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... ... middle of paper ... ...r. After cuts from corporate welfare and wasteful government spending this would save taxpayers 495 to 995 dollars a year, not to mention price drops as a result of reduced corporate spending on political campaigns.
While money has it’s place in the way campaigns are not it should not be the sole determinant of who will win the election, there needs to be tighter restrictions on large donations made to campaigns so that the election process goes back to depending on votes from the people of the U.S. instead of allowing those with the most money control the race. No matter what the reason the influence that money has over politics has always been a concern of the American voters. Our nation’s continuing struggle to resolve the basic principle of “one person, one vote” and reconcile the unequal distribution of economic recourses predates back to the elections before the Civil War. It was during the progressive era that marks the first national level pull for financial legislation and reform. Because of the effort to abolish the heavy influence that big businesses had over the federal elections many journalists and reformers pushed for a change in the way that big businesses could influences the political races.
It is difficult to turn on the news or surf the internet without hearing about global warming. It is currently a very controversial topic in America. Many politicians use the idea of global warming to alarm their target audience and earn their votes. Billions of dollars are spent each year to reduce America’s carbon footprint, whether it be on cleaner technologies or alternative fuel sources. This is all done without concrete evidence that proves global warming is actually taking place.
But, the first amendment has been used as a loophole in politics for too long. While infringing on the first amendment may threaten one of our sacred constitutional liberties, the corruption of campaign elections could eradicate the very democracy that is the backbone of our constitution which provides Americans with such liberties. The problems that arise with the increased role of money in elections are plentiful. With such a growth in large ind... ... middle of paper ... ...e reform would hurt powerful minority groups like the NRA or Phillip Morris that wish to improve their situations through political influences. But campaign finance reform would be better for the vast majority.
Although this method does seem to infringe on the principal of parliamentary sovereign if in the UK our representatives our supposed to put forward the views of the electorate it cannot be seen as bad idea. However some critics of referendums argue that its frequent use in recent years has actually detracted from the democratic process. They argue that the questions used can be worded to influence voters, no matter how carefully they are phrased they will always have an element of bias to them. Also they argue referendums are expensive and disrupt the government. Others argue that because referendums are held at a time of the ruling party’s choice, they have the biggest influence on the outcome of the vote.
This is important when dealing with the idea of whether or not The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform was corrupt, and whether or not the ruling to overturn it was unjust. According to Justice Kennedy's ruling of Citizens United, corruption exists when someone seeks to influence an official through compensation, though there is no direct evidence to support this as there is in other cases in court. At a procedural ... ... middle of paper ... ...he scene interactions of politicians. There is no true way to limit this with an amendment, but this may help answer a conundrum of even though PACs account for a large portion of campaign contributions, most PACs donate much less than the maximum allowed. This social model of contributor-lawmaker relationship may be what really matters in the long run when paired with PAC influence.
For example they will buy commercials, magazine and newspaper space, that is not cheap, to promote the politician or the party they want to win and slander the one they want to lose. The McCain-Feingold bill would ban soft money to parties and extend federal regulations to money raised by independent groups for campaign ads two months before election (New York Times September 15,1999). The argument or discussion that was raised by the corporations and unions that were given this soft money was how could the government tell people what to do with their money.
In the United States of America, we champion the power of the populace to elect the nation’s leaders. We are taught that each individual vote is important, and that each elected official has the responsibility of representing the electorate, lest the people cast their votes for someone else in future contests. However, in reality, elected officials have become increasingly indebted to their financial contributors while becoming less responsible to the voters themselves. A political campaign has an ever-expanding roster of expenditures, including travel expenses, campaign consulting fees, and the alarmingly high cost of communicating with the voters via print advertisements and the media. The fact that Abraham Lincoln nearly impoverished himself by financing his own campaign seems to be nothing more than a charming anecdote from a bygone era.
Esenberg’s beginning argument relies strongly on the evidence that the money spent on campaign finance is relatively small compared to “movies, automobiles, and beer”; and campaigns are arguably much more important (Esenberg, 2010). Donors purchasing influence in government have strong motives and many ways in which to make their influence present. To stop these donors, with the amount of current media outlets; is a seemingly daunting task. When it comes to the topic of Campaign Finance Reform, most will readily agree that it will benefit democracy in America. Where that agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of the degree of how it plans to do so.
But what does Justin Biber know about the economy, or what does Oprah know about running a country? Thats the thing, they don’t know, and because people blindly vote on a presdient only because most the celebrities like him, is causing our political figures to care less about the everyday citizen, and work harder to please the celebrity that helped him get elected. This obsession with celebrities i belave is one of the largest problems facing america today. and if the situation does not get under control our country will soon be completely lost in the drama and hysteria that is our celebrity obsessions.