The Influence of Money on American Elections
There have been laws put into place to reform the campaign finance system in the United States. It is apparent that money greatly influences American elections and it has massive effects upon the outcome of recent elections. The laws encourage citizens to participate in elections. Although it may be unknown to many, money greatly influenced the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.
As a result of the court case Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett, it was decided that citizens should be encouraged to help in financing campaigns. When there is increased participation from citizens, self-governance is greatly facilitated. The goal of public financing is to push citizens to help the political candidate of their choice financially. Many reformers have suggested that there is too much money in politics. Statistically, this is proven to be wrong. In the 2008 election, there were 64% of Americans that were eligible to vote. There were only about 10% that give money to the campaigns, and not even 0.5% who are responsible for the bulk amount of money collected by the politicians (Overton, 2012).
Political Action Committees (PACS) are interest groups that help raise money. They do this on a voluntary basis so they can help the candidate in which they favor. PACS tend to contribute more to incumbents. There are three different types of money that is contributed to elections. There is interested money. This money comes from individuals or groups and is used to influence the result of an election. There is also soft money. It is an unlimited amount of money that is raised by political parties. Lastly, there is hard money. It is limited and fully disclosed (Trautman, 2013).
In 2002, the Bipart...
... middle of paper ...
...ndidates are able to start campaigning sooner and advertise themselves, they are able to win over more votes. IF they continue campaigning, they can continue to collect and raise more money to keep campaigning. Since Obama was able to collect the largest amount of contributions, he was able to publicize a lot more than any other candidate and therefore, win the election. He was able to campaign up until the day of the election because of the amount of money he collected.
Works Cited
2012 presidential race. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
Overton, S. (2012). Matching Political Contributions. Minnesota Law Review, 96(5), 1694-1731.
Parti, T., & Levinthal, D. (2012, November 17). 5 month takeaways from 2012. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83655.html
Trautman. (2013, October 21). Campaigns and elections.
Introduction In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in.elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape. Campaign Finance in the United States During the Gilded Age—a period that began in the 1870s wherein the United States experienced tremendous economic growth—affluent industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie exercised, owing in large part to their wealth, enormous influence over the direction of American politics. Though left unaddressed during the Gilded Age, the issue of corporate involvement in political affairs was eventually identified as a corrosive problem in President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address.
majority of the states, and those that were on the ballot in a majority of
of the year. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013. 591-594. Print. The. Wallace, David.
William E. Cain, Alice McDermott, Lance Newman, and Hilary E. Wyss. New York: New York, 2013. 48-53. Print.
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.
middle of paper ... ...of the year. New York: Pearson Longman, 2012. 183-196. The.
Simpson, M. , David. Los Angeles Magazine. N.P.. July 24, 2013. Web. January 30, 2014
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
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.
The aim of this paper is to look at the relationship between the mass media, specifically television, and presidential elections. This paper will focus on the function of television in presidential elections through three main areas: exit polls, presidential debates, and spots. The focus is on television for three reasons. First, television reaches more voters than any other medium. Second, television attracts the greatest part of presidential campaign budgets. Third, television provides the candidates a good opportunity to contact the people directly. A second main theme of this paper is the role of television in presidential elections in terms of representative democracy in the United States.
Money has an impact on elections in two major ways. First, it takes large amounts of money to get people elected, meaning that if the candidate does not have the support of wealthy individuals or companies, they cannot run for office. Second, lobbying plays an important role, with the amount of money that they may have they could have a larger impact on legislation. I do not believe that the American democracy functions as fully democratic. I believe that because of the influences money and economic status has on piece of elections it is difficult to represent the whole population in a fair way. Things such as required a government issued id such as a driver’s license, requiring registration before the day of voting (42 states), and often fees
Weiss PhD, Michael J., Wagner PhD, Sheldon, and Goldberg, Susan. Drawing the Line. New York: Warner Books, 2006. Print.
The American Political System The American political system is a federal system, which consists of