and three other states we have a different aspect that has changed elections since 1998 it is a clean act on campaigning, it helps the average man or woman to run for any office. The act protects average Americans who do not have millions of dollars to campaign with. The act makes a fair election process because whose to say that all rich people are the best candidates for the job why not an average American such as a teacher or a police officer to take on the task as a Senator or Governor for any state.
To run a successful campaign now-a-days you need money, a good pollster, well organized debate, direct mail, and positive publicity. “Money is the mother's milk of politics” if you don't have you aren't going to go any where. Campaign money is received part from federal and part from private donors in a presidential election, but congressional elections are all private donors. Most of the money for a congressional leader comes from individual donors, but they also have political action committees (interest groups) that raise money for their campaign. Presidential candidates also raise money from individual donors because the federal government will match them dollar for dollar.
The results are obvious and crippling, while so much of a politicians revenue and lavish lifestyle is supported by lobbyist groups it is naive and childish to assume that their vote is not swayed by this fact. The fact is this: Placing so much value in the amount of money a company has will directly influence the morals of decision making. For example, “going green” is no longer a moral issue preached by young free spirited hippies in tie die t-shirts who truly believe in the cause at hand. It has become a billion dollar business. And as such it has spurred on alliances between big businesses and National Governments the world over.
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 . .
“Perot largely financed his own campaign and relied on marketing and wide grassroots support” (Ross Perot). If a man who earned a standard salary wanted to run for president, he would have nearly no chance at all unless he was backed by wealthy people. Court trials are another case in point of money changing everything. Only the wealthy are able to meet the expense of a very good team of lawyers. An average individual would lack the resources and income necessary for a strong adva... ... middle of paper ... ... “wealth ownership grew by 12.7% [in 2013] to $72.1 trillion, 20% more than the pre-crisis high in 2006 and 54% above the recent low in 2008,” according to Credit Suisse (Global Wealth).
This however is becoming less and less true. Nowadays, instead of always voting for the person who is the best at handling their prospective job, people are voting for candidates who handle themselves the best during the campaign. The candidate who is the most charismatic, funny, and outgoing is usually the person who is going to get elected. This is becoming particularly true in the case of many celebrities who have entered the field of politics. Although these people, who have gained fame in another field, are not as qualified for the job as others in the election, they find themselves capturing the majority of the vote anyway.
(2013, August 19). Right Brain, Left Brain? Scientists Debunk Popular Theory. The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/right-brain-left-brain-debunked_n_3762322.html Prescott, L. (n.d.).
‟According to political scientists Richard Lau and David Redlawsk in their book How Voters Decide, the authors find that, in the best case scenario of a choice of two candidates, approximately 70 percent of voters choose correctly”(Belt 643). Now take a minute to really think about the implications of that statement. In a best case scenario, 30 percent of the voter’s choice was for someone or something he or she did not even agree with but was too uninformed to know it. One might ask how this degree of voter incongrui... ... middle of paper ... ...ence 40.1 (1996): 194. Business Source Complete. Web.
One would think that it is the power that these families wield. Although they represent a small portion of a Representative's constituency, this small group by far has the biggest voice. So then why would Congress want to throw away $30 billion dollars a year? Because, it is in their best interests and their biggest supporters best interests. Estate taxes are not imposed on inheritances under $675,000, but anything over and above that amount the federal government takes 39% of the total value of the estate.