Political campaigns have changed drastically over the last century, from black and white news papers to the utilization of social media. Throughout this essay we will utilize the 2012 presidential campaign as an example of how political campaign have changed the nature of American politics and how money has been the driving factor behind these campaigns. The 2012 presidential election was one that was won by a land slide by the incumbent party, President Obama. The election was between the Democratic President Obama and the Republican Governor Mitt Romney. To meet the requirements to run for president under the Constitution, Article II establishes the Executive Branch, and sets forth the following rules as to who can be the President.
“Article II Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: ...No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” (United States Constitution)
Once the candidate establishes that they are going to run, they will need to declare candidacy and file an applications with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). "If you are running for the U.S. House, Senate or the Presidency, you must register with the FEC once you (or persons acting on your behalf) receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of...
... middle of paper ...
...mont, California: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007).
Liberto, Jennifer. 2012. 2012 election priciest to date: $4.2 billion tab and rising. November 5, 2012. CNN Money.com. http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/campaign-finance/ (accessed 22 February 2014)
Paul Quirk, “Presidential Competence,” in The Presidency and the Political System, ed. Michael Nelson (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2010), Page 110.
“Quick Answers to Candidate Questions,” www.fec.gov (accessed Feb 22, 2014).
Shear, Micheal. “How Much Does It Cost to Run for president?” New York Times, March 26. 2011. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/how-much-does-it-cost-to-run-for-president/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 (accessed 22 Feb 2014).
Tulis, Jeffery. “The Two Constitutional Presidencies.” In The Presidency and the Political System, edited by Michael Nelson, 1-33. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2010.
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
Sidney M. Milkis, Michael Nelson. The American Presidency Origins & Development, 1776-2011. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2008.
Lowi, Theodore, Benjamin Ginsburg. American Government: Freedom and Power. W.W. Norton & Company, New York: 1998.
Lowi, Theodore J, et al. American Government Power & Purpose. 12th Ed. New York: W. W.
term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.” US Constitution Amendment 22
Shogan, Colleen. Washington, George. In Genovese, Michael A. Encyclopedia of the American Presidency Revised Edition. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2009. Web. .
The presidency of the United Sates of America has been an evolving office since the term of our first president, George Washington. This evolution has occurred because of the changing times and the evolution of society itself, but also because of the actions of the men who have become president. Starting in the 20th century, most have referred to the presidency as the modern presidency due to changes in both a president's power and the way that the office itself is viewed. As the office of the president has evolved so has who can become president evolved. Yet, even today there are certain individuals who because of their gender or race have yet to hold the office of the presidency. The men that have been president in our modern era have all had faults and greatness, some having more of one than of the other. The modern presidency is an office that many aspire to, but that few hold. The evolution of the office of the presidency has been one from that of a traditional role to that of a modern role that is forever evolving.
Shugart, Matthew. "Elections: The American Process of Selecting a President: A Comparative Perspective." Presidential Studies, 34, 3 (September 2004): 632-656.
Schlesinger, Arthur. History of American Presidential Elections. 2. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. 1971. 1300-1374.Print.
Genovese A., Michael. "'What Have You Done For Me Lately?: The Demands Placed On The American Presidency.' National Forum 80 (2000): 30-40.
More recently, presidential research has begun to focus on how the presidency is institutionalized. Prior to Ragsdale and Theis’ (1997) work, studies on the presidency mainly focused on how presidents differ in personality, leadership and decision making, but generally failed to consider the possibility that the office may create systematic similarities across presidents. Ragsdale and Theis (1997) used OLS regression to determine which factors affected the institutionalization of the presidency. They found that national government activity, measure by social welfare and defense expenditures, has the greatest impact on institutionalization. The effect of congressional activity is more limited, and the differences among individual presidents have little effect on levels of institutionalization (Ragsdale and Theis 1997). Moe (2009) also advocates for an institutional approach to the study of the presidency that omits personal factors and focuses on simple and parsimonious methodology. Moe argues against Neustadt’s approach, in which presidential success is based almost entirely on personal characteristics, and claims that studies on presidential behavior often ...
Howell’s theory of unilateral action describes a more isolated president. But this does not mean that his insistence on unilateral presidential action is not valid or does not provide us with a valuable model for analyzing presidential power. Howell is certainly right in pointing that Congressional oversight is made more difficult by the multiplication of the unilateral tools the President can use to alter policies. The criticism stems from the fact that his book’s title seems to give the impression that his theory comes as an irreconcilable alternative to Neustadt’s version of presidential power of “persuasiveness”. Alternatively, Neustadt’s theory suffers from an institutional level analysis. Skrownek (1991) in his book, “The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton” have suggested that there are clear patterns of contextual circumstances that may explain the variation in presidential leadership. While not denying a role of personal attributes he clearly demonstrated that personal contributions of presidents cannot be truly understood without an appreciation of the institutional contexts in which they operate (Skrownek
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system.
Ken Kollman, The American Political System, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2012), 25, 322-323, 330, 449.
Hargrove, Erwin C. The Power of the Modern Presidency. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. Questia. Web. 25 Mar. 2010.