Campaign Finance Reform
The politics is a stage for many different characters of whom each is trying to convince their audience to give them the loudest cheer and the grand applause. Politicians who played the acts will do their best and sometimes will do everything to win the hearts of their audience and that means to win at all cost. Politics involves money for it is the way to make campaign possible that is why there are campaign managers and campaign funds to whoever will run for any office in the government. Every politicians needs money or funds to support his or her candidacy in such a way that it will help them reach their constituents because it also requires money to get to them, to their homes, to their cities and to their assemblies. Campaign funds are good but they are bound with limitations especially when they seem to be oddly represented and can be exploited for purposes such as election fraud.
Campaign finance reform are designed to rule and give limits to the campaign funds to be disburse and used by politicians in the fear that excessive contributions and campaign money support will eventually corrupt officials and will also bear the common notion of giving favors to those with huge campaign contributions. Excessive money involvement is the root of all evil and in politics evil is always present in different forms and they may come in disguise like campaign contributions that would later translate into voting influence among politicians and party association. The fear of the campaign finance reform is that if a small amount of money poured into one’s political career by a third-party contributor and will drive him to favor them later what else can they do with so much contributions. Laws or legislations even...
... middle of paper ...
...address the holes and ineffectiveness of the current campaign finance law as well as to give space for additional measures that will strengthen the authority and power of the law until greediness finds another way to exploit it and when it happens amendment and reform will always be a necessity.
Works Cited
Library of Congress. Campaign Finance: Germany. n.d. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/germany.php. 31 March 2014.
NCSL. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: AN OVERVIEW. 3 October 2011. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-finance-an-overview.aspx. 31 March 2014.
Schmidt, Susan and James V. Grimaldi. The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff. 29 December 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801588.html. 31 March 2014.
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 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.
According to “In It To Win: Jack & Overconfidence Bias,” Jack Abramoff said that “I had so much success, my team and I won everything, every one of my strategies seemed to work, every one of our opponents was vanquished, and an arrogance set in.” We should admit that Jack Abramoff was successful enough to be confident, but his overconfidence made him arrogant. When his arrogance influenced him negatively, he would be prone to act some unethical behaviors. Then, Jack Abramoff’s improper framing also prevented him from making moral decisions.
To conclude Jack Abramoff was a notorious lobbyist who was sent to prison for abuse
Larry Sabato author of “A More Perfect Constitution” implies the United States Constitution could use some revision. Written over two hundred years ago, I do not think this concept is astonishing. I believe the founding father were aware of potential flaws, allowing for amendments or changes. Sabato book proposes some changes and the “calling for a twenty-first-century constitutional convention.” This book review will look at four of Sabato suggestions; reforming the Senate, balancing the budget, a six-year presidential term, and the Electoral College. These four recommendations were of greatest interest and intrigue. Although I do agree with all his ideas, I do feel there is more to improvement in our constitution and commend his efforts is awakening the American people to a need for reform.
Taylor Jr., Stuart. "CHENEY'S WIN OVER THE GAO THREATENS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT." National Journal 34.50 (2002): 3638. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. Nov. 2010.
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
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
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.
Yes, reform is a realistic expectation in the American political process. Our forefathers intentionally left vagaries in the Constitution. They understood that in order to be long-lasting, some rules would nee...
In order for a politician to make his way up the ranks, he usually needs to build a strong intra-ethnic coalition followed by inter-ethnic support. This can be a difficult task because the the politician has to please everyone, which makes him seem “bland” to his original supporters.
Many people argue that the legislative branch is run by few big interest groups because of their massive contributions against very small contributions from individuals. In a democratic society, power must be shared equally among its citizens, but is that the case in the United States? The answer is simply no, and by limiting their overall spending on elections, policymakers will listen and pay more attention to the public interest over the special interest. Also, by revealing the freeloaders’ names, people will have more knowledge of who is representing them and who has tended to benefit those who made contributions to their campaigns. Finally, prohibiting the spending on food, entertainment and gifts to legislative branch employee will also reduce the corruption in the legislative
Election campaigns require tremedous financial resources, so bought-and-paid-for politicians are servants of a financial aristocracy and not rather representatives of the American people.
Known as a period of political scandal, many politicians engaged in bribes, lies, and abuse of power to further a political, social, and often personal agenda. The typical corrupt leader "will sell his vote for a dollar [...] turns with indifference from the voice of honesty and reason [...] his unalienable right may be valuable to him for the bribe he gets out of it" (166). Such politicians are an injustice to society because as they are elected by the people, they must act towards the betterment of the people, rather than for themselves. Furthermore, those who elect this politician to office merely underestimate their political and social responsibility because they "want the feeling that their own interests are connected with those of the community, and in the weakness or absence of moral and political duty" (167). Thus, under the control of the ruthless politician and the reckless voter, the true essence of democracy is
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.