Response Post - Due 10/25
Two weeks ago you were asked,
“Do you think that there should or should not be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle? (This is the central question the Court is answering in McCutcheon v. FEC)
Are Super PACs becoming too powerful? (This is what changed in the political landscape after Citizens United v. FEC.)
To what degree does the role of money in federal elections concern you?”
Pick a classmate in either period 5 or 6 to respond to. Explain what you agree or disagree with about their post. Remember we shouldn't need to reread their post to understand your post.
Please use at least one new news source from in your post.
You have until Friday, October 25th to post. I look forward to reading what you have to say.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 9:32 AM
40 Comments:
In response to Peter Knutson's post: I understand that donating money is seen as form of free speech, however, even if you do not believe individual money contributions should be limited, think about it from the standpoint of a poor, moderate, working level citizen who cannot contribute anything to a political campaign besides a vote. He/she is open to hearing the policies of both candidates, but only have the time to see campaigns for the person who is advertised the most. In this scenario, money does control the election. Maybe not directly, but it does limit individuals who cannot provide that much money do not have as much as a voice. The campaign and election process are supposed to be democratic, not slanted towards an elite class. People want to vote for a winner. If they see one person is "in the lead" that is almost always because of their larger levels of advertisement which is supported by, you guessed it, money. Yes election day does technically determine who wins the elections, people can be swayed by the name they have seen the most. It is not so much "Government interference" but rather "democratic intervention" that needs to happen. While I might disagree with the individual donation part of your post, I do agree somewhat with your Super PACs analysis. Although they do appear to be spending copious amounts of money, your fact "while they spent a total of a little over half of a billion dollars, that's less than 1/4 of he 2.6 billion dollars spent on the 2012 election," is true. It is their job to raise and spend money and they are fulfilling their duties very well. Although the role of money does concern me, I understand your argument of protecting first amendment rights and how elections do have the most impact on our political world.
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/democrats-super-pacs-state-races-97181.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/politics/supreme-court-weighs-campaign-contribution-limits.html?_r=0
I disagree with Tyler J.'s view that there should not be limits on individuals' contributions to specific candidates. I understand his point that money can be seen as speech, but I believe that allowing individuals to give as much as they can afford directly to a candidate would in turn limit the ability of the average citizen to have his or her own voice heard. Money already plays a big role in elections and if limits are removed, it will be an even larger factor. If campaigns become even more dependent on donations, it will certainly become easier for the elite to participate on a larger scale than everyone else. If you're a working class citizen who can only afford to give what would be a tiny fraction of what a member of the upper class can give, where does that leave you? There are other ways to be heard, but I think it is pretty evident that standing on a street corner and screaming your political views to whoever happens to be in the area isn't effective anymore (if it ever really was), and other methods of sharing your opinions that do not cost anything like blogging, going to rallies, or handing out fliers, for example, take an incredible amount of time that most people do not have and in addition, reach a very limited audience. It is true that, as Tyler says, "what some people consider a large some of money, other people consider pocket change," but I don't think that makes it impossible to set an "acceptable limit" on individual donations. It wouldn't be too difficult to find what the average citizen could afford and expand it a little in proportion to what the upper class could give on average and set a reasonable limit, as has been done. I agree that super PACs are not too powerful at this point, but I don't think that we can entirely disregard their effects on elections. I am not sure the fact that Romney received more support from outside sources, namely PACs and super PACs, and still lost the election can prove that these groups do not really matter. Political scientists and analysts from a number of sources agree that there are a number of other reasons that Obama was reelected that would not have changed regardless of how much any candidate spent, including his demonstration of leadership in response to Hurricane Sandy, the auto bailout, Romney's occasional lack of poise and shifting image despite campaign advertising, and his alienation of a number of key groups including minorities, young people, and women (2, 1).
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/why-romney-lost/
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/07/turnout-and-organization-were-key-to-obama-victory/1688537/
Response to Tyler J's Post:
I firmly agree that abridging an individual’s first amendment right in anyway is wrong, but I do believe that there should be a limit on how much one is allowed to donate, however it should be much higher than it currently is. I believe that the limit I suggested in my post would be high enough to allow the upper class to express their speech without overriding the amounts of the majority of smaller donors. This limit would also accomplish “taking out the middle man” as you said because the vast amount of money going to PACs and super PACs would be greatly diminished, rendering them nearly useless.
I heavily disagree on your belief that super PACs are not becoming too powerful. You said it yourself that PACs made up under one fourth of the spending during this past election, which I am assuming means it was between 20-25% (1). Considering this not to be a large part of the spending would be wrong. If we were to apply this statistic to something that is related to campaign spending, let’s say voters, it would be an enormous factor. If a candidate were to consider 20% of their base not a big deal and thus not cater towards them, they would surely lose the election.
(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
I agree with Elizabeth A, there should be limits on how much money a person can give to an individual candidate. The current limit of donations is set at $123,200 per individual and $5,200 to a single candidate candidate every two year election cycle (1). Without these limits I agree that corruption could be a major problem: the wealthy would focus more on themselves than the common welfare. As for super political action committees I agree that their gaining power could pose a problem for smaller groups and that they could potentially get around restrictions on their scope. At the same time I think that they could potentially be used for good and that aspect should not be ignored. Political action committees could be used as a means of raising and funneling individual contributions to parties or issues, but at the moment they seem more nefarious than good. As for this issue in general, money as a means of getting ideas around is important, but personally it doesn’t affect me that much. Overall the democratic idea of one person, one vote should be held to, and person should not be allowed to capture the whole attention of candidates and policymakers.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/politicians-for-sale.html?ref=campaignfinance&_r=0
I completely agree with Peter K.'s stance on the limit, PACs, and the role of money in campaigns. There should not be a limit on the amount of money that an individual can give to a candidate because it unequivocally falls under the first amendment, which states that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (1). For most people, their money is hard earned. No one, even the Government, should be able to place a limit on what they can and can't spend it on, or even set a limit on how much of it they can spend. I also agreed with his statement that while super PACs are indeed powerful, they are not too powerful. It's common knowledge that strength is found in numbers, so it is no surprise that political action committees would make up a larger percentage of political donations than other donators. Peter's statement about how they had spent a total of a little over half a billion dollars might scare people, but he was correct in saying that this amounts to less than 25% of the money spent in the 2008 election (2). I had never really thought about how super PACs were split up among political parties, but Peter pointed out that of the top 6 most powerful PACs, 3 of them supported the Democrats while 3 supported the Republicans in the 2008 election. This furthers my thinking that super PACs are not too powerful, because they seem to balance each other out, in a sense. Regarding the influence of money in elections, Peter and I essentially stated the same thing in our original posts; while money can help candidates, it doesn't decide the winner. As I stated in my first post, an unpopular candidate can spend as much money as they want, but in the end, the more popular candidate will win the election, regardless of how much more money the unpopular candidate spends. Overall, the people still decide who wins elections, which is one of the main parts of our democracy.
1) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
2) http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/
This comment has been removed by the author.
I understand where Ellen B. is coming from, however I disagree with her logic. She mentioned that one of the issues in our democracy is how much money it costs to get elected. Although this is true for large races, the majority of our political races are small and cheap. For example, Ann Lenczewski's largest donation was $750 in 2012 and that was from her own political party! She only raised $11,000 total and the largest individual donation was $300. I randomly selected a few other Minnesota legislatures and many of our legislatures barely raised $5,000. I think it is pretty clear that running campaigns, especially for local offices, is not expensive [1]. As the office gets more important, the amount raised goes up which is expected. However, even in elections as large as presidential ones, large donations play a small role. Obama raised the vast majority of his money on small donations [2]. It is easy to feel like the rich may 'buy' an election if given the ability to donate what they want. However, if we think logically about this that fear should be mitigated. The 1% are just that, 1% of the population. The remaining vast majority could donate very small amounts and out fundraise the rich. There is no better example than Obama’s campaign. It is also mentioned that larger donations would sway who participated in elections as people may feel their vote does not have an impact. I struggle to see why people choosing not to vote requires laws limiting rights. Although this may be heartless, I doubt many of the lower class Americans are thinking about the rich people donating money. They are probably more focused on their jobs and how they will make time to vote. Now on the issue of Super PACS it is true that they are built around raising money. As I pointed out in my original post, PACS would be FAR less powerful if donation limits were removed. PACS would not exist on this scale had campaign finance laws not been put into place [3]. I agree that it is sad the money seems to control politics and often the world. The world can't run on good intentions and money allows our society to exist as we know it.
[1] http://www.cfbreport.state.mn.us/dyncfb/cfbsearch1.php
[2] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-08/politics/35444797_1_small-donors-campaign-finance-institute-reelection-campaign
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ledewitz/time-to-repeal-campaign-c_b_2099475.html
I agree with Ellen B.’s idea that allowing the wealthy to spend as much as they want could reduce voter efficacy by giving the impression that the average person’s vote is meaningless. The problem with allowing unlimited expenditures by individuals (or any other group) for a campaign is that it allows the party with the most money to saturate television, radio, and the internet with advertisements. In the 2012 election about half of the pro-Romney advertisements were funded by outside groups (1). It can be fairly assumed that it is not the average American but the more affluent that can afford to pay for such advertisements. The problem is that the less than wealthy groups of people have few ways to endorse anyone that their demographic, even if it is a large one, supports if they do not have the support of a more wealthy group as well. With the current system, the support of a wealthy group is needed for any candidate to get their message heard (and considered seriously) by the people. As Ellen B. explained, the Super PACs do not so much control who gets elected, rather they (along with several other factors) decrease the sense of power over elections the average person has and so decrease overall voter turnout. Limiting spending by campaigns would help less financed candidates to appear as serious candidates and therefore give voters more diverse options for office.
(1) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/08/nation/la-na-outside-money-20121108
In response to Laura H.'s post, I would have to agree with her position that there should not be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election. Mainly, I believe that it is protected by the First Amendment, just like she stated. The Government has no right to interfere with the amount of money a citizen can spend, as long as it is legal. If Government were to make limits, it would be nearly impossible and inefficient to decide how much money is "fair" to donate. If it is high, people will always be arguing to lower it, and vice versa. It will be a never ending debate. I very much agree that while super PACS are influential in elections, they do not pose as a threat to free democratic elections. Of the roughly 700 million dollars in individual contributions Obama recieved in 2012, about a third of the money was from small individual contributions (2). This shows that small contributions make a difference in the elections. I also agree that while total campaign contributions have increased, the overall price of elections has also even to a greater amount. With elections getting more and more expensive, candidates feel that they need more money to run campaigns and super PACs are helpful for them to do so. The decision in McCutcheon v. FEC has been overall supported by the public that money given to candidates is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is even an issue that Republicans and Democrats agree on (often these issues are rare.) According to Gallup polls conducted in 2010, 57% consider money given to candidates a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment, while 37% do not (1). In addition to this, 62% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans agree (1). This information shows that it is bipartisan agreement that the First Amendment protects donations to election campaigns. Overall, I agree with Lau in the fact that she talks about how the candidate with the better policies and is more popular with the American people will win the election. This helps prove that while money may influence elections, democracy ultimately decides them.
Works Cited
(1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/public-agrees-court-campaign-money-free-speech.aspx
(2) http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/sourceall.php
In response to Ivy B.’s post, I agree that individual contributions should be donated. I think Ivy is right in saying that it creates an unequal distribution of power, which can be detrimental to the way policy is made because it does not accurately represent everybody’s views. I agree that the way Super PACs use their money creates an imbalance in the way the campaigns play out. In a New York Times summary of the 2012 campaign finances, groups spent significantly more on, for example, producing ads that were against candidates rather than ads that supported candidates (1). These monetary contributions, coupled with the ads that non-profit groups that don’t have to file with the FEC spend large sums of money producing ads that favor one candidate over the other as well. But the majority of these ads were promoting one candidate’s policies the over by being against the other candidate as well. The increasing influence of money in campaigns prove that the federal campaigning system is detrimental to the campaigning system, and creates an imbalance of power based on who has the most money, and I agree with Ivy in that there should be a limit on how much a Super PAC can contribute.
(1) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
I agree with Elizabeth on her argument that there should be a spending limit for the amount an individual can donate to a candidate. If there were no limit to donations, people would be able to donate as much as they wanted to whomever they wanted. The chance of special treatment from the recipient then becomes an issue. People who had the money to spend would soon become the focus of elections and campaigning. Currently, the limit for one person in a campaign is $2,600 per candidate total (1). By setting this limit, we have created a reasonable amount that most American citizens can contribute. I agree with Elizabeth that this creates a better balance of power among citizens. I also agree that there should be some sort of limit on the amounts superPACs can spend. However, this could infringe on the first amendment and become an issue of freedom of speech. Overall though I believe that there needs to be limits in place to ensure equal rights for all Americans.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/
I am responding to Spencer B.’s post. In his post he talked about how there should not be a limit on donations to candidates, similar to my opinion, but I was interested by his reasoning. He reasoned that the people are going to donate to Super PACs and PACs and they should just be allowed to give them directly to candidates. This widens my viewpoint, and validates my reasoning even more. When people have to donate to Super PACs instead of their own candidates it leads to a more vicious campaigns, as much of the ads made from these donations are used not for positive ads for their candidate, but rather attack ad after attack ad(1). Allowing direct donating to candidates allows for them to have better control over how their campaign works and possibly more positive campaigns. However this may lead to huge campaign spending on ads like in Australia, where Clive Palmer spent over two million dollars in the final weeks of the election just on campaign ads, which seems like insanity to me, but again seems like part of your freedom to be able to spend that money if you want(2).
Another part of Spencer's post was showing the inconsistent opinions about Super PACs in politics; they have little overall impact, noting that even though the Republicans have spent more money than the Democrats in recent elections, they have not won. Overall I kind of agree with this idea, that Super PACs don't do much but kind of get in the way.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ledewitz/time-to-repeal-campaign-c_b_2099475.html
2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/buying-in-privatisation-of-politics
This comment has been removed by the author.
I disagree with Kelvin when he says there should not be limits on campaign spending. Kelvin says that limiting campaign funding can cause problems for candidates because “If an opposing candidate can raise more money that you can, you are put at a disadvantage.” I don’t really understand how limiting campaign funding causes this, because limiting funds theoretically impacts both candidates in the same way. Although it might affect Republicans slightly more because their donors are traditionally less in quantity and donate more money, overall the amounts raised will be roughly equal. The example Kelvin used to illustrate his point was the presidential election of 2012 where Obama raised $715,677,692 compared to Romney's $446,135,997. While this seems like a large difference, the overall amount spent on each candidate was $1,107,029,174 for Obama and $1,238,072,571 for Romney, so actually more money was spent on Romney in the 2012 election (1). However, the overall difference was not significant so it appears that limits on campaign spending have impacted both candidates in relatively the same way. Therefore, it would appear that limits on donations haven’t adversely impacted either presidential candidate in 2012. I also disagree that super PACs are not too powerful. Kelvin says that the largest donation to a super PAC was 20.5 million dollars given to a PAC that supported Romney. He goes on to say that since Romney lost, this donation didn’t matter anyway. While this may have been true in this election, it could have been very different in another election. For example, in a much closer election that 20.5 million dollar check could have been the difference between one candidate winning or losing. Just because super PAC donations didn’t cause one candidate to win doesn’t mean they aren’t powerful. It just means that the candidate was less favored by the population. If two candidates were of equal popularity, it could easily come down to who has the most super PAC financing, which I don’t think this is how our close elections should be decided.
1. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/
I agree with Geenie’s opinion that there should be a limit on how much an individual can contribute to a candidate in an election cycle. I agree with her point that without a limit it would give the candidate more power and manipulate voters for their own benefit. This makes the system less democratic and gives people less opportunity to have an equal voice in the process. I agree with her point that individuals being able to donate more money will get more influence in what the candidate’s policies will be. By having the limitations on how much an individual can contribute can prevent possible corruption in politics, so it will prevent too much influence from the wealthy. People who give large sums of money have a great influence on politicians running for office (1). There are no rules against politicians for having conversations with the people who give them the large amounts of money, and asking something from the politicians in return for the money that they donate (1). I also agree that super PACs are not that powerful right now, but I still think that they could potentially become more powerful. Super PACs need to report on their Contributions that they receive can be enough to turn a race. For instance in the 2012 South Carolina Republican primary, the spending had turned the race at least twice (2). If they can turn a race at least once, they can turn a race in other elections in other states also. I disagree with Geenie in how she does not think that money in federal elections are not very concerning. I think it's concerning because the wealthy are able to donate large amounts of money and have political influence, but they can get things out of making those donations also. Some take advantage of being able to donate large amounts of money to gain more access to the White House, contracts, and other perks from the party or party members (2).
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/26/politics/super-pac-general/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/2012-election-super-pacs_b_1830326.html
In response to Laura H, I think I have to disagree. The government does have an interest in restricting individual campaign contributions, and that is to maintain autonomy. If there were no limits on personal contributions, the free speech of these contributors would really just become legalized bribery. Personally, I find rampant corruption in the government more of a threat to democracy than caps on individual contributions to candidates. I think that is really the main difference between spending your money on a nice car and on political candidates−the first has little to no effect on others, while the latter could potentially screw up an entire country. Even McCutcheon, the plaintiff in the case this discussion is based on, isn’t fighting the base limits on contributions ($2600 per candidate), but the overall cap that basically limits the number of candidates you can support (1). However, I do understand the basis of your argument. It does seem unfair and debatably unconstitutional for the government to limit how much money a person can spend. In fact, there have been many state court cases lately dealing with this issue, and most have agreed with you (2). So how about instead of limiting the amount of money people can contribute to a candidate, we limit the amount of money a candidate can accept? Currently, the federal government already taxes monetary gifts over a certain amount for us normal people, so why couldn’t a similar law be set up for political candidates that in effect limits the amount of money a candidate can accept? The government could set an incredibly high tax rate for campaign contributions over a certain dollar amount. Such a law would make this debate over free speech void, maybe help pay off our deficit, and even though people could donate insane amounts of money, bribery would not really become an issue. I’m sure PACs and Super PACs would still thrive, but obviously we have learned to live with them.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/us/politics/justices-to-weigh-key-limit-on-political-donors.html?smid=pl-share
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/group-supporting-lhota-can-accept-unlimited-donations-court-says.html?hp&_r=0
In response to Amanda N, I agree with her that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle. She mentioned that having the limit allows people to have an equal voice and helps prevent corruption. The more money that individual people can spend on campaigns in an election cycle increases the chances of corruption, especially when the amounts can reach into the millions (1). Amanda also mentioned that removing the limits benefits wealthy individuals. I agree with this. There are not many people who can afford to spend $123,200, the current cap on overall contributions in an election cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics' Open Secrets blog, there were only 646 individuals who managed to hit the cap for overall spending at the federal level in the 2012 election cycle (1). With so few being affected by the limit, removing it would only increase the effect wealthy individuals can have on elections. In regard to Super PACs, Amanda mentioned that currently, they are not that powerful. However, she believes that they have the potential to become more powerful over time. I also agree with this. In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney was supported by independent spending, in which his super PAC was a powerful contributor. His campaign outspent Obama by $260 million, and yet he still lost (2). This shows that although Super PACs have the potential to bring in a lot of money, it will not guarantee the election and reinforces that they do not have too much power- yet. However, like Amanda said, they do have the potential to be. Romney's super PAC, Restore Our Future, was a powerful adversary to his opponents, earning the name "The Death Star" because of the way they attacked other candidates (2). It is in this way that super PACs do have the possibility to become too powerful- having unlimited spending to attack and destroy opponents. Lastly, I agree with Amanda on the role of money in federal elections. She talked about how the need for money in elections forces candidates to find ways of fundraising, which sometimes involve courting the wealthy for large contributions. They can receive perks for generous donations such as access to the White House and contracts as well as other things. To me the need to constantly be fundraising also takes the candidate away from campaigning. The more time and effort they have to devote to getting people to give them money, the less time they are talking about their platform. They should be focusing on the issues as well as the people, not just the ones that can give them money.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/09/24/the-next-citizens-united-could-affect-campaign-spending-in-the-states/
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
This post shall be in response to that of Ruby Deboiles (pardons if name is misspelled).
On your first point regarding money, free speech, and use of it thereof to unlimitedly finance a campaign: how’s about no. As you have noted, money thrown about is legal corruption, and people would be mad as hell about that. Billionaires throw money around to get their opinion across will lead to one very angry public. And when folks get mad, things start to happen. They’d pass laws against it. If they didn’t, it’d be a sit-in on Wall Street everywhere. Money is not part of free speech. Money is a tool, to be used, but not for buying a voice. If they allowed unlimited finance, then that would open up an enormous amount of cases allowing money to be used instead of words. Now, I feel safe in the Supreme Court striking down most of these cases - they have nothing to lose - but just allowing unlimited finance will cause individuals and companies to start pushing more and more cases, testing the limits of what they can do. I may be a little commie here when I say nay to the green stuff, but I am not invested in a cyberpunk dystopia.
As for the PAC issue, yes they are an issue and a nuisance, and yes, they were a natural response by folks that, in my mind, just don’t give the fact that we want them to shut the hell up and let us do our thing. And yes, their power is becoming a little scary, and they seem so desperate at times. I have found a PAC that has paid for an advertisement for Hillary Clinton that defends her from an attack by the Republicans concerning an event I have not even heard about! (1) This is insanely early in the campaign, and while it may not be the worse we’re going to see, just how early it is is irritating to me. I’d love to see laws limiting how early people can start campaigning. Maybe that’ll toss a monkey wrench into their works for a while. We’re relying too damn much on money in a case where it is what the person is capable of, not how much money they throw at anything that’ll make them win.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/24/pro-hillary-super-pac-joins-in-benghazi-defense/
I agree with Spencer B.’s post that there should not be spending limits on campaign funding. As he said, people are giving millions of dollars to candidates through super PACs, so it would be much simpler to let them give directly to candidates. So far, every attempt to limit spending has been bypassed, and I personally don’t have much confidence that any new limit would not also be bypassed. (1) I would also add to Spencer’s argument that spending limits may be infringing on people’s First Amendment right of free speech. While it’s not an obvious infringement against the First Amendment, I feel that it is pushing the line, and that makes me uncomfortable considering the Constitution is the foundation of American politics. I share Spencer’s opinion that while campaign spending can be worrying, fighting it would more than likely be a losing battle.
1. http://money.howstuffworks.com/campaign-finance3.htm
I agree with Elizabeth A. post. She stated that excessive donations become more of a form of bribery than a form of free speech. I would agree with this because the other freedoms stated in the first amendment are all freedoms that can be practiced by anyone, no matter their background. Freedoms such as assembly, press, and religion do not cost a cent. That is one of the reasons why I agree with you when you say that donations will become bribery, because only the rich will be able to participate in this new “freedom.” I also agree with you when you say that Super PACs are too big because they can get around regulations. In fact, the idea of Super PACs was created to get around certain regulations and are used as loopholes to fund campaigns (1).
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
I completely agree with everything Peter K. had to say in his blog post about the limit, PACS, and the role of money in campaigns. One of the main points that both Peter and I agreed on was that there should not be a limit on the amount of money that an individual can give to a candidate because if there was, it would be violating the first amendment. The first amendment gives the people the freedom of religion, press, assembly, petition, and speech meaning that it protects the right of an individual on how much money he cares to give to his desired candidate (1). I believe that people work hard for their money and the government shouldn’t tell us how to spend it or how much to spend of it. On another matter, I think that Peter made a good point when he said “While Super PACs spent a total of a little over half a billion dollars, that's less than 1/4 of the 2.6 billion dollars spent on the 2012 election”. This helps prove that Super PACs aren’t as powerful as people think. Of the top 6 super PACs of the 2012 election, three supported Romney while the other three supported Obama which shows that the Super PAC s playing field is pretty even (2). Lastly, I also agree with Peter on the topic that the role of money in federal elections doesn't really concern us. I believe that money can help candidates, but doesn’t decide the winner. All in all, I think Peter and I had fairly similar viewpoints towards the limit an individual can give to a candidate in a campaign, the position of Super PACs, and the role of money in campaigns.
1) http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L01-FirstAmendmentExplained.htm
2) http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/
I completely agree with everything Peter K. had to say in his blog post about the limit, PACS, and the role of money in campaigns. One of the main points that both Peter and I agreed on was that there should not be a limit on the amount of money that an individual can give to a candidate because if there was, it would be violating the first amendment. The first amendment gives the people the freedom of religion, press, assembly, petition, and speech meaning that it protects the right of an individual on how much money he cares to give to his desired candidate (1). I believe that people work hard for their money and the government shouldn’t tell us how to spend it or how much to spend of it. On another matter, I think that Peter made a good point when he said “While Super PACs spent a total of a little over half a billion dollars, that's less than 1/4 of the 2.6 billion dollars spent on the 2012 election”. This helps prove that Super PACs aren’t as powerful as people think. Of the top 6 super PACs of the 2012 election, three supported Romney while the other three supported Obama which shows that the Super PAC s playing field is pretty even (2). Lastly, I also agree with Peter on the topic that the role of money in federal elections doesn't really concern us. I believe that money can help candidates, but doesn’t decide the winner. All in all, I think Peter and I had fairly similar viewpoints towards the limit an individual can give to a candidate in a campaign, the position of Super PACs, and the role of money in campaigns.
1) http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L01-FirstAmendmentExplained.htm
2) http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/
In response to Elizabeth A.:
I agree with Elizabeth. Their should be a limit on how much money an individual can give to a candidate. Even though people have a freedom of speech, which is the category that money donation to a candidate falls under, their freedom to give money to candidates can potentially affect others. And it is very likely that they will affect others if they were to donate a large amount of money to a candidate. They are the people who are more likely to influence the candidate’s policies and agenda, and the others who don’t donate as much will not have a big influence or say in the candidates policies. People who receive money pay more attention to the people who gives the money. The limit is set at $123,200 in the current election cycle, and that is already a big amount of money (1). Sure, the elites can afford it and can dish out even more than that; but what about the average citizen? Not many people can donate $123,200 whenever they want. In that case the voices of the average citizen will be muted by the elite who can give more. The more they give, the more influence they have on the candidate. If people were allowed to donate as much as they want to the government, the government will become a toy of the elite.
1.http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20131009/OPINION/131009775/-small-business-cant-stomach-super-sized-donor-influence
I agree with Amanda’s post that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle. She raises the point that the limits keep the election cycle more democratic. Without limits politicians would lean towards the wishes of big donors and corporations (1). They need money and they will continue to cater to these wealthy elite because otherwise they wouldn’t have the means to be reelected. This would be undemocratic because the citizens are not viewed equally in politician’s eyes; they favor the policies that the rich support. I also agree with what she is saying when she says the limits help to prevent corruption in politics. The regulations that are currently in place serve to prevent corruption (2). If they are not there the people with money will have access to members of Congress that no ordinary citizen could have (1). As it is, there is already enough influence of money in politics. In the 2012 election a quarter of the money raised was from less than one percent of the population (1). As she also points out, lifting the limits would just open the gates to money becoming an even more powerful tool in politics.
I also agree with her argument that Super PACs are not that powerful now, but have the potential to be. The Super PACs have the ability to spend unlimited money during the campaigns as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the campaigns (3). This gives them the capability to raise large amounts money. However, they have so far not been successful. More money was spent to support Romney by a large margin (3). However, Romney did not win obviously; the Super PACs do not seem to have made a difference so far. There still should be caution though; in the future they could become a big influence.
I again agree with her when she says “America needs a representative democracy that represents the people and not just the rich donors.” The state of campaign finance is worrisome. The rich are being overrepresented. Something needs to change and the limits should not be raised.
(1) http://cornellsun.com/blog/2013/10/23/throwdown-thursday-the-fight-for-campaign-finance-reform-beyond-citizens-united/
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-money-and-politics/index.html
(3) http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/#/faq
In response to Ruby D.: Not only do I agree with Ruby’s argument, I also agree with her well thought out and sound logic. I firmly agree that the money spent on today’s campaigns is ridiculous. Elected officials do not represent the best leadership but rather the greatest financial resources. As Ruby points out, super PACs have become a loophole for political funding without limits. Because of this, I would argue that limiting individual spending on campaign donations is not an effective way to control the exorbitant amount of money being spent on campaigns. As professor Richard Briffault suggests, “The rise of super PACs suggests that the real impact of Citizens United may be the re-validation of the unlimited use of private wealth generally in elections” (1). Ironically, the Citizens United decision that was meant to decrease political corruption has only led to unchecked corruption on behalf of Super PACs. Because Super PACs’ spending is not meaningfully disclosed, voters are left in the dark about the sources of political spending (1). While I originally argued that limits on individual spending are unconstitutional and protected by first amendment rights, I feel that my opinion on this issue has shifted. I believe that one’s right to free speech cannot infringe on another’s right to free speech. Thus, because wealthy individuals are able to express their political beliefs by donating to PACs who then push their agenda, individuals with few financial resources are silenced. Protecting uncapped political spending is stretching the first amendment (1). Yet, this political spending is not being effectively controlled with individual spending limits because campaign finance loopholes are always prevalent, as is the case with super PACs. Ultimately, I agree with Ruby because of her support of the logic behind controlling political spending while disagreeing with the execution of this belief through individual spending limits.
1)http://www.law.columbia.edu/magazine/621141
I agree with Spencer in that the Super PACs allow businesses to help out in campaigns basically unregulated, so the government should allow individuals to donate as much as they want as well to the actual candidates. The court case of Citizens United v. FEC said that the businesses are treated as individuals under the constitution and have the same basic rights. But actual individuals do not have the same rights as companies do in that they do not have a pool of resources to donate to a campaign, and restricting their ability to fund campaigns makes the companies that much stronger in elections. I don’t agree with Spencer in that I do think that Super PACs have a large impact in politics. They often are the ones who run the negative advertising against their candidate’s opposition (1). And some people do very little research and base their vote on what they see on tv. Super PACs haven’t had a heavy influence in the general election yet because only one side uses them, but they had a major influence on the Republican Candidate race. Mitt Romney was able to halt Newt Gingrich’s momentum by having a Super PAC run a negative ad “restore the future”. Romney was able to win the primary because of his strategy of using Super PACs to run ads that hurt his competitors and outspent them (2). I actually think that the Republicans lost the general election because of all the negative publicity and extremist statements that came from the primary, and kind of divided the party. When they tried to reach out to the public, they failed. Obama had been running a pro-campaign while the republicans had been running an anti-campaign. And people voted for the person who had a more consistent policy (3). Romney lost the presidency because the Super PACs backfired and were too negative.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/opinion/hasen-super-pacs/index.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/2012-republican-primary-candidates-attack-ads_n_1456251.html
3. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-09/mitt-romney-negative-ads-super-pac/53032978/1
In response to Ellen B’s post:
I agree that this is a very difficult subject. It took me a while and a little research just to figure out which side of the argument I was on. There are some gray areas in American politics and this is one of them. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that under the First Amendment, unions and corporations could spend as much money out of pocket as they wanted on election-related independent expenditures. I’m not saying that the Court’s decision was right or wrong, but that was the decision. In essence, the Court ruled that money equals speech which is protected under the First Amendment. If this is true than there should not be a limit to how much an individual can give to a candidate. Why should an individual not have the same rights as a union or corporations, (Groups made up of many individuals). She also mentioned that if there was not a spending limit, political efficacy among middle and lower class citizens would go down because they cannot match the large sums of money given by some upper class individuals. This is not the case however. Mitt Romney collected a larger amount of big donations, while Obama’s had more small donations. (1) Although middle and lower class citizens cannot individually donate as much money, there are many more of them. Collectively, their donations are much larger than any wealthy individual. Also, as I mentioned in my first post, there are big spenders on both sides. Often times they even out. Lastly, in your last point, you stated connected high election spending with low voter turn out. Although campaign cost is on the rise an voter turn out is low, I do not believe that there is a correlation between the two. If anything, voting is the one area that very wealthy people and very poor people are equal. It goes way back to the democratic principle of one person, one vote.
1) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
I disagree with Tyler J. that there should be less regulation on campaign donations. One of his main arguments against regulations is that they are ineffective and loopholes will always be made in response to new laws. I believe that through innovation, trial and error, and commitment to the cause, our country can find a way to effectively regulate campaign donations. To neglect protecting Americans from harm because the current solution is flawed is lazy and neglectful. I am not the only one who believes that regulation is a viable option. Many legislators and the general public believe in the regulation possibilities (1).
However, this disagreement is not really about campaign donations and more about the things we assume about the world around us.
Both Tyler and I actually expressed a desire to ensure that there is equality in America. Many of our peers expressed the same. The divergence in our opinions occurs because we think that different types of people need to be protected and different entities are the ones that are abridging rights. Tyler places importance on protecting the rights of the wealthy; I feel that protecting the poor is of higher importance. Tyler believes it is the government abridging the peoples’ rights; to me it is the citizens abridging other citizens’ rights. To argue with someone about the campaign donations really requires a deeper discussion about our beliefs and values, one that most likely will not yield much compromising.
1. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765624384/This-is-a-more-effective-way-to-enact-campaign-finance-reforms.html
In response to Laura’s post I have to completely agree with her that there should not be a limit on how much an individual can donate to a candidate in an election cycle. One of the main points Laura and I agreed upon was that by limiting a person’s ability to donate to an individual candidate you are also limiting their freedom of speech protected by the constitution in the bill of rights. Laura also made a very good point which was people spend their money on extravagant and ridiculous items which cost tons of money every day, the government has no interest in this so why would it be any different if someone wanted to donate their money to an election. To add on to this point, large sums of money wouldn’t even make all that big of a difference as shown by the 2012 election. In this election nearly half of President Obama’s funds were raised on donations of $200 dollars or less which all and all amounted to $56.7 million dollars (1). Personally I don’t think that a few thousand dollar contributions would make that big of a difference in the scheme of things. The second point I agree with Laura on is that Super PACs are powerful machines but not dangerous by any means. As Laura put it “strength is greater in numbers, and PACs are no exception.” While they did raise slightly more than half a billion dollars this isn’t even one fourth of the total funds raised. And even if it were a more significant amount they should be able to raise and give that money to a individual candidate because they have the right to do so. The Last point we agreed upon was that while the increasing amount of money is slightly worrisome in the long run it won’t make that big of a difference if a candidate is more popular they will most likely win even if their opponent raises twice the amount of funds.
1) http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-08/politics/35444797_1_small-donors-campaign-finance-institute-reelection-campaign
In Amanda N.'s post, she states that campaign funds should be limited because it would create a more democratic election cycle and that it would create an equal opportunity for everyone to participate in the election. However, I do not believe that limiting campaign funds will create this equal opportunity and create a more democratic election cycle. This is evident in our current limits on campaign funds. Every single election cycle we only see two major political parties campaigning against each other, the Democrats and the Republicans. This is not a democratic election cycle and it doesn't allow an equal opportunity for everyone to run in an election because if there were no limits on funds, then more people could come out as a third party candidate and raise the necessary funds to compete with these two major political parties. People would be able to choose more third party candidates who have mixed political philosophies which would make our election less of just between the Democrats and the Republicans. Amanda also stated that if there were limits on campaign fundraising, then certain individuals would be able to donate millions of dollars to a candidate. It doesn't matter if individuals are able to contribute more money to candidates because either way they will find loopholes in limiting funding laws and even with laws restricting funding, Obama was still able to raise a record amount of money (1). Corruption is another issue that Amanda talked about with unlimited campaign funds but I believe that the FEC should still monitor where candidates receive their funds and how they spend it but just allow the candidate to receive unlimited funds. Overall, campaign funds should not be limited.
(1) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-campaign-finance-23-apr23,0,5671945.story
I disagree with Solveig's opinion that there should be a limit on how much money an individual can donate to a candidate in an election. Solveig's first reason for encouraging a limit on individual contributions is that the limits that are in place now allow a large enough contribution to sustain a successful campaign. Currently, individuals can donate up to $2,600 per candidate per election. That is just a drop in the bucket in terms of a general election. Also, even though that limit exists, political parties can accept donations exceeding those caps as long as they spend the extra money on "party-building activities", rather than on the campaigns of any particular candidate [1]. This is a part of the McCain-Feingold Act which lead to the birth of soft money. In our attempt to limit individual donations, we only succeeded in creating new avenues for the same money to reach the same hands, only now the money is harder to track and is being called secret names. This is a main flaw in the logic of limiting campaign contributions. We will never succeed in limiting the money of the super wealthy in political campaigns. If John Doe wants to give Jane Doe $150,000, he's going to find a way to do it. I would rather see him write her a check for $150,000 than see him write her a check for $2,600 and than spend the rest of my life wondering how the other $147,400 got to her. Another reason Solveig uses to defend her point is that money is not free speech. I agree, money is money. But it is a TOOL for free speech, and therefore should not have restrictions on its use. Just because someone has more money than I do doesn't mean I have the right to tell them how to use it. And if they want to use it to support a political candidate then they should be able to. Yes, I understand the other side of this point, but an infringement on the right to spend our own money how we see fit is not a SOLUTION to the problems that have been identified, and as stated above, usually only make them worse and more convoluted. That being said, I agree with Solvieg, and pretty much everyone else, that PACs and Super PACs are getting out of control. But they only came about because of our attempt to check campaign finance in the first place. To me, the prospect of a billionaire writing a check for a million dollars to a candidate to have them spend it how they see fit (which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but the money would probably be documented) seems much more upfront and clear cut than huge independent entities, such as Super PACs, pumping their own agenda into the media. The bottom line is, it is unfortunate that every citizen of the world doesn't have the means to write fat checks to the political candidate of their choice. But telling those who do have the means, and the WILL to do so, that they can't? That sounds like the bigger risk of a decrease in democracy if you ask me.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/07/making-sense-of-mccain-feingold-and-campaign-finance-reform/302758/
I disagree with Hans Hormel's point that limiting the amount of money people can give to government campaigns is treading on freedom of speech. Limiting money still allows for people to give money to a cause they agree upon. Limiting money makes things fair for everyone so we can keep elections democratic. If you have according to CNN.com the top 400 people in America have more money than the bottom one-hundred fifty million. if money has such a large influence on politics then it would be extremely undemocratic to have 400 people funneling all their resources into campaigns the opinion of the majority becomes irrelevant and then we become more of an oligarchy than we do a democracy with the wealthiest people controlling the country. Limiting money doesn’t tread on free speech it just makes it so everybody's speech is fair.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/25/news/economy/income-inequality/
I agree with Luke S when he says that there should not be a limit on how much an individual can give to a particular candidate. He stated that even though Mitt Romney got twice as much money as Obama did he still lost and that the amount of money a candidate has to spend does not reflect the outcome of who will win. Limiting how much money a candidate can get also limits the ideas that the candidate may have that will help him with the elections. In the Huffington post it stated that 1)Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was supported by outside groups that outspent allies of President Barack Obama by $260 million. And yet he still lost. Yes the wealthy are more likely to be Republican and therefore the Republican party will get more money but clearly the amount of money a candidate has does not influence the outcome of the elections. The thing that will effect the outcome is how the candidate campaigns and the issues that he puts forward.
1.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
In response to Leroy's post: You make a good point when you say that politicians do not have a guarenteed right to purchase political attention, but I believe that this does not constitute putting limits on campaign donations. By donating to a politician's campaign, you are not voicing your opinion on their ability to make catchy commercials or make good political splashes, instead you are donating the money because you want to see them in office to make political decisions that you deem the best for the nation as a whole. Like the National Conference of Political Legislatures said, political donations are the greatest and most common form of political activism. Although we do have a constitutional right to assemble and petition, most constituents would not do so. By allowing all citizens to donate as much money as they seem appropriate, we are not capping the political involvement of any person.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/
I agree with Tim L’s opinion that individual campaign donations should not be limited. It is a good point that campaign donations by individuals do not sway the outcome of the election, as in 2012. Also, Tim makes the point that the donations to Obama were of the same spread over income levels as Romney, but I have found another source that presents even more intriguing statistics. The Huffington Post makes the point that the election donation totals by super PACs were actually in Romney’s favor, presenting even more evidence that the individual donations do not sway the election (1). It is also a fair point that the first amendment rights guaranteed by the constitution are not to be limited by laws by congress. With election campaign donations, they are being limited (assuming money is equivalent to speech).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
1) http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.shtml
2) http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205
3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-case-could-give-wealthy-donors-more-latitude-in-elections/2013/10/03/26a66d82-2ad4-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html
4) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
5) http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/14/why-super-pacs-are-good-for-democracy
6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ledewitz/time-to-repeal-campaign-c_b_2099475.html
I am responding to Spencer’s post, who did not think there should be limits to spending, that Super PACs aren’t really a problem, and that money in elections isn’t all that concerning.
From my own understanding of the issues I’d have to agree on dissolving spending limits. One problem with the unlimited amounts people can give to Super PACs is that elections are slowly becoming overwhelmed by negative, non-candidate-created ads with more disses than facts (5 and 6) and therefore some voices are being drowned out (5). Without either violating the right to free speech or opening the flood gates of money sent directly to candidates it is impossible to avoid this affect. Besides, while money may be influential, it is not the be-all end-all of an election. While Romney spent more than Obama, almost his entire budget in fact, he still didn’t win (4). Also, flows that go directly to candidates could allow some of them to go longer in the election such as Santorum or Gingrich (5). This also controls the effectiveness of Super PACs who could damage the effectiveness of campaigns, even if they supposedly “make elections more interesting” (5). The same effect would come from candidates spending money themselves. The contributions and uses of money by candidates could also be more transparent than money spent by Super PACs. Individual expenditures and donations also seem less dangerous than huge corporations with mass appeal and much more visibility to American citizens. I do worry over the amount of money being spent on campaigns, especially since few commercials or radio ads have any real substance, and this is where I disagree the most with Spencer’s argument. I’d rather see ad standards than money standards set in place. The amount of money, combined with the way the money is spent, is a huge problem in American politics, giving rich individuals the ability to drown some people out (5) and overall give them too much control (3) in important decisions that should be based on facts. It seems to me that while money may help facilitate free speech and campaigns, providing and using money for candidates is no more actual speech than providing vegetables and fruits to citizens is actual health care.
I completely agree with Peter Knutson's post. The government has no right to put a limit on how much one can donate to a campaign. I also agree that putting a limit on how much one can contribute to a candidate is a violation of the first amendment which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (1) I also agree that super PACs are powerful, but not too powerful. Although super PACs have an impact on the election, the impact the have does not decide the winner. I somewhat agree with Peter about the money in campaigns. He said it does not concern him, and to an extent, it doesn’t concern me either. The fact that the amount of money has been increasing significantly throughout the years (2) concerns me because we are spending a lot of money now and if this amount keeps increasing, then it will start to become a concern.
(1)http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
(2) http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/campaign-finance/
As Lau stated, I definitely agree that the first amendment should protect the rights of individuals to donate as much money as they are willing and able to a candidate. Any limit placed on such donations would be “unfair” to a certain group of people. The only way to truly make sure that the system doesn't discriminate against anybody would be to remove the cap completely. Loopholes are very prevalent in our current system as well. According to USA Today, since January 1, 2011, one out of every four dollars donated to a super PAC came from one of just five donors (1). In the grand scheme of things, the government hasn't done a complete job of limiting individual donations; they have just succeeded in making the process more complicated. I also agree with her assessment that, while PACs and super PACs are indeed powerful, that they do not really pose any threat to democracy. Again, I don’t see them as a powerful entity in themselves, but rather a middle man working on behalf of the private citizens who fund them (the people). Both parties use super PACs, so the playing field is level, in terms of access to the system as least. Overall, the role of federal money in elections does not concern either of us. While money can definitely influence people’s opinions, it still seems as though the issues are the deciding factor in elections; as they should be.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/super-pac-contributions-donors_n_1294598.html
(2) http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/
In response to the post on whether or not there should be limits on federal spending, I chose to respond to Calvin, who wrote that people have a right to do what they want with their money, and that the government shouldn’t interfere with that right. He also wrote that big businesses shouldn’t count as a single entity when dealing with whether or not they have a voice in politics. I can agree with both of these statements, first of all because like Calvin said, businesses and unions don’t have a limit on how much they can spend, and yet people do. Businesses can contribute far more than the average person, and limiting the amount someone can spend is only making it harder for the common man to voice his opinion through his wallet, not easier. What we should do I reverse these roles. Make it so that businesses can’t contribute at all to elections, and then take the limits off individual contributions, because, as Calvin said, businesses shouldn’t have a political opinion. They are a heterogeneous grouping of people that don’t necessarily have one single opinion, and if an entrepreneur decides to use his business to contribute to an election, then he is deciding on behalf of everyone employed in that business as to what they actually believe, which impedes upon the employee’s right to voice their own opinion, and hence should not be allowed; because it could potentially infringe on someone else’s rights. If that same entrepreneur instead decided to use his own personal wealth to donate to an election, there shouldn’t be any law infringing his ability to do so, because it’s his money, and he should be able to spend in whatever manner he desires, as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s rights to do so. With these things in mind, Calvin then went on to say that Super PACS have become too powerful, and that they have too much influence over the voters through their large donations of money. I have to object to this, I don’t believe that PACs have become too powerful, because they haven’t actually influenced the way candidates are chosen; they only impact the way that a campaign in run. While I believe that this brings about a certain air of shadiness and ruthlessness in candidates, I also feel that it is largely harmless because PACs merely allow for a candidate to compete in an era where elections require more power and money to run. They also provide candidates opportunity to raise the political efficacy of their voters (1). Also, if we were to simply stop putting limitations on campaign spending, then these Super PACs would likely lose a lot of influence as the importance of individual contributions rose.
1. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-02-05/news/fl-nncol-oped0205-20120205_1_super-pacs-supreme-court-s-citizens-united-political-groups
I am responding to and agreeing with Leroy B. He first gave some information on the money contributions to the 2012 campaigns showing that each party received an enormous amount of money. Much of the money on the Republican side came from supporters that reached the giving limit. The Republican voters on a whole have more money that Democrat supporters because of the demographics of the Republican Party are more wealthy or rather the Democrat demographics are less wealthy. (1) African Americans and Hispanics were more likely to vote Democrat and they are more likely to have less income. Meaning less to give to political campaigns. I feel that money is not free speech, as some might think, because not everybody has enough money to have the equal amount of ‘free speech’ that their neighbor does. Giving money to campaigns gives people some power in a way. The average American cannot take $2,500 out of their income to give to a political campaign that might not win. Not that every contribution is $2,500, it still seems like an exorbitant amount of power to give to PACs. I also agree with Leroy on what he says about money that could have gone into research for curing diseases or life savings or charities is being wasted on campaigns that run into the ground. The super PACs might not be too powerful but they are becoming increasingly good at raising money for campaigns. I agree with Leroy on most all of his post.
(1) http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home