Post 4 - Due 10/11
Due Friday, 10/11
You might be wondering if you get to take the week off because the federal government is shut down, but HA one branch is still highly functional (as in they get work done) even though they aren't being paid - the US Supreme Court!
This week the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shaun McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission while we are learning about campaign finance in class! This case will further establish what is legal post- Citizens United v. FEC.
Your task is to answer the following questions in your post and to have specific data from federal elections post-2008 to back up your claims.
- 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?
Labels: campaign finance, elections, PAC, super pac, Supreme Court
posted by maby-keirstead @ 7:58 AM
48 Comments:
There should not be a limit to how much people can donate to candidates. PACS were created as a way around the spending limit. If the limit was removed, the use of PACS would surely fall [1]. The rich are already giving millions to the Super PACS and it makes more sense to allow them to give directly to the candidates. Even though Republicans gain the most from these Super PACS, they would probably support the removal of these regulations simply because they are against regulation in general. If corporations have the right of free speech to give money, citizens should have the same. Super PACS are not becoming too powerful, not even close. Super PACS have not, like many predicted, allow the wealthy to control elections. Instead, they are more interesting and unpredictable [2]. In fact, in the 2012 election Republicans spent more Super PAC money, however they obviously did not win the presidential election. In fact, David Axelrod, an Obama campaign strategist, originally stated that Super PACS were “destroying the fabric of democracy” however, after Obama won in 2012 he changed his mind saying, “you can't buy the White House” [3]. Despite the worry the Super PACS would ruin democracy, they instead had little impact. The role of money in federal elections does not concern me. I do worry somewhat about the people who believe what they see and vote based on the ads that the campaigns put out. Even though this worries me we should not put limits on spending or donations. People should be able to spend their money however they want and if they want to pump it into a campaign, let them do that.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ledewitz/time-to-repeal-campaign-c_b_2099475.html
[2] http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/14/why-super-pacs-are-good-for-democracy
[3] http://speakwithauthority-jsm.blogspot.com/2012/11/axelrod-maybe-super-pacs-arent-so-bad.html
I do not think that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to a candidate in an election for a variety of reasons. According to the first amendment "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 believe that the first amendment protects the rights of the individuals on this. I believe that money, while is not free speech, is used in free speech. I do not believe the Government has the authority nor the right to decide the limits of one's free speech. People should be able to voice their opinions freely, respectfully, and legally,and I don't believe anyone, especially not the Government, should be able to tell them that they can't use any amount of their money to do so. While Super PACs are very influential and powerful, I do not think that they are too powerful. While they spent a total of a little over half a billion dollars (3), that's less than 1/4 of the 2.6 billion dollars spent on the 2012 election (4). Of the top 6 super pacs of the 2012 election, three supported Romney while the other three supported Obama(3). The sizes of donations from super pacs in both parties were relatively similar as well. 49% of Obama's super pac donors spent over over million for him, and 42% of Romney's spent over one million for him (2). So while super pacs have money to spend, they spend it pretty fair and evenly. The role of money in federal elections doesn't really concern me to be honest. They are some of the most important jobs in the world, money is going to be spent on them. I would be more worried if people weren't spending much money on them because people spending money on elections shows that they care. Finally, while money can help candidates, it doesn't decide the winner. The people ultimately decide who they want to be elected. People, companies, and super pacs could spend all the money in the world on one candidate and still lose. People voting on election day is what truly decides who wins elections, and is why our democracy still stands, even with large amounts of money being spent on federal elections.
Works Cited
1)http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
2)http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
3)http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/
4)http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/
I do not think that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle. I believe that it is protected under the 1st Amendment, regarding freedom of expression. If someone wants to donate a significant amount of their personal money to a certain candidate, I don't quite understand why the government wants to put a limit on that. Citizens of the United States are allowed to choose how they spend their money, and everyone chooses to spend it in a different way. The government doesn't stop citizens from buying an outrageously expensive car, so why should they have the ability to limit how much money a candidate can receive from this individual? I completely agree with the plaintiff's statement in McCutcheon v. FEC that the limit is unconstitutional, too low, and not supported by a sufficient governmental interest (1). Overall, I don't see why the government had the ability to limit the amount in the first place, because I can't understand what possible interest it would provide for the government. I believe that super PACs are indeed powerful, but I don't see them as a threat to the individual. I feel like it is common knowledge that strength is greater in numbers, and PACs are no exception. While these committees typically have greater access to public officials and more money to spend on court action than individuals, and while they have a great effect on legislation (2), I still don't see why many people consider them as a growing danger. The total amount of super PAC spending in the 2012 elections amounted to $567,498,628 (4). Although they can raise unlimited amounts of money (2), I think that's how it should be, because I don't believe that the government should be able to put a restraint on how much individuals can donate to a particular cause. The increasing campaign costs concern me, but only to a certain extent, because it seems as if the price of everything is increasing recently. In fact, the amount of money spent on the presidential race in 2012 has almost doubled since 2000 (3). Regardless of this fact, the role of money in federal elections does not concern me too much. I'm convinced that if a candidate running for office is significantly more popular with the American people than another candidate, he or she will inevitably win, regardless of how much more money the less popular candidate spent on their campaign.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml
http://onlineessays.com/essays/business/are-corporations-becoming-too-powerful.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/
I think there should be limits on how much an individual can give to a candidate in an election cycle. In the 2012 election 1219 donators reached the aggregate limit and together gave over $155,000,000 to campaigns (3). When you consider how much money goes into campaigning, $155,000,000 isn't a significant amount of money, but I think that is the point of limits. Studies predict that if limits are removed these individual donators would triple their contributions, which is a figure equal to half of all funds from small donors received by Obama and Romney combined in 2012 (3). Right now, candidates can't rely on funding from wealthy individual donors because of caps, but if the majority of their donations are coming from this specific class of Americans, candidates will likely no longer try to appeal to the general public (1). The upper class would become a more important demographic for candidates because so much of campaigning is trying to convince people to donate, so candidates would move their focus from the broader electorate to this smaller group of citizens that does not necessarily reflect or represent the majority of the population. I think this would eventually give the upper class more political power, which is a threat to democracy. It would inhibit the ability of the average American to speak out and be adequately represented. Right now, Super PACs are not too powerful, but I think it is too soon to tell if they will be damaging to democracy in the future. In the 2012 election Super PACs supporting Romney spent 40% more than those supporting Obama and clearly that did not alter the outcome of the election (2); however, there is a danger of these groups growing even more and drowning out voices of average citizens and increasing their influence on lawmakers. Experts are worried that Super PACs will use this money to destroy candidates that do not do what they ask, which I can see as a valid concern (4). Overall, the role of money in federal elections is pretty concerning to me because I don't think that the majority of the general public understands who is funding so many of the ads they see and what groups are able to push their opinions out above others. I don't necessarily believe that people are blind followers of the media, but it has an incredible influence and it is easy to overlook where the messages are coming from. Maybe a greater general awareness of where these messages are coming from might help to even out the playing ground.
1 http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/mccutcheon-v-fec-supreme-court-hears-second-act-to-citizens-united-20131008
2 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
3 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/politicians-for-sale.html?ref=campaignfinance&_r=0
4 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/opinion/when-super-pacs-become-lobbyists.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do not believe people should be allowed to give as much money as they want to individual candidates. Currently, it is legal for an individual to donate $2,600 to individual candidates each election, $32,400 to a party committee each year, and $10,000 to state/ local committees each year (1). With these limits (adjusting for inflation) the Obama and Romney campaigns received $726,200,000 and $467,300,000 in individual contributions respectively (2). 11% that contributed to Obama gave the $2,500 limit, and 39% that contributed to Romney gave the $2500 limit (2). The majority of donations to Super PACs were over $100,000 and raised about $75 million in the Democrat’s favor and twice that in the Republican’s favor (2). In the McCutcheon v. FEC case the major debate is over whether or not limiting contribution size by individuals to candidates is violation of the First Amendment (3). The problem with this is that money is not free speech. Everyone in the US has the ability to assemble, petition and speak for whatever they believe in without the risk of persecution, not everyone has hundreds of thousands of dollars to give to politicians of their choice. The problem with allowing unlimited amounts to be donated by an individual is that it gives them a right not granted to all, the right to purchase political attention. Super PACs have not become too powerful but have become too effective at raising money for election purposes. My major concern with the money raised by PACs and candidates is that it is wasted, there are many far more noble causes that the money could go toward. I don’t believe that money alone can win an election and so I am not concerned that the rich or Super PACs will dominate the elections but I still would advocate limits to Super PACs and campaign contributions because I feel it would protect the freedom of speech for the average American, and because I don’t like to see money wasted in campaigns.
1.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/
2.http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
3.http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle. There should be a limit because it would keep the election cycle more democratic. Having a limit creates a sense of fairness because it gives more opportunities for as many people as possible to participate and allows people to have an equal voice in the process (1). The limitations help prevent corruption in politics (2). If the limits are taken out then a future presidential candidate is permitted to ask for a $2 million donation for his or her campaign and various committees (2). Congressional leaders could then make a fundraising committee that could get $3.5 million just from one donor (2). The elimination of the limit would also reopen loopholes for individual donors (3). In the 2012 race there were about 600 donors who each gave a maximum of $48,000 and another $100 million from 1700 contributors who gave over the maximum limit to party committees (1). If the limitations were taken away then it would benefit the wealthy liberals and conservatives, which brings corruption to the elections (1). I think that super PACs are currently not that powerful, but they could become more powerful overtime. Super PACs are allowed to take and spend as much as they want on candidates. They could skew agendas of candidates in favor of wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions (5). In 2012 they spent more than $35 million on the presidential race, including $11.4 million on the South Carolina Republican primary, and the spending has turned the race at least twice (5). Super PACs can make a large impact in a short amount of time since they can take big contributions (5). Money in federal elections does concern me. The rich have the ability to donate large amounts of money and influence people. Someone who gives a large amount can donate money may even do it for their own benefit by getting something out of the party or the members of that party (4). Many big contributors gain access to the White House, ambassadorships,contracts and other perks (5). Having the limits on how much you can donate helps promote democratic participation, and it would prevent the wealthy from controlling the elections (4). America needs a representative democracy that represents the people and not just the rich donors (2).
1.http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-money-and-politics/index.html?iref=allsearch
2.http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/03/opinion/cohen-ahrens-tarp/index.html?iref=allsearch
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-eroding-the-checks-on-campaign-contributions/2013/10/06/dc158c6e-2eb9-11e3-bbed-a8a60c601153_story.html
4.http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/08/politics/supreme-court-donor-limits/index.html?iref=allsearch
5.http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/26/politics/super-pac-general/index.html
I think there should be a limit on how much an individual can give a candidate during an election. While there is a limit in place, it forces candidates to listen to the views of the majority as opposed to a wealthy minority which they could otherwise rely on (3). Also, if limits were removed, wealthy donors would be disproportionally represented and would influence policy to benefit themselves at the expense of the majority who are unable to donate in large amounts (1). This defeats the purpose of representative democracy, as the representatives would only be representing a wealthy minority as opposed to the general population. In the same way, Super PACs have become too powerful. Citizens United v. FEC allowed Super PACs to essentially contribute unlimited funds to a campaign. This caused them to raise 59 million dollars during the first half of this year to help fund the 2014 elections (2). This is more than twice the amount raised in this time for the 2012 elections (2). I think this has given special interest groups too much power over government decisions, and they will cause stagnation in government polices as they all have so much pull on every decision that involves them. For these reasons I am worried about the role of money in campaigns. I fear that those who have the power to donate large amounts to campaigns will be disproportionally represented and will control policy more effectively than the majority who cannot afford to make large donations. My hope is that donation limits remain to help prevent this from happening.
1). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_4059180.html
2). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/super-pacs-2014-elections_n_3685991.html
3). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_4059180.html
I do think there should be a limit to how much one person should be able to donate. As of right now, I do think the 2,000 dollar, factoring in dollar changes, is good, but it’s more of a matter of who’s giving that money and how. For example, I do not like PACs. It seems like cheating when you can raise 12 million dollars for a candidate under the name of a PAC, even with limits (romney). Actually, that Romney controversy from two years ago is kind of interesting. Romney said he didn't like PACs, and was caught using a super-PAC. This proves several of my points. Money has too much influence in elections, nominees are often reliant on PACs to get their campaign financed, and super-PACs get too much control because nominees rely on them. Another example of how much a grip money has on the situation is the Georgia senate race numbers. Each candidate has over a million dollars in the bank for their bid to the senate, and the news still says that isn’t enough (fundraising). That’s a lot of money to me, and while it didn’t specify national or state, I’m guessing that still a lot, proportionally. And then there’s the presidential elections. I’m taking a look at the numbers, and they are beyond staggering. Specifically, major donors. I am seeing totals of up to 15 million dollars contributed by individuals, when the McCain-Feingold act put caps of 2,000 dollars on that (nytimes). This is simply outrageous. The money spent is huge, and the donations, from the very simply put methods of the article used, are made by individuals, where that should not happen! It boggles my mind that they are allowing individual, essentially, persons to donate massive quantities of cash to these campaigns. The whole thing about campaigns are ridiculous. It just does not seem fair in giving us the leaders we need because it is too costly and too long. We really should shorten the campaigns down big-time and severely cut down on the number of loop-holes that can be dived through. It just seems like this system is lopsided in favor of a particular personality set and monetary qualities, and it just keeps on getting like that the more we try to solve it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-controversy-should-end-now-that-pac-donor-has-identified-himself/2011/08/08/gIQAUIwh2I_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/10/fundraising-roundup-david-perdue-gives-big-to-georgia-senate-campaign/?hpid=z10
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
I do think that there should be limits on what an individual can spend on campaigns. This forces the candidates to be smart in their campaigning and their fundraising. It promotes democracy because it makes the money donated by the middle class and lower class even more crucial (1). It also prevents the election being controlled by the very wealthy and their interests, which do not always reflect the interests of the middle class and lower class (1). If people really want to spend above the current limit of $48,600 there are other ways of having that money support your candidate. The limits also reduce the risk of candidates voting in favor of issues benefiting their wealthy supporters in order to continue to receive their large donations.
I do not, however, believe that super PACs are becoming too powerful. Mitt Romney, supported by Super PACs, spent $260 million more than Obama, yet he obviously did not win the election (2). Although the money that a super PAC can contribute indirectly to a candidate does hurt the campaign in any way, it does show that the publicity a big budget provides will not guarantee the win. It also shows that what a candidate has to say on issues and topics still plays a big part in the campaign. There have also been many cases where the super PACs have not raised as much money as they originally thought they would(3). So although some super PACs will provide candidates with large advantages, not all will be as successful, leaving it up to people and non-profits to decide on which candidate(s) to help or hinder.
As to what degree the role of money in federal elections concerns me, I would say a fair amount. I understand that it costs money to get your name out to the nation, whether it is through TV ads, rallies, or some other method. But I think that politicians have become so wrapped up in the money they need to get in order to campaign, that they start to neglect their other duties. They start to second guess their opinions on hot topics because they are concerned about how it might affect the money they receive from outside groups for their next campaign (1). This is part of the problem in the government shutdown- neither side wants to agree with the opposing side for fear of alienating their donators. There has to be a balance between money needed to campaign and politicians not compromising because of the threat of pulled donations.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-skeptical-of-limits-on-federal-campaign-contributions/2013/10/08/1a1fca06-302c-11e3-9ccc-2252bdb14df5_story.html
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
(3) http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/super-pacs-super-in-name-only-96412.html
I do believe that there should be limits on how much money a person can give to an individual candidate. While money is a kind of speech in its own way, excessive donations to an individual political figure become more a form of bribery than a form of free speech. If the current limits were abolished, a person could theoretically contribute up to $3.6 billion to parties and their candidates in a single election cycle (2). As Justice Elana Kagan mentioned, there is no way a contributor of that amount would not receive special treatment from the grateful recipient (1). Thus, corruption would spread quickly as almost 1700 people last year gave the maximum amount to party committees, adding up to over $100 million (2), and 646 hit the individual donation limit, adding up to $93 million (3). The government would very soon be closely tied to the interests of this elite minority. Super PACs, as well, I believe are a little too powerful. While it’s good that their donors have to be reported and that they can’t give money directly to a candidate, they easily get around these regulations and can have a huge impact on elections (2). I would like to see some sort of monetary limit for Super PACs, but larger than the limit on regular PACs. Honestly, money has a huge impact on campaigning and the outcome of elections, which concerns me as people really should focus on the candidates themselves and their opinions on relevant issues. While it is by no means my highest priority concern, campaign finance is a serious issue that I think needs to be addressed in America.
1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/08/politics/supreme-court-donor-limits/index.html?iref=allsearch
2) http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-money-and-politics/index.html
3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24449605
This comment has been removed by the author.
In my personal opinion, I do not believe there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle. The main reason I say this is because the limits on donations are limits on individuals’ freedom of expression, and therefore they are unconstitutional (1). It basically infringes on the rights of the First Amendment, which is what Shaun McCutcheon is arguing against the Federal Election Commission. He says he would have given more money to his favored candidate, if not for the law that says an individual can only donate a certain total amount each cycle to candidates and certain political committees (2). No, I do not think Super PACS are too powerful. In fact, I think Super PACS have less influence then we think. For example, in the 2012 election, Republicans spent more Super PAC money, but they did not win the presidential election (3). This proves that PACs aren’t as big of a deal as some people think and don't affect the outcome of elections as much as we thought. Sure, they certainly help raise some money for their preferred candidate, but they are not a make-or-break issue in campaigns. The role of money in federal elections doesn’t concern me as much as it might concern others. I believe that donations, like the donations that individuals and Super PACS can give, do not decide an election winner. I think it’s all about the policies and ideas that the candidate has that Americans vote on, it doesn’t matter how much money they raise. Overall, I don’t think we should put a limit on how much an individual can give to a candidate in an election cycle.
1) http://www.policymic.com/articles/66997/what-s-mccutcheon-v-fec-your-simple-guide-to-this-landmark-campaign-finance-case
2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/
3) http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics
I think that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle. There should be a limit on how much money an individual can give to a candidate because the money is used to alter and manipulate the voters. The more money a candidate is given, the more power they have and ability they have to campaign for themselves and to manipulate voters (2). People are also concerned individuals that donate more money will get more influence in what the candidate's policies will be, in other words, people are afraid of corruption (1). On the other hand, the candidate that didn’t have as much funding, will have a disadvantage in campaigning. For example, in elections, funding to support a candidate could be done through the super PACs and non profit organizations. A large amount of money that is given to super PACs and non profit organizations to campaign for a candidate is used to bash the opponents. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, super PACs spent $378 million and non-disclosing nonprofits spent $171 million to bash their opponents (3). They spend money on bashing their opponents because they are not allowed to directly tell people to vote for their candidate, so they pass a message to tell people how much better their candidate is compared to the opponents.
I think that super PACs are not becoming too powerful. Even though super PACs can receive a large amount of money from the public who wish to fund them, they are not allowed to outright tell people to vote for their favored candidate. They are allowed to bash the other candidate and manipulate the public's views about that candidate, but that all depends on the beliefs and political views of the public. Super PACs are also required to report who their donors are regularly, that also serves as a check for the power of the super PACs (3).
Money in federal elections don't concern me greatly. The only way it could possibly concern me is if money really can be an influence on the policies of the nominees. Because I am not a contributor in funding the campaigns, I would have less influence in the policies of the nominees compared to those who have contributed financially. Other than that, the role of money in federal elections do not concern me.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/
2. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/09/mccutcheon-v-fec-big-money-fights-back-at-the-supreme-court.html
3. http://www.marketplace.org/topics/elections/big-money-2012-frontline/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters
I believe the issue of campaign finance is both a legal and moral problem. Speaking purely of the legality of campaign contributions, in specific regards to the Constitution, I don’t believe there should be a cap on an individual’s contributions to a campaign. Spending money for a political cause is a form of free speech which, according to the supreme law of the land, cannot be abridged. There is, however, the moral question of campaign limits. In the Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC, Shaun McCutcheon argues that americans need to spend more money on politics (3). I find that very interesting considering in the 2012 election, between Democrats and Republicans, nearly $2 billion dollars was raised (1). There is more to politics than throwing money at a problem, and I frankly think 2 billion dollars is already too much money spent. Imagine if $1 billion of that was directed, instead, towards a charitable organization (one without political interests or a 501 (c)(4) classification). If this were simply a judgement of morals, I would advocate for the contribution limit to stop the public from spending such large amounts of money on a largely non beneficial area. Some of the groups raising the most of this money are Super PACs. Super PACS are somewhat of a loophole in the world of campaign finance regulation, and are therefore relatively unregulated. It is because of this lack of oversight that I believe Super PACs have become too powerful. Super PACs spent $546.5 million in the 2012 election - I wonder how much they would have spent with stricter regulations (2). Overall, money plays a huge role in federal elections, but the role it plays doesn’t concern me. In theory, the candidate who raises the most money is the most popular and should be elected because of that. I recognize that some candidates have more wealthy donors, but in the past two presidential elections Democrats have out raised Republicans (considered the party of the wealthy) and won. Campaign spending will likely increase with every election, a fact I think Americans just have to accept. It is only when the super wealthy opinion outweighs the majority opinion that we must worry and act.
1) elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
2) graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-superpac-spending
3)www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_4059180.html
I do not believe that there should be a legal limit set on how much money an individual can give to a candidate during an election cycle. That being said, I do agree with the underlying reasons that such cases arise in the first place. Allowing individuals with exorbitant amounts of wealth to throw money into a campaign in order to support their own interests is definitely something that I think should be frowned upon. But it is the price we as a democracy must pay for our freedoms and our 1st Amendment right. These cases straddle the line between the infringement of our rights and the potential to allow corruption of our government to happen right before our eyes. It is an unfortunate situation indeed, but I believe that because money is a tool used to exercise our freedom of speech [1], it would be unconstitutional in restricting its use. Which leads us to the next question, are super PACs becoming too powerful? I would argue that yes, super PACs are becoming too powerful, but I would also argue that they are a result of the initial attempt to check personal investment in election campaigns [3]. Because initial limits were set on campaign contributions, the formation of PACs and super PACs were only a natural manifestation of a loophole, and were solidified by the Citizens United v. FEC case [2]. Also, I don not believe cases such as Citizens United v. FEC or McCutcheon v. FEC are ways in which to effectively check the influence of super PACs in an election. Of course, PACs and super PACs are not deciding factors in any particular election, but they definitely play a role in what issues will be heard the most, and how the candidate is viewed by the public. Because super PACs do play a substantial role, the use of money in federal election campaigns does concern me. As I stated above, the prospect of millions of dollars being pumped into a campaign by an individual does not sit well with me, but I believe that it is almost unavoidable at this point. I'm sure our founding fathers did not take the prospect of super PACs or even millionaires into consideration when establishing our government, but that should not change the application of our rights as individuals today.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/mccutcheon-v-fec-state-limits_n_4078149.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/
I think that there should not be limits on how much an individual can contribute to an election, because it is their right to do what they want with their money. The Super PACs were created because the Citizens United v. FEC case said that there would not be limits on how much a buisness or union can spend in an election(1). If businesses and unions have no restrictions on how much money that they can spend, individuals shouldn’t either. I do not agree with the decision in Citizens United v. FEC, and I think that it will be repealed eventually. If McCutcheon is successful, there will be billionares supporting the campaigns, and it will be influencing politics. But it is also there money and there really isn’t any way to stop it without preventing all donations to political parties. The reason that I agree with McCutcheon and don’t agree with Citizens United is that Citizen’s United was clearly manipulating and affecting the outcome, while McCutcheon just wants to donate to the actual candidates organization(2). I don’t think that businesses should have the same rights as people, because not everyone in the business is of the same party. And the money that is spent towards elections will have to be taken out of the company funds, which will fall down the line to somehow affect the people working for the company. Super PACs are becoming too powerful. With corporate backing, the Super PACs can put up ads supporting or criticizing a candidate(3). And most people will not recognize the difference between an official ad by the party, and unofficial ad by a Super PAC. With the Super PACs, they tend to put up ads that are on the negative side and dishonest. While actual candidates try to become the good guys and personable by mainly put up ads describing themselves. Super PACs are far too powerful. The money that is donated goes towards running campaigns. The campaigns are like a very aggressive buisness advertisement. They spend money to try to get the maximum amount of people to recognize that they are better than the leading competitor. The money is used in all of the commercials and for all of the people helping the campaign. I think that it would be a lot better that you can give your money to a candidates party directly, instead of going though a PAC or having your company decide for you.
1. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0124.htm
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_4059180.html
3. http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/super-pacs.html
I believe there should be limitations on an individual’s contribution to a candidate during a single election cycle. With the way elections are heading, and if the current limits were eliminated, elections would be controlled by the rich. McCutcheon admits that the limits are in place to put a constraint on political corruption (1). He then adds that his free speech is being suppressed because he already maxed out and couldn’t give to 19 different elections. I see this as a flawed view, how many people in America can throw money at a campaign to get their “voice” across? Not that many, and thus the political game would become a clubhouse with a big “no average/poor/minority people” written on the door. Super PACs in my opinion are slightly more powerful than they should be. These Super PACs can dish out criticism on other candidates, without the candidate they support taking the blame. That’s like hiring a hit-man. Okay, maybe way less extreme than hiring a hit-man but I like the analogy. In the 2012 election, Super PACs spent more than twice what individual candidates spent in South Caroline (2). If that’s not powerful, I don’t know what is. I’m very concerned by the amount money plays into elections. People should be concerned with policy and not the latest ad poking fun at an opponent for wearing a checkered tie and striped shirt. The other reason I believe money plays a key role in elections is the idea of return on investment. Countless of big check writers will want their return on investment after the new president gets comfy in the White House and the president will want to comply (3).
(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606430/supreme-court-to-consider-rolling-back-campaign-donation-limits/
(2) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/super-pacs-super-powerful-super-secret-and-super-confusing/
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/l21brooks.html?_r=0
Considering the wealth gap in America I think there should be restrictions on how much money PACS can give their candidates. With political campaigns widely being decided by who makes the most money it gives extreme political pull to those who have the most money to donate to the candidate. According to an article from U.S World Report the top 400 richest Americans make more money than the more than half the country. (1) Political campaigns recently have become extremely money related. According to the New York Times in the 2012 presidential election the president Obama’s campaign raised 720 million dollars for campaigning while Mitt Romney’s raised 467 million. (2) Theses are a substantial amount higher than previous presidential campaign cost. With presidential campaigns relying so much on money it’s only natural nominees cater to the people who hold most of the country’s wealth. I believe Super packs are becoming too powerful according to another article by U.S World Report Super PACs unlike political campaigns have no restrictions on the information they post and aren’t responsible for the way they portray other campaigners allowing them to say and sabotage anybody they chose. (3) This is worrisome because when these PACs receive more money which they will people won’t be voting for candidates but for what is portrayed of each candidate by the PACs. Money in federal elections concerns me because wherever large amounts of money are being paid the person with the most money has the most influence and control. Like I said above America’s wealth distribution is one of the worst in the world and leaving very few people with all the money influencing the American people instead of making decisions for themselves.
1. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics/overturn-citizens-united
2. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
3. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics/super-pacs-promote-attack-ads-and-special-interests
I do think there should be limits on how much an individual can give to political campaigns. The reasoning behind limits is that they create a sense of fairness and they make sure campaigns are not driven by donations. They ensure that there are opportunities for as many people as possible to participate (1). An essential part of an ideal democracy is that all citizens are afforded the same opportunities. If limits are not kept in place, the wealthy will have a significant advantage over the ordinary American. In the 2012 election, a group of about 1,000 donors contributed $155 million to campaigns. This totals up to 50% more than the two presidential candidates received from all small donors combined. It is projected that if the limits are lifted they would spend triple that amount (2). There is no doubt in my mind that this means these elite few can control politicians from that shear amount of money. Studies do show that the wealthy do not have the same policy preferences as ordinary Americans (2). If they come into control in politics through money, the majority’s policy preference will not be portrayed. It is essential to a democracy that the policies reflect the people and not just an elite few. James Madison, a framer of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, did not want “an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class” to rule. He wanted the view of America to be portrayed as a whole (2). Some even go as far to say that lifting the limits will bring back the robber-baron era (1). The main argument for getting rid of the limits is that it violates the first amendment. Individual donors can still say what they want and they can spend as much as they would like on independent campaign messages (2). It does not seem to violate the first amendment to me. McCutcheon, the proponent for lifting the limits, has said that he should be afforded freedoms and “that freedom never corrupts” (1). A sad truth is that corruption is rampant in our world today, even with all our freedoms in America, corruption exists. McCutcheon seems to be stretching it saying that if they are given this freedom there will be no corruption. It seems the opposite. The federal regulations are set up to prevent political corruption. As for Super PACs they concern me a little, but not as much. They cannot directly coordinate with campaigns, but they can spend as much as they would like. This means that they are not directly giving money to the candidate and may actually not influence much. In the 2012 election one Super Pac spent $142 million in support of Romney (3). In total Romney supporters spent $260 million more than Obama supporters and yet Romney still lost (4). That’s a lot of money, but it did not seem to sway voters as much as a message coming straight from an actual candidate might have. It’s the same case as an individual that may spend as much as they like on an independent campaign, just in a group and coordinated. The role of money in federal elections concerns me. The wealthy are donating large amounts of money that the ordinary American could never procure. Through this they are getting an in with the government. They have access to parts of the government that they gained through money alone. This is not a representative democracy that America was built on where everyone is equally represented, this ideal that we uphold is being corroded.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-money-and-politics/index.html
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/politicians-for-sale.html?ref=campaignfinance&_r=1&
(3) http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/
(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
I do not think that there should be a limit on how much money and individual can donate to a candidate. Some argue that wealthy individuals who donate millions affect the outcome of an election, but the reality is that they don’t. In the 2012 presidential election between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama, the percentages of large donations to Super PACs were almost identical for both parties. Of the donations to Obama through Super Pacs, 40% were between $100K and $1 million, and 49% were over $1 million. To Romney, 44% were between $100K and $1 million, and 42% were over $1 million. (1) With both parties trying to raise more money, the price of running for president becomes more and more expensive. The amount of money just spent on winning a primary is usually between $50 million and $100 million. (2) As the race becomes more expensive, individuals donations are less and less influential to the total outcome of the election. In the 2012 election, Republican Super Pacs spent more money than the Democratic party. (3) There is so much that money can do. You could spend millions or even billions on a candidate that nobody likes and he or she still most likely won’t win. Most importantly though, I believe that there shouldn’t be a limit on how much money an individual can donate because of the rights guaranteed to them by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has has ruled that money equals speech and the 1st Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...” (4) Although individuals donations are necessary to any election, they do not have a large impact.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
http://www.wisegeek.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-run-for-president.htm
http://speakwithauthority-jsm.blogspot.com/2012/11/axelrod-maybe-super-pacs-arent-so-bad.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
As shown by the very mixed reviews of the earlier bloggers, this is a very difficult subject. I understand that limiting individual donation amounts can be seen as limiting free speech, but how much longer are we going to allow the price of campaigning to increase? One of the main issues in our democratic process is the amount it costs to be elected. If we limited this amount, would more people have the ability to run instead of only wealthy men? Although I understand both sides to this argument, I do believe that there should be a limit to how much an individual can donate to a candidate. I believe our expensive campaigns lower voter efficacy by forcing lower class citizens to believe that their vote is not heard as much as the vote of a rich person who can donate ridiculously large sums of money to a candidate they favor. Maybe they don't sway an election enough to virtually choose who is going to win, but I believe they can sway it in the sense that they limit the people who can participate in elections.
Super PACs are kind of like the cool clique at school. They really can't do much to you, but somehow they give you the feeling that they are the most important group of people in the world. Super PACs are allowed to donate the most amount of money out of all other possible donators (individuals, PACS etc.) but their attempts are not always successful, as seen by more money being donated to Mitt Romney (who lost) in the 2012 election. Although super PACs aren't being debated in court right now they are still a highly discussed topic. I do not believe they are even remotely close to becoming more powerful than the government, but their increasing role should be closely watched. PACs were created to allow people to participate more closely with governmental elections but super PACs seem to have very narrow and individual interests that only surround money.
The role of money concerns me in the sense that I do not believe money should control everything, especially something as closely related to the people as the government. Our government is meant to represent the people as a whole, not a rich group of people who can afford to spend millions of dollars on one specific candidate. It makes me very sad that we don't have a higher voter turn out, and I believe that the "money intimidation" factor is largely involved with this problem.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-money-and-politics/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/politicians-for-sale.html?ref=campaignfinance&_r=1&
I do not believe that there should be a limit on how much an individual is allowed to donate to a particular candidate. This is because in elections these days, it takes a lot of money to win an election and if an opposing candidate can raise more money that you can, you are put at a disadvantage. This was evident in the 2012 elections where Obama was able to raise $715,677,692 compared to Romney's $446,135,997 which resulted in Obama winning the election (1). I also believe that people should be able to donate as much money to candidates as possible because this opens up the possibility for third party candidates to make a run for the presidency and break this traditional two party system that the United States has had for decades. I do not believe that Super PACs have too much power because the largest single check written to a Super PAC in 2012 was $5 million (2). This is a small portion compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that both the Republicans and Democrats received. In addition, there are many government regulations as to what PACs can and cannot do, which will ensure that they do not get too powerful. Also in 2012, the single largest donation to a Super PAC was $20.5 million dollars, given by Harrold Simmons to the American Crossroads which supported Romney but however, Romney did not end up winning the election (2). This goes to prove that even if Super PACs have a lot of money, they do not receive super powers. The role of money in elections does not concern me because I believe that it is a way for citizens to express their beliefs and to make their voices heard. It is also another way for citizens to be more involved with the government and its policies. One of Obama's largest donator was the University of California which committed a little under $1.8 million while Romney had lots of money donated by corporations form Wall Street (3). This causes candidates to compete for these donations and thus creates an equal opportunity for each candidate to receive donations. This is why the role of money doesn't concern me in federal elections.
(1) http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court_n_4037577.html
(3) http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
I do not believe that there should be a limit on how much an individual can donate to a political campaign. While individuals spending outrageous amounts of money on campaigns to benefit themselves is seemingly unjust, it cannot be avoided without infringing on first amendment rights. Independent campaign spending is considered political speech which is protected by the first amendment (1). The government cannot control a means to express political beliefs. Money is essential to campaigns and thus is a means to uphold free speech (1). Government limits on individual donation only lead to new ways to donate money. Super PACs are a direct consequence of spending limits that allow donations from groups, unions, associations, and individuals to be spent on political campaigns (2). While super PACs are not allowed to donate directly to a campaign, they easily push their agenda by individual means (2). Super PACs are a loophole for political donations to be spent without limits. Rich donors are allowed to donate millions to super PACs which enables the money to be spent in a way that is “democratically irresponsible” (3). Limiting individual spending on campaigns does not decrease the money spent on campaigns, it only changes the way money is donated. The current system of super PACs spending has become an outlet for individuals to donate money, through special interest groups, without limits. Thus super PACs have gained incredible power to sway elections to promote their own agendas and easily avoid spending limits. In the 2012 election, only half of the anti-Obama ads were run by the Romney campaign, the rest were run by independent groups run by conservative super PACs (3). The issue of money controlling elections is extremely troubling. When elections are decided by how much money a campaign receives to run ads rather than which candidate is a better leader, the American people suffer. However, attempting to solve this problem through setting limits on individual spending is ineffective. Super PACs have emerged as a way to influence campaigns with exorbitant amounts of money.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/politics/supreme-court-weighs-campaign-contribution-limits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=campaignfinance
2) http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ledewitz/time-to-repeal-campaign-c_b_2099475.html
I believe a limit should exist for how much an individual is allowed to spend in political campaigns. At this point in time, existing limits state that individuals cannot give more than $123,000 total for the 2013-2014 elections (1). There are some limits within this large total, like the limit of $2,600 per individual candidate in an election (1). This is more than enough to fund an individual’s political campaign. As a citizen, you still have the right to enter into a PAC with other Americans supporting your views to fund campaigns and have no limits to the amount for special limits (1). While the money you give to a PAC may end up in a different location than what you planned, the PACs usually have a specific party or cause that they stand by (1). Already there are loopholes around the current spending limits. Why try to do away with the last of the rules? One complaint is that the FEC is a violation of the first amendment, the major debate in the McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court hearing last Tuesday (1). I don’t agree that money should be considered a freedom of speech because it segregates a significant part of our country based off of their income. Based on income, Republicans on average have a higher average of yearly income than Democrats (2). While there does appear to be a decline in the percent of high income Republicans, they still on average earn more money annually (2). It worries me that if money plays such a large role in politics and our current major political parties have an income gap, erasing limits will create uneven amount of money given to each party, which could result in the issue of the elite getting a more unfair advantage in political campaigns and the public agenda. I also believe super PACs are getting out of hand. Currently, superPACs have no limit to the amount of money they can spend on things like ad campaigns (3). They are limited in how much they can give to individual politicians, but can rally for or against them (3). Once again to me this brings up the issue of money being considered a form of speech. Billion dollar corporations can campaign as much as they want for their causes and be better heard than an individual. In the 2012 elections, super PACs spent around $610 million dollars in political campaigns (3). Seeing as campaigns are expensive, the money was gladly received. I don’t agree that there should be no spending limits for important things like the leaders of our country who decide what is fair for the rest of the citizens. If politicians are focused on their monetary gains, I worry they will forget about the voices of the people they were elected to represent.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/
2. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how-income-divides-democrats-republicans-and-independents
3. http://www.policymic.com/articles/18092/super-pacs-spending-for-election-2012-reaches-610-million-dollars
I do think that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give in one election cycle. In many previous rulings of the Supreme Court, money has been acknowledged as an enabler to speech. If the court can make a connection between money and speech, then why can they not make a connection between money and votes? To me, the correlation between the amount of money a candidate receives and the votes he or she wins is clear. When someone donates money, they are essentially buying votes. If donors were allowed to give an unlimited amount to an individual candidate, it would blow out of proportion that person’s representation in elections. There are many historical examples that illustrate my belief, such as in 1912 when a wealthy executive purchased a U.S. Senator (1).
Yes, I think Super PACs are becoming too powerful. For example, “political spending in 2012 by Super PACS, 527s and non-profit advocacy groups matched candidate and political party spending and will significantly exceed it in 2016” (2). However, I do not think that this means that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of McCutcheon in order to cut down on undisclosed contributions. There are surely better ways to do this which do not involve infringing on Americans’ equal representation.
The role of money in elections greatly concerns me. I think money manipulates both politicians and citizens to do things that are not in the best interest of the country. And Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has opened the “floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections” (3). It is a very tricky problem to solve because the presence of unequal amounts of money inherently creates inequalities in elections, but there is no way to eliminate money from our society.
1.http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/08/campaign-finance-supreme-court-mccutcheon-v-fec-editorials-debates/2948585/
2.http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/08/aggregate-limits-first-amendment-james-bopp-editorials-debates/2948559/
3.http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-election#
The influence that money has in our campaign process and elections is already way more than it should be. While McCutcheon and others contend that limits on individual contributions are violations of freedom of expression (1), and while I can see why the Supreme Court might end up deciding the case in favor of McCutcheon because of this Constitutional freedom, I personally do think that there should be a limit on individual contributions to candidates in election cycles. It’s incredibly ironic that in America, the land of supposedly equal opportunity, opportunities to be elected for office, at the national level at least, is heavily dependent on how much money you have at your disposal. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute argues that individuals should be allowed to give as much money as they want to promote campaigns and causes (2). This is where the reasoning and justification behind the elitist theory really become (in my opinion) less extreme, and more actual and real. There is so much potential for corruption in potential policymakers (3). As U.C. Irvine School of Law professor Richard Hasen explains, candidates feel sort of obliged to a group that contributes to their potential election (3). Because of this, individuals who contribute large amounts of money to any single or multiple candidates, would likely have a fair amount of influence on candidates (3). Furthermore, since people who give money to support political causes are generally either extremely wealthy and influential or otherwise politically prominent, and probably hold somewhat more ideological political views that don’t really represent the majority of American citizens’ views, there could be potential for the government to really be controlled by an elite class of rich people who give money to candidates.
Additionally, because Super PACs really don’t have any limits on how much they can contribute, the amount of power they hold is quite frankly bordering on dangerous. While I see that it’s kind of ridiculous and difficult to prevent outside groups from producing and airing commercials and other things that indirectly tell voters who to vote for, there should be some sort of limit on the amount of money a Super PAC can contribute, and thus, the amount of power that a Super PAC can have. Seeing as things have gone in the past, I’m sure someone would find some other loophole, but the current issue at hand regarding Super PACs has been a growing problem since the Buckley v. Valeo case. In the 70s, the Associated Milk Producers, Inc., wanted $100 million in milk subsidies, and since they weren’t allowed to directly influence policy makers by giving them money, they gave $2 million to various PACs, who then gave this sum towards Nixon’s reelection campaign (4). After Nixon was reelected, the government increased the subsidies on milk to fit the Associated Milk Producers’ wants (4).
I do not believe there should be a limit on how much an individual can donate to a candidate during an election cycle. My reasoning behind this is that by limiting the amount a person can give to their favorite candidate limits the rights given to them within the freedom of expression (1). Americans could go to the nearest McDonalds and buy one million dollars worth of big macs and fries (although I would highly recommend not doing this) and yet they can only donate $2,500 toward a single candidate (3), how does that make sense? Also there are ways around this rule such as donating huge sums of money to super PACs who support your candidate and can donate unlimited amounts of money to the candidate. That being said it leads us into the next question are super PACs becoming too powerful? Personally I believe super PACs can be very powerful and influential they aren’t as big as we think they are, nor do they give unfair advantages. In the 2012 election Mitt Romney received $153 million from super PACs (2), this is twice the amount Barack Obama got and as we can all see Mr. Romney still lost the race. This proves that the amount of money given to a candidate doesn’t reflect the final outcome of who will win the presidency but instead the candidate’s morals and beliefs. The roll of money in federal elections is not a big concern to me at all. If people want to spend their money on politics in the hope to help their candidate to succeed I believe they should be able to do so. Overall I agree with Mr. McCutcheon, the FEC has no right to limit the amount of money an individual can put towards a candidate; it infringes upon our personal rights of expression and should therefore be banned.
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/mccutcheon-v-fec-state-limits_n_4078149.html
2) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/
I do not think that there should be limits on the contributions of individuals to elections. Yes, the wealthy are likely to, and do give more money than the poor, but there will always be the issue of where the bar should be set. $1000? $2000? $200,000? There is no clear answer as to what an individual “should” be able to give to the party they support. But before the debate over that number begins, data from the 2012 election should be analyzed. The Obama campaign earned $260 million LESS than the Romney campaign (from outside sources), and yet Obama still won the election (1). After Citizens United v. FEC, Individuals are allowed to give to super PACS, which then can contribute to the campaigns of those involved in elections. With the data previously stated, it does not make sense to me why individuals could not simply give money directly to candidates on a large scale. The money donations were skewed towards Romney when the PACs are observed, but the public will still prevailed. Even though PAC donations were ultimately in favor of Romney, donations directly to the candidates were towards Obama so much so that Obama ended up raising more money total than did Romney (3). Because of this, I do not see why the large scale donors that contributed to Romney’s super PAC would not be allowed to simply donate directly. If Obama’s super PAC and money raised were compared to Romney’s, Obama’s portion was significantly larger (3). There were simply enough people willing to give modest amounts to Obama that it outweighed the major contributors to Romney. Because they can be so easily outweighed, my thought is that super PACs are not too powerful, because the most powerful PACs did not even manage to sway the election in their favor (3). The role of money in federal elections concerns me, not because of the implications of PACs, but because of the fact that anyone who desires to be president cannot pursue their goal. No, the public probably wouldn’t elect Joe the Plumber even if he stood a chance at funding his campaign, but it is still unsettling to me that you cannot run a proper presidential election without almost a billion dollars. Some people express concerns that super PACs are going to “hurt small donors by making their contributions less important,” but I would point to the 2012 election to say that the super PAC donations were clearly outweighed by the donations directly to Obama (2).
1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
2 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/super-pacs-donors-500000-dollars_n_1339169.html
3 http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
There shouldn't be a limit on how much an individual gives to elections. People have the right to do what ever they want with their money. Many people say if we don't limit this it might lead to corruption like during the watergate scandal(1). Many still gives much of there money to PACs to get around this problem so if we eliminate this spending limits one of the main results would be the decrease in power of PACs and Super PACS. The U.S. Government is their to protect our rights not to infringe on them. With no limit on spending a lot of the PACs will become weaker which has been growing stronger during the past years especially after Citizens United v. FEC(3). Money shouldn't really play a role in the political world yet sometimes giving money is the only way to speak out. Now in this 21st century world we live in people just can't got to the street corner and yell out their political views. Sometime the only thing a person can do is give money to the candidate they like. Yes it does seem that with this system most of the wealthy people and rich people will have a stronger voice, but just because they have more money doesn't mean there right to do what they want with their money should be taken away(2). Even if their rich their still an American citizen and they have the right to say what candidate they want in office.
1.http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-money-and-politics/index.html?iref=allsearch
2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_4059180.html
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/04/the-next-citizens-united/
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do believe that there should be a limit on an individual's ability to donate money directly to and individual candidate, however, I believe that this limit should be raised exponentially. A good cap I think would be around $30,000, which is over 10x the amount an individual can currently give (1). I also believe that donations to multiple candidates should be raised to be in the ballpark of 250,000-350,000 every two years. That is over twice the limit according to current FEC regulations (1).
Super PACs are becoming too powerful. The influx of money to these organizations, who have seemingly no accountability for their actions, has increased their spending from 17 million to about 80 million from 2008 to 2012 (3). That's nearly a 500% increase! This has pulled the reigns of the campaign away from the candidates and put into the hands of private organizations who have their own goals and do not have to answer to the voting public, but to their donors. If it were possible to give the control back to the candidates and incumbents I believe that a higher degree of accountability would fall back on to the candidate, because they would no longer have the benefit of PACs doing the mud raking. I believe the easiest way of doing this is to implement the limits that I listed above. This would drive down the need for PACs, because most people would no longer get even near the new limit, and the problem would thus work itself out. The argument of whether an organization has the right to free speech or not within a certain amount of time to an election, like what was argued in Citizens United v. FEC (2), would not be needed to be taken. Thus a stain on the American election system would be lifted.
I believe that money in elections is a poison, but a necessary one. Not all poisons are bad, after all, since much of our prescription drugs, Botox, and anesthetic are essentially different types of poisons. These uses, however, are in moderate and controlled doses, unlike how money is in federal elections. The crutial importance of money in federal elections brings highly concerns me, but there does not seem to be a solution in sight.
Work Cited:
1. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
2. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
3. http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/outside-groups-spending-through-roof/
I think that though giving money to a campaign is a form of free speech, there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle. The problem is that it gives too much power to those who can give the money. They are influencing the country in ways that those with less money and other legitimate points on their side are incapable of doing. This extreme amount of spending could lead to less of a pluralist society if it goes unchecked. (1) This tight-knit group of contributors are making it hard for small business to contribute to campaigns and get their voices heard. It makes representation more in favor of big business and corporations because politicians will get more money from corporations for representation on their side. Both parties are responsible for the incredible amount of spending. (2) In the 2012 election, Obama, the Democratic Party, and their largest super PAC spent $985.7m on their campaign while Romney, the Republican Party, and their largest super PAC spent $992m on their campaign. The spending has skyrocketed in past few elections which directly correlates with the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. With this amount of power the super PACs are creating a new pay-to-play normal in American elections. Much of the outside money was used on attack ads on both of the candidates. Campaign ads have increased as well. (3) In 2012, more the one million ads aired surrounding the candidates in the election, nearly forty percent more than the 2008 election. This is the way most everyday Americans are affected by the super PAC system. Though donating money to an election is a form of free speech, there should be checks on them just in the way that there are checks and balances in all forms of our government business.
(1)http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20131009/OPINION/131009775/-small-business-cant-stomach-super-sized-donor-influence
(2) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
(3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/campaign-ads-1-million-2012-election_n_2065715.html
Democracy does better if everyone, or almost everyone, participates. In the 2012 election, Obama focused on raising money from the people rather than PAC and other groups (1). I see this as the more democratic way to run elections because it gets more people involved and shows that Obama had a very large support group. Therefore I think that there should be a limit on how much a candidate can give in an election cycle, because it forces candidates to try to involve a higher number of people in their campaign. Super PAC’s are one of those things that could potentially be used for democratic purposes: helping to raise and collect money from individuals. Often, though, they are used as a means for large companies to sidestep the system and spend obscene amounts on election campaigns (3). This large corporations try to forward their own needs and undermine the will of the people. Koch Industries donated up to half a million dollars in a month to federal candidates (2). As an energy and chemicals company, it will be looking for tax breaks and other benefits for its company rather than talking about Social Security, the Middle East, etc. Still with all the potential for corruption, it is very hard to control money. While I believe that elections should focus on democratic ideals, I know that there are an infinite number of loopholes to be exploited. For that reason I am not too concerned with the role of money in elections cycles. The political world will go on as it always does, and, as long as it effectively does its job I’ll be happy.
1. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/koch-industries-pac-contributions_n_3636280.html
3. http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/opinion/hasen-super-pacs/index.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do think that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to a candidate. The current system heavily favors the upper class by overemphasizing the relevance of their opinions to candidates: the enormous donations of the wealthy are much more of an incentive than any small donation or form of support that can be offered by the working or even the middle class. This inequality means that many people do not feel that they can effectively participate in campaigns due to their inability to donate a great amount of money; many people feel that their voices are overwhelmed by the power of wealth. Although money does facilitate speech, I don’t believe that those with more money are somehow entitled to more powerful speech than those without. If there were no limits, individuals who donate hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of dollars would certainly be given special treatment from candidates, and the opinions of one or a few individuals should not be valued above the opinions of thousands of other people just because those few happen to be wealthy. Almost one thousand people last year hit the individual donation limit, and even now those people have been receiving special treatment.
Although not quite as great an issue as of yet, I do believe that Super PACs are also becoming slightly too powerful. The regulations imposed on Super PACs, while helpful in that they mandate disclosure of donors and prohibit direct donation to candidates, are overall very loosely-enforced and incredibly easy to get around. Many Super PACs have taken advantage of the plentiful loopholes in the regulations already, and surely more will do so in the past. The proliferation of Super PACs is just another example of the corruption that could result from the overemphasis on money in terms of political elections, and in my opinion, campaign finance is an area in grave need of attention by the public and by the government itself.
Whether money is coming through PACs, individuals, Super PACs, or otherwise, it does concern me because it provides an unfair amplifier to the voices of the elite. However, in the other direction, I do not believe that it offers a substantial advantage to either candidate: the candidate who raises the most money in the current system would also likely be the more popular in the first place, and the spending of money does not seem to have an extremely large sway in terms of persuasion. Finally, though, I can’t help but consider the advantage it gives to the people who tend to be candidates in the first place; there is a large wealth gap in the United States, and it continues to make me slightly uncomfortable that the only people who are currently capable of being prominent politicians are (because of the immense cost of campaigning) the extremely wealthy elite.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/08/politics/supreme-court-donor-limits/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-skeptical-of-limits-on-federal-campaign-contributions/2013/10/08/1a1fca06-302c-11e3-9ccc-2252bdb14df5_story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-money-and-politics/index.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24449605
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/super-pacs-super-in-name-only-96412.html
I believe there should not be a limit on individual donations. Currently, people are only allowed to donate 132,200 per election cycle, 48,600 to candidates, and 2,600 to an individual candidate within a single election cycle.(1) Because of these restrictions, PACS rose up. People have a irrational fear of PACS, and feel that this verdict would give them even more power. In reality, PACs are a circumvention of the FEC codes against individual spending. When those restrictions are removed, there will be no more need for PACs. One of the flaws in the opposing argument is the consistent abuse of outliers to inflate statistical significance. For instance, the Huffington Post has a chart in one of their articles which shows the maximum amount given to a super-PAC by an individual, and uses that to imply those funds would directly go to the candidate should this verdict pass(2). While yes, there would be large donations to candidates, the opposition uses the maximum numbers on record to display campaign contribution, a blatant misuse of outliers and cherry picking of evidence to forward a claim. I believe the most incriminatory pieces of evidence for my claim lies in the statements of one of the judges during the oral. At one point, Justice Scalia states "I assume that a law that only -- only prohibits the speech of 2 percent of the country is okay." (3)This shows how ludicrous the opposing position is. Our constitution gives us all freedom of speech. To limit 2% of the populations inherent rights to exercise speech through donation of funds is in blatant disregard of that self evident truth. While some may say they do not care, because it doesn't abridge their rights, we must remember that we must protect our rights,everyone's rights. with all our strength, and when a single action abridges the rights of the people, those above must hear the people shout.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court_n_4037577.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-536_21o2.pdf
I do not think that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give to an individual candidate in an election cycle. The limiting on these donations, I feel, impedes the right to free speech, people should be able to support anyone they want and in any way they feel (1). People are allowed to donate any amount of their time to a campaign. Money is just a quantification of how much their time is worth in a particular activity. Why fore then is that version of time donating limited?
I do however think that corporate funding of campaigns should be limited. Corporations are not living breathing things, they do not die from literal wounds, they are not subject to the same rights under the Amendments that people are, and even though the people that own parts of the company are (i.e. the government cannot take away the right to property for the corporation because it is owned by individuals). Corporates are taking profits that could go to bettering the company, paying shareholders, or even donating to causes, and supporting candidates that may help the corporation’s wants, or possibly just the top tier chairmen of the board.
Super PACs are getting too powerful, they have far too much funding and influence on a candidate, but then can still feign the idea that they are not supporting one certain candidate.
The role that money in the federal government worries me is just how much is spent and how easy the loopholes are and they are only getting bigger (2). Another reason why this worries me is due to the issue of expanding donation ability is one of the biggest issues right now besides the shutdown and deficit (3). This is such an important problem that has yet to be solved for the American people and having it consume this much energy and time still, kind of worries me drastically.
1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/10/08/the-1st-amendment-protects-nude-dancing-so-why-not-political-speech/
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/top-super-pac-donors-may_n_1628684.html
3. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-money-and-politics/index.html
I do not think that there should be a limit on how much an indivudual can give to an individual candidate in one election cycle. I think that because money is used so often to show a persons viewpoint that it shouldn't have to go through this ordeal. Freedom is speech is a big part of te United States' foundation and it shouldn't be questioned. Money was probably not always associated with freedom of speech but in recent years it has become more closely associated with showing one's ideas and beliefs. I also believe that a person should not be restricted on what they want to do with their own money. Unless they are using it to accomplish something illegal, there should be no resrictions on money. I do not believe that Super PACs are becoming too powerful. It has been shown recently that money isn't a sureshot to the white house. In the 2012 election the republicans spent more money than the Deomocratic party and they still were not able to succeed in winning the presidency. This shows how much less power they actually have in contrast to what we naturally believe. The role of money in federal elections does not concern me. I believe that individuals should be able to give what they want to show support for who they want to win but I do not think it affects the nations views of that particular candidate in such an immense way to swing the vote and result in a different president. I think that money plays a smaller role in determining the outcome than what the average person thinks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_4059180.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24449605
elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
I strongly believe that any abridgement of the first amendment is very, very wrong. By setting limits on individual contributions to candidates, this constitutionally protected right is being infringed upon, and I do not support it one bit. First, there is no good way to put an “acceptable limit” on donations. What some people consider a large sum of money, other people consider pocket change; it’s relative and always will be. Secondly, there are loopholes to get around these individual limits anyways, and I believe that we should simply take out the middle man (PACs and super PACs) in order for individuals to more appropriately have control of their assets. In the 2012 election, President Barack Obama actually earned $260 million less from outside sources than former Governor Mitt Romney did. However, Mr. Obama still won the election (1). When comparing the two candidate’s super PAC and other donations raised, President Obama again came out on top despite not having as many people who would have been willing and able to make large cash donations to his campaign (2). In fact, super PACs spent over half a billion dollars in the 2012 election, but were only responsible for less than a forth of total spending. This information leads me to believe that super PACs are definitely not too powerful in our democracy to worry ourselves about. Obviously it is still very possible for candidates to raise enough money to accomplish what they need to achieve in order to win a campaign. When it comes down to it, the most important thing is an election is still the issues, as it should be. In short, I do not believe that we should allow limits to be put on an individual’s contributions to politicians during an election cycle.
(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/super-pacs-2012-election-outside-money_n_2087040.html
(2) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
(3) http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/
I believe that there should not be a limit on how much an individual can give to a candidate. In my understanding, I believe that this is protected under the first amendment because it protects the peoples rights. Citizens of the U.S should be able to spend their money how they want. Also, PACs were originally created as a way around the $2500 contribution limit in presidential elections (1). If the limit were to be uplifted, there would be no point for PACs and they would fall. I think super PACs do have a lot of power, but they aren’t becoming too powerful. Although Super PACs have a large impact on the elections, they cannot directly give any money to the candidate and this does restrict them (2). Also, candidates cannot coordinate with Super PACs. (2) Super PACs fund political speech and are protected under the first amendment. There is evidence from the 2010 election that Super PACs have less of an influence than we thought! A report found that in 2010, candidates and parties, not Super PACs, paid for 85% of all ads run for senate and house races (2) Therefore, the super PACs had some influence, but not a ton. Money spent in/ on federal elections concerns me, but only a little bit. The fact that money spent on federal elections has been increasing over the years concerns me a little. The amount of money spent on the presidential race in 2012 has almost doubled since 2000 (3). This doesn’t concern me a little because this is a ton of money, but at the same time I understand that money plays a huge role in elections and elections have significant importance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ledewitz/time-to-repeal-campaign-c_b_2099475.html
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics/super-pacs-engage-in-more-positive-than-negative-messaging-2
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/campaign-finance/
I agree completely with Ivy Benson's post. The power distribution in elections is greatly affected by how much money a certain person can contribute to campaigns and interest groups, and this inequality has a huge impact on policymaking and campaign angles and therefore needs to be addressed. Every citizen should have an equal voice in campaigns just as every citizen should have one and only one vote, and the fact that monetary donations have such a strong effect on agenda-setting is a serious issue in terms of the distribution of citizens' influence on campaigns and elections. Ivy mentioned the overwhelming representation of big businesses and the wealthy; this skewed representation means that not only can those powerful few make policy changes through advertisements and interest group donations, they can influence policy-making decisions both before they donate to a candidate (because the candidate knows that they have the most to give) and afterwards (because the candidate now needs to please the person who has given them so much money). The wealthy already have a loud voice simply because they make up the majority of politicians; they do not need any more of an advantage over the average citizen. One of the major points of contention over the past few years has been whether or not corporations deserve the same rights as citizens. While this is a deep-rooted and important issue to discuss, an issue of perhaps even greater importance is how to make sure that everyone has equal access to making their opinions heard and responded to, regardless of whether or not they are representing those opinions as individuals or as corporations. Small businesses have had a very difficult time making their interests heard, even as the government trips over itself to assist large corporations. While this particular focus does have economic relevance in terms of the potential for complete collapse should any vital corporations fail, the level of interest rises even beyond that to a point where it occurs at the cost of the interests of individual citizens and smaller businesses. Campaign spending in itself is a major problem, which Ivy mentions in her post and connects to the Citizens United v. FEC court case; the role of super PACs (and outside money in general) in creating advertisement, petitioning the government, and influencing policy decisions through campaign donations is getting to a point at which it becomes ridiculous in many ways. My favorite part of Ivy's post is her reference to checks and balances within the government. Just as interest groups and their political action committees cannot donate without limit, neither should individual citizens: the power of the wealthy needs to be checked and equalized so that everyone can have a voice.
1. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/campaign-ads-1-million-2012-election_n_2065715.html
3. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20131009/OPINION/131009775/-small-business-cant-stomach-super-sized-donor-influence
4. http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2012/05/15/why_are_all_the_leftist_politicians_who_hate_the_richso_filthy_rich/
In response to Sam G: as Americans, we must remember the supreme law of the land and the Bill of Rights within. While campaign donation limits would certainly help to curb the ridiculous amount of money being spent on modern day campaigns, it would violate the rights established in the first amendment (1). The figures listed in the various articles referenced by Sam, and those who share his view, are certainly valid but that is no reason to go against the ideals of America. I am not saying that the money cannot be put to better uses, but as a democracy with an established system of laws we cannot nitpick which luxuries we enjoy (1). In regards to the disproportion of representation, there is no denying money plays a large role in campaigns today, however votes are equal on election day. A billionaire who contributed 54 million to a campaign is counted as one vote just as is the person who lives off minimum wage. Ultimately while limits may benefit society, they go against the Constitution so the only way to control spending is instilling some good ole common sense (and maybe hope natural selection takes care of the people throwing so much money away).
1. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/08/politics/supreme-court-donor-limits/index.html?iref=allsearch
McCutcheon v. FEC is a supreme court case in which campaign finance restrictions could possibly be removed, paving the way for wealthy donors to contribute more money to elections, as much as $3.6 million if distributed across various candidates (1). I personally am a huge advocate for lessening government intervention in anything, but here I have to say that I believe a certain limit should be placed on the amount that an individual can pay, because, as stated by an article in the Huffington Post (3), allowing an individual to contribute millions of dollars to a candidate could and likely would result in political corruption, due to the fact that the recipient of the million dollars would feel obligated to help the person who financed their campaign. A limit on spending would prevent further corruption. I don’t believe that a limit on spending would inhibit free speech, as long as it wasn’t an excessive limit. Most people don’t have the resources to donate $50000 to an election, so limiting contributions wouldn’t inhibit free speech as much as is suggested in Source 2. Super PACS, I believe, are a good example for why we shouldn’t even be bothering with campaign finance reform in the first; people will find a way around it. We placed limits on individual contributions, so people just formed groups and contributed to the party as a whole to support their candidate. I do not, however, believe that super PACS have become too powerful, as they don’t necessarily lead to the level of corruption that one single person could cause by donating a large sum of money. Over- all, I don’t see money in federal elections as having a very large effect on me; I think that no matter what laws are placed people will find a way around them, and continue to donate what they want, making this laws irrelevant, and ineffective.
1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/08/politics/supreme-court-donor-limits/index.html?iref=allsearch
2) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/09/mccutcheon-v-fec-big-money-fights-back-at-the-supreme-court.html
3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/supreme-court-mulls-axing_b_4066442.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don't think there should be any limits on how much an individual should be able to donate to campaigns and candidates. I believe that citizens should be able to use their finances as a form of free speech. The first amendment guarantees all people the right to speak freely in the nation, and I believe that when an individual donates money to a campaign, he or she is saying that they agree with the candidates positions, and wants that candidate to be elected. The ACLU, a group that works hard to protect the rights of the citizens, supports the ability of donating money to candidates (1). Also, the PACS don't always only support the wealthy like many nay-sayers claim. Often times, the Super PACS and PACS are made to support the well being of everyone (2). Super PACS are great for giving a viewpoint of what the American people are hoping for, but it does not always decide which candidates are elected. The Super PACS can spend all the money they want, but the election is still decided by the common voter. In 2012, more money was donated to the republican party by super PACS (3), but the election was won by Barack Obama, a democrat quite heavily. Super PACS are good for the governmental system, and putting restrictions on it would only hurt their process.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/campaign-finance-reform
http://www.law.columbia.edu/magazine/621141
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/terri-lynn-land-super-pac_n_3982274.html
Frankly I do not believe that there should be a limit on how much an individual can give a candidate. Although money makes a difference, in the end the decision on who should win the election should be made on the fact of which candidate had the best solutions to the issue, not which candidate had the best looking poster. This right is also protected under the first amendment which protects people rights. Also if the limit were to be lifted then PACs will no longer have to be a thing. PACs basically take the place of individuals who donate. Also if you think about it even if individuals can only give a certain amount to a candidate they probably will end up giving the money they were going to give the candidate to the PACs. Either way, the candidate is still getting the money. Therefore this limit is not effective. Also even if PACs were to fall that would be fine because super PACs still exists. Super PACs will never become too powerful because they themselves cannot directly give money to the candidates. It has also been stated that in the 2012 elections, the Republican party got more money than the Democratic party but in the end, the Democratic party still ended up winning. Which perfectly proves my case that the amount of money a candidate has is simply not a good enough reason to why they should win or they won.
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ledewitz/time-to-repeal-campaign-c_b_2099475.html
2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/terri-lynn-land-super-pac_n_3982274.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home