Most people believe that wealth is merely a byproduct of success, a symbol of prosperity, an indication of accomplishment. What most tend to forget, however, is the potential of wealth to influence society, especially in the form of politics. The wealthy in society influence American politics in countless fashions, from tax policy to campaign donations to the actual nominations of wealthy individuals. While the individual wealth of a specific candidate might seem to have positive effects in terms of relevance or finance, the negative effects of wealth are much more prominent, especially the detachment from American society. One element that arises for wealthy candidates is the aspect of being more well-known and/or being more experienced within …show more content…
Of the many wealthy political-hopefuls, few are self-funded, and even fewer that do self-fund themselves are victorious. According to Jaime Fuller, an editor that has worked for The Washington Post, New York Magazine, and The American Prospect, “The National Institute of Money in State Politics found that 6,171 of the more than 75,000 candidates who ran for state office from 2002 to 2009 provided the bulk of their campaign's funding” (Fuller). Fuller continues, stating that only 668 of those 6,171 self-funded candidates won their elections (Fuller). Disregarding certain circumstances, this means that a self-funded candidate has less than a one percent chance to win their election. Furthermore, the potential amount of money that can be lost during the funding of one’s own election is astounding. For example, in her campaign for California governor in 2010, Meg Whitman spent $144 million, only to lose the election to Jerry Brown (Glison). Steve Forbes spent $76 million in his presidential campaigns during 1996 and 2000 (Gilson). Forbes himself was even quoted as saying that self-funding one’s own campaign was “the worst political investment” (Gilson). Self-funding a campaign also depicts the wealth of the candidate to the voters. As stated previously, a detachment from American society can be …show more content…
This, in turn, limits the popularity of candidates who are incapable to relate with their voters, especially in terms of wealth and lifestyle. In a study conducted by Rosie Campbell and Philip Cowley for The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, researchers studied the effects of wealth on the appeal of candidates. In the study, a survey was conducted in which participants were provided with short bios of hypothetical candidates and were then asked to answer four questions regarding the information. The questions were as follows: Without knowing which party they stand for, which of them would be: 1. More approachable as an MP (member of Parliament), 2. More experienced as an MP, 3. More effective as an MP, and 4. Which would you prefer as your MP? In the experiment, the researchers consistently raised one candidate’s salary while keeping the salary of the other candidate stagnant. Interestingly, as a candidate's salary was increased, the candidate was generally thought to be less approachable, less experienced, less effective, and overall less preferred (Campbell). This survey therefore indicates that as a candidate’s wealth increases, the candidate’s popularity decreases. This is due to how the electorate
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
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
Eliminating Soft Money Contributions to Provide Equal Opportunity for all Candidates to Run Similar Campaigns
Though campaign finance laws deal primarily with limitations on money expenditures, campaign finance is dealt with as a first amendment issue. Though it was argued in Buckley v. Valeo (which will be discussed in detail later on) that campaign donations should be considered conduct, comparable to burning a draft card, rather than speech. The Court claimed, however, that spending money makes communication possible. Often, this communication involves speech alone, not conduct. Furthermore, the Court recognized that virtually every means of communicating ideas requires money, pointing to several examples, such as the pr...
Finance however is still the fatal flaw in the electoral system of choosing presidential candidates. Bush can only attest this: with a larger "war-chest" than McCain he had an overwhelming advantage. One can therefore conclude that the presidential candidate selection process is far from ideal. Governed by money, media and spin, as opposed to substance does mitigate against the intended democratic nature of an electoral process. Reforms, however, have shown an increasing respect for democracy, by giving the electorate greater power at the demise of party bureaucracies.
ISBN 0-7679-0533-4. Wealth and Democracy clearly illustrates and emphasizes the importance of Democracy being endangered. The author, Kevin Phillips, America’s leading political analyst since 1968 and a graduate of Harvard Law School, appears very informed and credible. Wealth and Democracy outlines and explains the politics of the second half of the 20th century. In this book, Phillips primarily explores how the rich and politically powerful often work together to create and continue to take advantage at the expense of the national interest, the middle class, and the lower class. The book contains several interesting chapters on history and an analysis of present-day America that reveals the dangerous politics that go with the concentration of wealth.
While an imbalance has always been prevalent in the classes of American society, recent decisions in the Supreme Court favoring less campaign finance control have disregarded the growing gap between the upper echelon and the lower class. The U.S. Supreme Court has fully given way to elitist rule, allowing the wealthy to wield their natural tenacities to grow dollar bills from rocks and plant them kindly into the pockets of political candidates that would support their hidden agendas of clandestine rule and continued hegemonification of the lower class. As recent as April 2, 2014 in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme court released the contribution limits placed on the wealthy under the pretense of free speech as provided by the first amendment. In order to prevent further dissemination to the balance of equality amongst the classes within the United States, it is imperative for Congress to start the implementation of a detailed Constitutional Amendment defining strict regulations regarding funding towards political campaigns, as well as a clear definition to the inherent differences between an individual and a corporate entity or “faction.”
As a society that lives in a culture of abundance and opportunity, we are always sensing that the next big break lies just over the horizon with the next job or notable achievement. David Brooks, editorialist for the New York Times, sees America as a nation obsessed and admiring of the rich and famous. He ingeniously discloses that, “None of us is really poor; we're just pre-rich”.
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
Time and time again we hear politicians and office holders preach the need for a powerful middle-class. You may then be surprised to hear that “about 82% of America’s net worth belongs to the top 20%, the next 80% of people only own about 18% of America’s wealth” (UCSC). Some may argue that this disproportion is the beauty of capitalism, the chance to create an empire. I argue that the proportions are simply unfair. Why is it that “ the average CEO makes 350X as much as his/her employee” (UCSC)?
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...
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.
Over the past few years, a number of occurrences have displayed the growing economic and political inequality of the United States. The currently dissipated Occupy Movement did draw the general public’s attention to the ridiculous strides made by the rich, whose incomes have skyrocketed within the past four decades. Those pertaining to the middle-income and poor have sadly had their incomes stagnate. According to Caroline Fairchild from the Huffington Post the middle class incomes steadily is on the decline. In 1968 the middle class earned about 53.2 percent of national income in 1968. This number has now fallen to 45.7 percent. Super PACs became a concern as more individual donors willingly wrote up enormous checks to support their particular candidates. As a result, this gave prominence to the growing political inequality, as well as highlighting the rich’s ability to have their words have much more weight over the average citizen in America.
In American society, there is a large disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor. This wealth disparity has far reaching effects into the areas of politics, education, culture, and more. By using their wealth to dominate politics, education, and culture, the rich perpetuate the exclusion of the poor into the substandard position of poverty.