Campaigns and voting are a major part of the government in the United States. Voting is the real thing that keeps citizens in touch with their Government. People who are running for the government and president should be fair and equal for everyone who wants to run. Some people what to find a way to prevent fraud on voting, so their vote would be illegal and can get in trouble. To create and regulate government and president Campaigns to try to make it fair and equal for every that is running. As all was something that needs to be in policy and the policy is Equal Funding Act Equal Funding Act includes trying to prevent fraud without requiring pre-registration. This Policy for preventing fraud is that government works for local or state would be at the polls and check people in to let them vote. The people who want to vote must bring a photo ID and must show the government …show more content…
This generation when people run for government official they can use their own money and some that they got from their party. They have no maximum out on how much they want to spend on their campaign. It not fair to other people running if one person has more money than another people running. Most of the time people who are running uses their own money for their campaign. The Equal Funding Act has a max out that is for people who are running for the government or president. This is to make sure that everyone has an equal and fair shot, and it not about who has more money than another campaign. The max out would be 1 Billion. Sometimes the better candidate can be the one that does not have the most between the candidate. If people run for president in the Equal Funding Act, they at least need to be in the government for 3 years. The requirement for being in the government for 3 years is that that can work for the state, local, congressmen or woman,
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
In America, voting for the President is a privilege and a lie. Many Americans think when they go to the polls in November, they are voting for the President of the United States; but really, they are voting for a group of electors who have pledged to support a nominee for the President. The Founding Fathers were concerned that presidents would always come from a populous state and wondered whether the public would have the knowledge of various candidates necessary to make a wise selection. They did not have access to technology like the internet or smart phones as we do. In most states, as the result of the election, the state awards all its electors to the winning candidate (Belenky 1308). A Presidential a candidate must win 270 Electoral
Eliminating Soft Money Contributions to Provide Equal Opportunity for all Candidates to Run Similar Campaigns
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
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.
Every four years our nation votes for the next leader of our nation; however, it is not really the citizens of our nation but rather the Electoral College who chooses the President of the United States. The Electoral College, which is the group of people who formally elect the President and Vice-President of the United States, has been part of our nation since its inception. There are 538 electors in the Electoral College, which comes from the number of House representatives and the two Senators each state has. To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 of those electors. It is an indirect election since the people are not directly voting for the president but rather the people of voting for their elector. The electors meet in the Capital
While an imbalance has always been prevalent in the classes of American society, recent decisions in the Supreme Court favoring less campaign finance control have disregarded the growing gap between the upper echelon and the lower class. The U.S. Supreme Court has fully given way to elitist rule, allowing the wealthy to wield their natural tenacities to grow dollar bills from rocks and plant them kindly into the pockets of political candidates that would support their hidden agendas of clandestine rule and continued hegemonification of the lower class. As recent as April 2, 2014 in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme court released the contribution limits placed on the wealthy under the pretense of free speech as provided by the first amendment. In order to prevent further dissemination to the balance of equality amongst the classes within the United States, it is imperative for Congress to start the implementation of a detailed Constitutional Amendment defining strict regulations regarding funding towards political campaigns, as well as a clear definition to the inherent differences between an individual and a corporate entity or “faction.”
As of the ratification of the 26th amendment in 1971, the voting age in the US is 18. As I turn 18 this coming summer I now have the chance to participate in elections local, state, and national wide. The history of youth voting has changed over time with that more 18-24 year olds are voting as time goes on. The question comes to mind about voting in that why would someone want to vote and if it’s just a waste of time. I believe that if people have the chance to vote, then they should which is why I am going to vote in elections to come in the future.
At the basis of the campaign finance reform movement is the belief that everyone should have an equal say in the government, and that wealthy individuals or special interest groups should not be able to manipulate the system through excessive contributions to unduly influence elections. The more expensive it becomes to finance a campaign, the more important the money becomes, and subsequently the less involved the candidate becomes in listening to the "voices of the average Americans." The Federal Election Commission, established in 1974, was the first independent institution created to monitor and enforce the campaign finance reforms that were designed to limit [individual or corporate] contributions that would disproportionately influence a federal election. The Commission also tries to ensure that the campaign finance information is accessible to the public, because "disclosure…is the single greatest check on the excesses of campaign finance," (Sabato).
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
Over the recent year’s American voters have brought back a way of voting that was used during the country’s old age of existence, this rediscovered act is known as early voting. Early voting started in the early 1990s, though the outcome has not had such a high consistency over the years it is still recommended to help the Election Day process in the country. Since voter turnout is not entirely consistent due to the process being constantly shortened by state laws, the argument against early voting is that it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, opponents believe it is ineffective. Although that is not the case, in his 2016 blog article, “A Brief History of Early Voting,” Michael McDonald inform readers on the brief history of early voting as he states how the rates of voters who has cast their ballots before election day has increased over the years, “from less than a tenth to about a third” (qtd. in McDonald) since the 1990s. This proves to show why the money being spent on this act is not simply being wasted. Although early voting has
Certain candidates will get elected rather than other candidates due to them having more education, better campaign resources provided, money, benefactors, wealth, etc. Also there is also intentionally improper districting which leads to improper representation, and huge advantages to certain
Not a day goes past that without hearing about the presidential candidates. The local polls, debates, drama, and the daily attacks people in the political parties. I hear this information whether I want too or not. One can always be up to date when it comes to the upcoming election either on the television news, or radio, and reading about it in the daily newspaper. And the presidential election seems to be what everyone is talking about or using social media to express their own personal sides. Why wouldn’t it be? It’s not like every year we get a new commander and chief. The presidential election is something that Americans looks forward to every four years. People across our nation get to vote and be part of our great democracy in the
Have you ever been persuaded into voting? Well, you should have your own say on where your opinion goes. Voting is a right that every citizen in America over the age of 18 can do. Many people have become aware of the fact that the number of voters had reached its all time low. But as the newest voting season comes closer, we should still have a voice and the freedom to decide what we do. Which is, take a step against making America a compulsory voting country, because it proves unnecessary and there are other alternatives than mandatory voting.
It 's important for us all to vote. I know that we all have different opinions, beliefs, and lives from one another. This speech is