Big Money: A Summary
Kenneth Vogel’s Big Money explores the invasion of money into our political system. In the novel, Vogel explains one of the most important important events that is currently happening in today’s elections: donors. This, according to Vogel, has been brought on by a ruling in the case Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The result of this case destroyed finance restrictions, giving Corporations and Unions the same laws of freedom of speech as individual Americans. The novel opens in February of 2012 where Vogel sneaks into a donor banquet. As our current president, Barack Obama, gives his speech, Vogel makes a note of the President’s words. In particular, Vogel focuses on one line “You now have the potential
…show more content…
Along with Obama, Vogel mentions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as critics of large donors, who then also were leading in super PAC fundraisers. Though Vogel mentions many people and events, he never goes into great detail about any of it. Even with the immense amount of information that is left to the reader to decipher and research, one must ask themselves this question, “what are the effects of big money on modern politics.”
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
…show more content…
December of 2010, in a five to four vote, it was decided that corporate funding of independants in in elections was protected under the first Amendment. This opened the floodgate for the 2012 elections as the candidates took to many platforms to raise money for their campaigns. Mitt Romney along with the help of Spencer Zwick raised 6.5 million dollars simply through a call-a-thon. The secret weapon in this call-a-thon was a program called ComMITT. This program allowed the user to solicit donations from contacts in their email, and online social networking sites. Any donation made fed directly back into the campaign, giving a real-time tally of pledges. With all of this information, one can make a decision for or against campaign finance contributions. Personally, I have conflicting feelings about limitations on campaign finance. I feel as though there should not be a limit for campaign finance contributions, but there should be more qualifications for becoming president. I do not believe there should be a limit on campaign finance because technically it is covered under freedom of speech. It is covered under freedom of speech. This is because giving money is showing
Summary of “The Money” by Junot Diaz In this essay, the author recounts a life event from his childhood. The story begins with Junot describing his family's financial status and living arrangement. Diaz and his four siblings lived with their two parents in a catchpenny apartment in a rough urban borough. Not steadily employed, his mother and father were in a constant struggle to keep the family afloat monetarily; to the point where decent, alimental food was not a likely sight in the household. Despite their meager inhabitance his mother was stowing $200 to $300 monthly and sending it to her parents in the Dominican Republic.
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.
money.In the line “To be made of it !” Gioia uses a hyperbole by referring to rich people as being
In his essay, “History for Dollars,” David Brooks argues the importance of the study of the humanities to improve your reading ability and i agree because the humanities focus on reading and it helps improve your reading skills because you’re gaining more knowledge of reading. He talks about the enormous power of being that one person in the office who can write a strong and concise memo. He stresses the idea of one who has the ability to read for understanding, write, and paraphrase issues with efficacy helps you in life succeed in
Double edge sword is what lies at the heart of Roach’s issue with the American political system. While the public’s trust for their elected officials continues to disintegrate because of backroom deals and a poor transparency, it is exactly what the American political system requires its participants to do in order to be effective deal makers and according Roach, “Campaign contributions and smoke-filled rooms, pork is a tool of democratic governance, not violation of it. It can be used for corrupt purposes but also, for vital ones.” Roach argues that the public must take the good with the bad, they do not have to like it or agree with it, but they must see the importance that each side plays. Roach believes that it has been within the past 40 years that publics growing mistrust for the American political system has pushed toward favoring disintermediation, populism, and self-expression over professionals and political insiders.
situation in the United States and an unfold story about his family money stash , I can relate to
In Junot Diaz’s essay “The Money” he explains where his family stands economically. Stating that his father was regularly being fired from his forklifting jobs and his mother 's only job was to care for him and his four siblings. With the money brought home by his father, his mom would save some. Her reason was to raise enough to send to her parents back in the Dominican Republic. When his family went on a vacation, they came back to an unpleasant surprise; their house had been broke into. Eventually Diaz was able to get back their money and belongings. Diaz returned the money to his mother although she didn’t thank him for it, this disappointed him. Like Diaz I have also encountered a similar situation where I was disappointed. When I was in second grade, my life life took a completely different turn. My dad took an unexpected trip to Guatemala, on his return, the outcome was not what I expected.
The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this point in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, commonly referred to as plain “Citizens United”, in the majority opinion. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, wrote that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,” (Kennedy). Basically, he is saying that if free speech means anything, it must apply to the case of campaign contributions. Where Citizens United failed, however, was its cap on independent expenditures that corporations could make. It let corporations influence elections but limited money spent. SpeechNow.org v. FEC solved that issue. It ruled against the cap of donations on Super PACs (Forget Citizens United). In conjunction with the Citizens United decision, Super PACs were finally able to use their free speech. This paved a path for free speech in the election
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.
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.
First, the Court reiterated its belief that political speech with regard to campaign spending is undoubtedly protected by the First Amendment’s “Free Expression” clause. Next, the Court de-linked the connection between the spending of money and speech, asserting that spending money to further political communications is an integral component of protected speech. Taking into account the fact that political campaigns are indeed expensive to run — and indeed, are even more costly in today’s day in age than the 1970s, during which the Court’s verdict was rendered — and blocking contributions would hinder expression with regards to campaigns, the Court held that political contributions constitute speech. In summation, the Court felt that the institutional of political contribution limits was in accordance with the Constitution, but expenditure restrictions for corporations violated the First Amendment, and as such, were nixed by the Supreme Court’s decision in the
This goes against what Madison argued in Federalist 51, regarding that “appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people” (“Federalist”). While citizens get the final say on who is elected through the power of their vote, it is impossible for a candidate to win an election to federal office without spending a huge amount of money, which ordinary citizens cannot donate single handedly. For example, it took 437,000 dollars to win a seat in the Senate in 1974, but by 2006 a successful Senate campaign cost 7.92 million dollars (Kaiser). When politicians need money, lobbyists and the groups they represent are willing and capable of providing it. This rings especially true since the controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, in which the court ruled that there should be no cap on how much money a person or organization can donate to a political campaign. It was held that money is speech, and thus the donation of money to a campaign is protected under the First Amendment, and that corporations, organizations, and unions have the same rights as an individual citizen. President Obama spoke out against this decision, calling it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that
Being corporate lobbying and campaign finance the main characters in outlining the choices that politicians decides; this is because corporations as well those moneyed individuals are the major contributors and campaigns funding for elected officials. Corporations benefit from elected officials once in office as they incline to pass policies that are favorable to the corporations and the wealthy. Nichols noted that with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, an estimated of ten billion dollars was spent in the 2012 election, as people are permitted to donate limitless campaign donations. High percentage of this money is used in negative political advertising, as a tactic to drive voters to vote for other party, mainly between Democrats and Republicans being the most prominent parties. Since the negative attack ads causes citizens not to vote, it provokes self-governance to be more present in society. Nichols suggested the creation of reforms to battle and disassemble the “money-and-media election” that unfortunately is shifting the United States into a Dollarocracy. Nichols mentions possible reforms such a “Constitutional amendment” which secures the right to vote for all citizens over eighteen-years-old, better communication and
"OpenSecrets." OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting. Web. 23 June 2010. .