The government system is consequently very flawed. I want it to change, but I really never wanted to be involved in politics. I did not even really want to write about any of these topics. It is really hard learning all about these writing techniques at my age. I forgot so much and never went to college right after. I finally caught on to sentence structures my last year in high school in 1976. I did not even want to take a government class, but I am somewhat enjoying it. It has been an eye opener and a total challenge. Tarrant County College is not requiring students to take government for my degree anymore. I am one of the ones that had felt that my vote did not matter. I have felt this way almost all my adult life. I felt that most politicians are crooked and they have had the power for too long. How could one vote help? When I did vote it did not change anything. I did not vote for Obama and he still was nominated and elected anyway! The other reason I did not like voting is because I knew I would be in line for jury duty and I have no desire to fill that position either. It totally freaks me out. I really do not know why either. I have never liked talking about politics or listening to politics. Just like I do not care about sports on TV either. I feel the reason more people are not involved is because they do not believe in our politicians either and/or the system of voting. I have learned allot this semester in this government class. I believe I need to get more involved and try to lead others into getting more involved too. I really believe people just get so caught up in every day living and having the wrong thoughts about politics. Most people probably feel there really is not much they can do to ...
... middle of paper ...
...ecause there is no money or power to get things accomplished or changed. The weaker political parties have trouble getting a foothold on the task so desperately needed.
Supporting public finance for campaigns might be a good idea. I think there will be people desperate for a change seeking a better way for campaigns to work. It has to be radical movement. The reforms that are to come about will help to iron out this problem. I will have to do some more research and be more involved with others before I could answer this one honestly.
Works Cited
Ginsberg, B., et al. “Chapter 9, 10, and 11”. We The People. 9th ed. New York: W.W. Norton
& Co., 2013.
Hunter-Summerlin, Cynthia. “US GOVT. 2305-50410” TCCD Trinity River Campus.
Chapter 9, 10 and 11 lecture and Position Two Insructions.
Madagascar (2005) - IMBd. 2005. .
Brinkley, Alan. The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.
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.
One particular side to this issue is that people feel that enacting this reform would, ultimately, diffuse the simple act of giving and revealing the act of financial support to those who needs these contributions. Some critics say that without such donations, parties will be unable to help lesser-known candidates mount effective challenges to entrenched incumbents. They also believe that voter registration turnouts would substantially decrease. (Dallas Morning News). " What we are doing is destroying the party system in America. The political parties would be neutered, and third party groups would run the show," Rep. Martin Frost. There is an overwhelming amount of politicians that feel that banning soft money contributions would deplete our campaign system. If money weren't the issue wouldn't enacting this reform enable equal opportunity for all candidates and citizens? The other side of this issue would conclude that these contributions are uncalled for and, in fact, lead democracy to a dark and profound pity. The problem stands that contributors persuade candidates to address issues to their conformity. There is evidence that large amounts of soft money given to both parties by various industries have received exponential tax breaks. What kind of message are we sending out here? We have contributors making issue deals with candidates along with receiving tax breaks in which, to say the least, is illegal.
...The Nation 1 Nov. 1999: 10. Wilson Select Full Text Plus. Melville Library, SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY. 9 Mar. 2003 <http://www.sunysb.edu/library>.
Nash, Gary, et al. The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society. Upper Saddle River,
Brinkley, Alan. The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People. 5th Ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008).
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J Lowi and Margaret Weir. We the people. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.
Oakes, James. "Chapter 7." Of the People: A History of the United States. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. N. pag. Print.
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).
Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, Tolbert, Spitzer. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics 9th Essentials. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2013. Book.
The subject of campaign finance reform sounds so dull, but it is necessary to understand that reform helps to keep the society flowing smoothly. Therefore, what is the current status of campaign finance reform? In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed by Congress. It was also known as the McCain-Feingold Act (Sidlow, 2013, p.213). It banned soft money at federal levels and regulated campaign ads from interest groups because the enormous amount of money spent by interest groups for their ads had the appearance of corruption (South University Online, 2013). There is so much money floating around right now that I fear the common man may soon have little say in what happens in this country. Now the super PACs and 501c's are spreading their influences too. Can reform be a realistic expectation of the American political process?
The first main attempt to regulate campaign financing occurred in 1971 with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The act set requirements for disclosure of contributions to federal campaigns, both presidential and congressional. The main regulation to financing occurred though after its amendment in 1974. After reports of big financial abuses in the 1972 presidential election and the Watergate scandal, people wanted more constraints on financing particularly those from special interest groups. The act required strict disclosure of campaign donations. Candidates had to name all contributors who donated more than $200 a year. They also set up contribution limits and expenditure limits. Individuals could not contribute more than $1,000 to a candidate and political action committees (PACs) could not contribute more than $5,000. There were also limits on expenditures from a candidate’s personal fund and on total campaign expenditures (The FEC, 2011).
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J Lowi, and Margaret Weir. We The People, an introduction to american politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Co Ltd, 2011
All that can really be seen is what appears before ourselves. What we see on billboards, television, or radio show constantly the views of a new runner for politics whom proclaims what he or she wishes to accomplish. Listening to it, one can create a thought of why did they choose that topic for an argument? Today not all people vote so the ones who do are the people these “runners” focus on. Why would they fight to create increased pay to schools if all the voters are the elderly? Why not focus upon retirement benefits or healthcare? As citizens we have complaints on how the government manages our money and yet we do not do anything about it. Voting gives a chance. If certain groups grew in votes different ideas would be made for these “runners”. Say the young adults started to vote a lot more. We could have schooling benefits, less tuition fees, higher education levels, and possibly a large increase in jobs. One United Kingdom publisher explains, “If you vote, the campaigners urge, the politicians will have to listen to you and things will change.”(Kirkup, The Telegraph). Also youth have the longest time, and live what the country becomes. To conclude, voting doesn’t take long and doesn’t require almost any effort. All it requires just an open mind and yet people just do not realize this opportunity. Right now we could be living in the richest most opportunistic country if everyone could understand what can become of our views. Life could be looked forward not
knowledge; it still gives the citizens the opportunity to vote actually even William E. Hudson pointed this out in the book which I would like to reference “to the pluralist, elections provide an opportunity for even apathetic and passive citizens to choose their political leaders” (14). But now if we are going to speak on why many citizens are apathetic we must look at this from another form of democracy, which is the participatory democracy model. The next model of democracy I would like to speak about is much different from the rest, although many of these forms of democracy are similar and share similar ideas, this one may be very different, but also the same depending on how you look at this form of democracy.