Post 3: Due 10/9
This week we're covering the world of campaign finance. Since the Citizens United v. FEC decision this issue has become a hot button issue for some.
Read this article on the proposals some candidates have offered on campaign finance and do some independent research on campaign finance. Then answer the prompt below:
What do you think of the current rules on campaign financing in national elections? Should they be changed? If so how? If not, why?
Please post by class on Friday, October 9th.
This article: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow
Info about the 2016 Presidential election & the money the candidates have raised so far:
Labels: campaign finance, PAC, presidential campaign, super pac
posted by Ms. Aby @ 7:46 PM
20 Comments:
Many people argue about whether changes throughout the years to campaign financing have made our system less democratic and reduced the influence of money. I think that our current campaign finance regulation system has some flaws, one of them being that our current system tends to always favor incumbents.
Although limiting large money donations can make candidates rely more on small contributors, these limits could be viewed by “undemocratic” by some if by a democratic society we mean an equal “political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections” (Hilla). The part of campaign finance which seems to be the most undemocratic is the fact that spending limitations hurt competitors of incumbents rather than the incumbents themselves. Incumbents start in each election with a fairly large advantage over their challengers, including "Name recognition; national attention, fundraising and campaign bases; control over the instruments of government; successful campaign experience; a presumption of success; and voters' inertia and risk-aversion." (NPR). To offset the many advantages that incumbents have, competitors in the race must spend extra money. With limits on contributions, the competitors of the incumbents don’t have enough time to raise enough money from their small group of followers, while incumbents can easily raise cash from many small contributors since they have a already have a campaign organization and funds raised by PACS. One thing of our current campaign finance system which I like, however, is the fact that federal campaign finance laws require “Public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence federal elections” (FEC), this way we know where the money is going towards.
https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm (Hilla)
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml (FEC)
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/06/11/154745966/why-its-good-to-be-the-incumbent (NPR)
The ongoing debate over how money should be raised to fund campaigns is hotly contested and debated, with many left without the ability to voice their concerns because of a lack of money. In the years following the US Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, a small group of elites as well as super pacs have found a new way to influence politics through funding certain candidate’s campaigns for the presidency and for other governmental positions. I find the lack of transparency and the unlimited spending power of super pacs, as well as a small group of elites like the Koch brothers, who are giving millions of dollars to support the candidates that they want to see in office. Charles Koch has stated that he and his brother will spend “$900 million to influence US policy” and “$300 million channeled directly into the race for the White House” (1). While super pacs have to legally “avoid certain forms of coordination with candidates,” the ads that they run are generally of a negative nature, often attacking an opposing candidate (2). While these ads can inform voters and spur them into action, often times they have too great an influence on politics in the United States.
The best way to counteract the over 1,000 independent expenditure-only groups (3) would be to pass laws that require super pacs and candidates to report on where the money is coming from. By having transparent candidates, we are able to see where their interests truly lie. Forbes reports that it is very likely that today’s billionaire donor is likely to give money to candidates that they favor in “ways that cannot be tracked” (1). In order to address the issue of money in politics, it is essential that we require transparency laws for both super pacs and for the candidates themselves. If the American public is able to see who is buying candidates and which super pacs are funded by groups of people with their own agendas, then it is more likely that our election campaigns will be able to function in a way that is more democratic and inclusive to a greater majority of americans.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/10/02/the-koch-brothers-paradox-dark-money-superpacs-and-the-forbes-400/ (1)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/opinion/hasen-super-pacs/ (2)
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/ieoc_alpha.shtml (3)
There are many laws and regulations which specify different types of funding and donations, and restrictions put on them. Although these laws seem to be a good idea, they are not very effective, as there are many ways to get around them. One of these such loopholes is 527 and 501c groups, which can donate their time and money to help out candidates they are in agreement with. With upwards of seven billion dollars being spent on campaigning in the 2012 presidential election, something must be done (1). One thing that could be done to prevent some of these loopholes and bring down the presidential election spending amount down by a lot is creating an amendment (2). By creating an amendment, the candidates could be limited on how much they spend individually so that all candidates have a fair chance at the election. Not only is the election being run by the most rich (ergo most able to be heard via commercials and websites), but it is nearly impossible for any third party member to gain nearly enough money to even make an impact in the race which is centered around the Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, creating a system where all party members are required to stop spending and accepting funds when they reach a certain amount, would benefit the third party candidates as well as many average candidates.
The average candidates would benefit from a campaign spending ceiling because they could then “compete with the big dogs”, and get (hopefully) more media attention than they do currently because the richer candidates cannot outspend them. During the presidential race of 2012, the average amount of money spent between both political parties was $1 billion for just one campaign! That is a ridiculous amount of money for a one year long campaign, and the spending limit must be lowered (3). I suggest that limit be set at $500 million per candidate, that way, even though it is still a lot of money, it is limited. If we were to pass an amendment or law that slowly changed the spending ceiling from unlimited to $500 million over a span of 3 elections, I think it would go well. The only problem with this “new law/amendment” is that the Supreme Court currently sides with corporations on the premises that they have a right to free speech, and should not be limited (in most ways!). So, the only way to get past this roadblock is to have the Supreme Court overrule themselves, and change the way they interpret the constitution, or to create a new law which deals with the limits on spending (3). Either way, something has to be done, otherwise this country will be overrun by the many rich politicians, and have no more “average Joes” or third party candidates to offer us.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/28/434708855/charts-2016-presidential-campaign-finance-fundraising (1)
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-supreme-court-uphold-personal-limits-on-campaign-contributions (2)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance (3)
The impact that money spent on a campaign can have in an election can not be understated. On average, congressmen who win their election outspend their competition (Cnfinst). Even if large donors don't explicitly extort the politicians they fund, if the politician believes that money is the difference between reelection or early retirement they will tailor their voting to better suit their sponsors. One might question why congress has failed to enact any effective gun control policies despite a large majority of americans supporting some form of reform. The answer might lie in the $650,000 spent on congress by the NRA in 2012. Not to mention the millions they spend in defaming politicians who disagree with their beliefs on the issue (Washington Post). The fact is that in Washington money talks, and those with more money talk much louder than those with less. Allowing unlimited contributions to political campaigns encourages politicians to value to opinions of the elite and business class more than the people who actually make up their constituency.
Although it seems that loopholes and savvy money moving will forever prevent completely effective limitations on massive campaign spending by individual entities, the issue could be more easily curved without judicial support for elitist system. Classifying campaign spending by corporations and union as free speech of an individual is simply ridiculous. No actual person can come even close to financing campaigns as effectively as corporations simply because corporations and unions have so much more money. Even the richest citizens like Bill Gates’ annual income is a fraction of the operating income of 27 billion dollars his own company Microsoft rakes in per year (Microsoft). The candidate who is elected to office serve a considerable chance of appointing new Supreme justices. A more liberal court would handedly overturn Citizens United, an important first step in rectifying the issue. From there, many paths for further reform are available. From ceilings on Super PACs to stronger transparency laws. Reform is simply necessary to bring influence to all, not just those with the thickest wallets.
http://cfinst.org/congress/pdf/Table4_PostElec.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/
http://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar14/index.html
In theory, the rules of the Federal Election Commission and the FECA are a good idea. They were put in place in the 1970s to keep control over campaign financing and to make sure that campaigns and their funding stayed democratic. With this in mind, it seems like campaign funding in the modern day has become focused on corporations and the superPACs that go along with them (3). Modern day campaign financing has become a system where candidates receive money from large corporations who are able to give more money than the average American. These corporations want something to be passed in the government, and the more money they give, the more a candidate will do what they want. This shows how flawed the system is and how undemocratic it has become, in a sense. The candidates with more corporate funding generally go farther in the race because they have more to spend on advertisements and other campaign elements that cause them to be better known throughout the country. There will always be frontrunners in elections, but they become even more apparent through all the funding that is available to them. Independent and lesser known candidates have a more difficult time having their voice heard because most of their campaigning is through grassroot funds (1). They do not have the chance to raise hundreds of millions of dollars because they do not have the corporations and superPACS reaching out to them and giving them money.
`A spending ceiling or a budget on how much is allowed to be spent on campaigns would be most practical in this situation. There will always be some sort of loophole that groups will find, but this is most effective in leveling out the playing field. Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson, whose donations are mostly in increments of less than $200, and those like Ted Cruz, where the majority of his donations are over $1 million (2). A spending ceiling would make races even tighter than before. There is a direct correlation between money raised in a campaign and who wins, and with a maximum amount it would be much easier for the smaller voices to be heard.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow (1)
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/28/434708855/charts-2016-presidential-campaign-finance-fundraising (2)
http://www.cleanupwashington.org/cfr/ (3)
Financing and fundraising a presidential campaign is an arduous task that requires the aid of a lot of money. However, the race for money has extended so far that that is one of the only things candidates worry about. Getting money is a major race: Jeb Bush has already received $100 million from one of his super-PACS, which is “the GDP of a small nation” (Sullivan). Super-PACS have been allowed to come to power in light of the decision in Citizens United in 2010, and these groups have overtaken politics, now that they are allowed to run rampant and use unlimited money and ad production. I believe the rules on campaign finance are not representative of the public and are causing different issues in the campaign. These rules should be changed to be more restrictive of expenditures.
Some of the largest issues of this Presidential race lie in super-PACS that came to power as a result of Citizens United. Super-PACS are “fundraising entities with no limits on what they can spend to elect or defeat candidates,” meaning they can use all the money that they need to change the fate of a presidential candidate (Sullivan). If a super-PAC supports a candidate, then it’s aim is to use money to coax policies for candidates to use, This defeats the democratic process of letting the common people decide policies, instead of policy in the hands of a few who have all of the money. The implications of super-PACS buying candidate policies is one of the reasons that Trump is popular with people-- he has so much money that he can fund his own campaign without the help of certain groups (The Sentinel). However, very few candidates can fund their own campaign, and most need a lot of money to succeed in that, which is why they rely on super-PACs for support. This leads to another problem: candidates are so eager for money that will be put towards reelection that they spend more time fundraising for the next election than they do implementing policy in their job. A congressperson spends an average of 3 out of 5 workdays amassing funds for the next campaign, making them seem like they only care about staying in the position that they are in (RootStrike). There are solutions to the rules of campaign finance that have created these problems and others, however.
There are a few solutions to the problems of finance reform, and some are more feasible than others. The largest and most obvious is to overturn Citizens United, which is what Hillary Clinton is proposing to do (Mann). However, she plans to do this via a Constitutional amendment, which is a long and tedious process, and the system needs to be fixed now (Sullivan). Clinton has also stated that if she became President, she would input Supreme Court justices that would have a majority rule to overturn Citizens United (Mann). Another quick solution that is being voted on in California as legislation for the 2016 election is the Voters’ Right to Know Act, which would “make it harder for big campaign donors to remain anonymous and easier for the public to see who's giving what to whom” (The Sentinel). Big businesses would have to document when they pledged more than a certain amount of money, which is the wanted result, as right now many large donations pass right out of the public eye. The other option would be a spending ceiling, which would be quick, but might not withstand the test of time and multiple court cases. Our campaign finance system is not perfect, but with an alteration or a new decision, the reform system can take steps in the right direction.
http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/opinion/todays_opinions/answer-is-to-fix-campaign-finance-laws/article_344f86f7-7ae4-563e-aa39-d2a9ae17cb1a.html (The Sentinel)
http://www.vogue.com/13358174/szelena-gray-super-pac-mayday-coo/ (Sullivan)
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/09/08-clinton-campaign-finance-reform-mann (Mann)
http://rootstrike.com/1 (RootStrike)
I believe that we need to reform our campaign system, the system is broken. The only way that we can be saved is through the radical reconstruction of the entire way in which we campaign. I believe that a campaign spending ceiling should be instituted. As well as making public financing that provides funds above the spending ceiling. Along with this increased amount of funds, candidates would be forced to limit the length of their campaign to only six months. At the three month mark, the party conventions would take place. With this system I believe that our country can finally move beyond the issues that have been plaguing our campaign system, and focus on the issues that actually matter to our country. I believe that the time has come for the campaign system to be fixed. Ben Carson agrees, he has been focusing on raising money from the individuals in the U.S. instead of PACs and superPACs. Almost 100% of his campaign funds are solely from individual donations (Open Secrets). If all candidates were like Ben Carson these radical changes in our government would not be necessary. But, our country needs action, and I believe that my idea can solve the problem our country faces.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00036973
I think our political system is fundamentally broken. Ever since the Pendleton act, which ended the spoils system, industry has gained an increasing tight grip on the US government. One of the chief ways businesses are able to achieve this control is through funding campaigns of those politicians who support policies that would benefit them. Our current, post Citizens United, system fails at representing the will of the people. For example, 85% of Americans believe that our campaign finance system needs to either be completely rebuilt or subject to major changes [1]. Only 13% believe minor changes are adequate. Despite this overwhelming consensus on the issues only one major reform bill has been voted on in congress within the past 10 years, a bill which would limit the amount of money foreign governments and government contractors could give to candidates, and it didn’t pass [2]. This is a perfect example of how our government does not represent the will of the governed, rather it represents the rights of the ultra rich and protects their profits. So clearly, a problem exists and needs to be addressed. However, what the solution should be is less clear. The issue of corruption goes beyond campaign finance. Things such as insider trading exemptions for members of Congress, lucrative lobbying positions post public office, and industry penetration into the bureaucracy all contribute to this issue [3]. I personally believe that our government needs to solve many problems with our political system, not just campaign finance. Minor changes to the language of laws won’t solve this issue we’re facing; we need a major overhaul of our political system.
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/politics/poll-shows-americans-favor-overhaul-of-campaign-financing.html?_r=0
[2]https://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr5175-111/show
[3]http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2011/06/01/insider-trading-rules-that-dont-apply-to-congress/
Similar to many other aspects of our government, the current system of campaign finance has many flaws. It is clear that the amount of money spent on campaigning has a positive correlation with chance of being elected into office, which makes campaign financing a necessity, but there are issues with how this takes place. Republicans and Democrats alike “fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling” (New York Times). Because SuperPACS have “the same rights as people to spend money in elections” (Demos), candidates have become more focused on the desires of those groups rather than the people they are running to represent. In addition, because SuperPACS are more likely to support someone who already holds office compared to a new face, “incumbents almost always have a fundraising advantage” (Brennan). The campaign finance system is corrupted in this way because it is much harder for an outsider to win an election, largely due to the fact that they begin the race with a monetary disadvantage.
The best way to deal with the issue of campaign finance is to put a ceiling on campaign spending and on SuperPACs. The FECA and FEC were competent in theory; as we can see, however, they alone have not fully been able to control the problem because there are ways to get around it. There is a complication with this, though. In order to make stricter laws, Congress would actually have to agree on those, which probably will not happen to the necessary extent anytime soon. Perhaps a better solution would be a more liberal Supreme Court overturning the decision made in the Citizens United ruling. Again, that probably would not be completed in a timely fashion, however. Regardless of how it happens, the campaign finance system needs to be revised soon, with more limitations and restrictions set on the money allowance. That is the only way through which the common man will regain his influence in politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/politics/poll-shows-americans-favor-overhaul-of-campaign-financing.html?_r=0 (New York Times)
http://www.demos.org/publication/10-ways-citizens-united-endangers-democracy (Demos)
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/super-pacs-gobbling-democracy (Brennan)
Money plays a substantial role in politics and is vital to a politician’s public exposure and influence in their campaign. While it is important and ultimately unavoidable that campaigns receive funding so that politicians are able advertise and express their views to the public, It should be limited. Almost anyone could be elected if they have enough financial support. Democracy isn’t about who has more money, rather it should be about who has better ideas or are a better representative of the people. Thus PACs and super PACs who are given an unlimited amount of financial support to parties or candidates have an unproportional amount of influence [1]. If a ceiling was put on these there would be much less money being funneled into politicians which would force them to be more genuine politicians rather than just relying on the money and advertisements from PACs and super PACs. Another solution to the problem of a flawed campaign finance system would be to overturn the Citizens United vs FEC. This case let Corporations and Unions spend huge sums of money on political advertisements and gave corporations the same rights as individuals. [2] It is sort of ridiculous to view entire corporations as the same as individuals.
[1]http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics
[2]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/(Schiff)
There’s a rare thing occurring in Politics: Republicans and Democrats are beginning to share similar opinions on an issue. Both parties can agree that campaign financing has gotten out of control, but the problem is how. The Citizens United decision has opened up the superPAC epidemic, and I stand with Hilary Clinton’s suggestion for campaign finance reform. Although her plan is one that would not be quickly given power, it would be long-lasting and ultimately effective. Clinton is right, the only way to overturn the decision of Citizens United is for the next President to appoint judges who he/she deem willing to repeal that decision. However, for this plan to be enacted, one of the Democratic nominees (in her viewpoint, ideally herself) would have to be elected. If all of this came into place, the elected President would set up a lifetime of a strict Supreme Court on the issue of campaign finance.
I, personally, strongly agree with her phase two of her campaign finance reform plan. I believe the best way to restrict superPACs and other corporate mechanisms from funding politics is with a Constitutional Amendment. Again, this is an extremely time-consuming and difficult process. The Congressional body right now is polarized to the point where differences in opinion results in entire shut-downs of the federal government. I believe that soon both parties will be so closely tied in the opinion to restrict corporate funding power that Congressional representatives will have to listen to their constituents. Will an Amendment to the constitution be enough to stop the corporate hounding of loop-holes? I hope that clear wording and adjusting for inflation will be enough to make the political grounds democratic again.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-announces-campaign-finance-reform-plan.html?_r=0
Because campaigning for important political positions, such as that of the president or member of Congress, relies heavily on money at an increasing rate every election, the influence of donors has become disproportionate. That makes the political campaigning system in America flawed because corporations, unions, and people with lots of money are able to exert influence over a candidate's stances on issues and practically buy the election. Firstly, I think that Citizens United v. FEC should be overturned because PACs and corporations should not be allowed to spend any money as an entire entity related to a political campaign. Individual members of a corporation or union can donate their own personal money to a campaign, but groups like super PACs these days have so much control over a candidate, just because they’re reliant on the money they receive from PACS and corporations. Candidates begin to tailor their policies to the rich instead of all of the American people, thus making our political system less democratic and representative of the people's’ opinions.
I’d like to see an amendment made to the Constitution that bans super PACS and campaign contributions from corporations, and limits personal spending in a campaign. While passing an amendment to the Constitution has always been a prolonged and tedious process, I think it’s relatively feasible to get this one passed. First of all, the Senate has already voted on a proposal to amend the Constitution that would establish fundraising and spending rules before, and while they did not obtain a 2/3 majority, they weren’t too far off with 54 votes (Nichols). To address ratification, I think public opinion on the issue would help get it ratified; 69% of voters believe that PACs should be illegal, and 52% of voters say they feel that way strongly (Cillizza & Blake).
Small donor contributions, however, should continue to be allowed with the limitation they already have. It’s a way for people to express their opinions and participate politically, when they are able to help out their preferred candidate. PACs are making candidates running for office seek more and more money because their opponents will have more and more money, so if they aren’t stopped, campaign finance will get out of control and democracy will become nothing but an illusion. In 2008 and 2012, President Barack Obama relied almost solely on individual contributions, proving that PACs and corporations aren’t needed to run a successful campaign (OpenSecrets).
Sources:
http://www.thenation.com/article/senate-tried-overturn-citizens-united-today-guess-what-stopped-them/ (Nichols)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/poll-voters-want-super-pacs-to-be-illegal/2012/03/12/gIQA6skT8R_blog.html (Cillizza & Blake)
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 (OpenSecrets)
I believe that there needs to be some kind of reform when it comes to campaign finance. Campaigning has become less about the person and their policies and more about how much money they can raise. The current rules have made it too easy for corporations to buy candidates a seat in office. Candidates then tend to pass laws to benefit their big contributors which tend to be large corporations. This makes the need of corporations more pressing than those of the average person. I like the idea of what Hillary said. I’m not sure to what degree it would actually work but I like the thought. If we could overturn the “corporations equal people” ruling, we would be able to put restrictions on how much they could contribute. I’m not sure how it would work but I have thought that if we could give every candidate a flat and equal campaign fund. This way, money would not be the focus of every candidate. They could spend the money how ever they want but everyone would be equal.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow
After many years of things being done the same way, campaign finance has come to forefront as an issue in recent presidential elections. I believe that the current rules on campaign financing are no longer effective, and something must be done to fix them. As is to be expected the price of any given item has increased over the past few decades due to inflation. However, while the average household income has increased by 128 percent since 1984, the rate of campaign spending has risen by over 550 percent (Time). This is a ridiculous increase in spending, and while it can be explained by the increase in spending on TV ads and campaign travel, it has changed the face of politics. While there have been massive increases in spending, there have been very few increases in regulations on campaign finance. I think that this is clear evidence that reforms must be made, and soon.
While tackling the issue of campaign finance is a daunting one, I believe that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have developed comprehensive plans that tackle different aspects of the issue. Clinton wants to overturn Citizens United and Sanders has sponsored a proposed amendment that would undo the decision (MPR). Clinton has also called for “an SEC rule to require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending to shareholders and requiring all federal government contractors to disclose all political spending.” I believe that if these propositions were able to make it through the House and Senate they would help to regulate the ridiculously high campaign spending that has taken hold of the political world for the past couple decades.
(Time) http://time.com/3534117/the-incredible-rise-in-campaign-spending/
(MPR) http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow
One issue in particular looms over the decisions of politicians across the nation, campaign financing. This topic has historically been split along party lines since the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. The strong stances presidential candidates have taken on this issue, such as Bernie Sanders’s refusal to accept any money from Super PACs, highlights the public’s frustration with the current system. Not to mention that the most popular candidate in the republican pool, Donald Trump, plans to self fund his entire campaign and mocks his competition for scrambling for donations from wealthy donors. Even Clinton and O’Malley are jumping onto the campaign finance reform train. Clinton promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who would vote in favor of overturning the Citizens United decision. Which she is receiving sharp criticism for considering her hypocrisy during her current presidential campaign and previous one. Her support of reforming the system is unsurprising considering the overwhelming amount of the general public that wants reform (Confessore & Thee-Brenan).
While campaign finance is not one of the most important issues on the campaign trail, it will continue to affect American politics until there’s some type of reform because of the dominating presence money had before the decision and in the 5 years since. Despite the fact that any action is unlikely to happen until after the 2016 election, the most practical option is a spending ceiling through legislative action. A constitutional amendment would hold, but would take years to pass and might not garner enough support. An overruling of Citizens United is unlikely with no current change in the Supreme Court justices and is vulnerable to an overruling at a later date. In most other countries party’s are incredibly strict with how their members vote and ban candidates from having any television ads or allot them television time at no cost (Waldman). In turn, they don’t have limits on spending or donations, but most don’t consider it worth donating absurd sums of money to political campaigns for these reasons. However, a ban on television ads seems impractical given that in the 2012 presidential election the Obama and Romney campaigns spent nearly one billion dollars on them (Mad Money). The United Kingdom’s parliamentary election kicks off just over a month before the election whereas the campaign for member of the US House of Representatives seems endless because of their two year terms (Parlapiano & Buchanan). As most Americans agree, this reform should happen as soon as possible to stem the amount of influence corporations have in politics and prevent it from affecting yet another campaign; including one as important as the President of the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/politics/poll-shows-americans-favor-overhaul-of-campaign-financing.html?_r=0 (Confessore & Thee-Brenan)
http://prospect.org/article/how-our-campaign-finance-system-compares-other-countries (Waldman)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/upshot/how-presidential-campaigns-became-two-year-marathons.html (Parlapiano & Buchanan)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/ (Mad Money)
Advertisements cost money, plane tickets cost money, staffers cost money, every part of a campaign costs money. Whether we like it or not, campaign financing of some sort will be present in every campaign. Our current rules on campaign finance allow corporations and unions to donate unlimited amounts of money to super-PACs thanks to the 2010 decision of Citizens United v. FEC (3). These super-PACs are often only interested in fiscally supporting a candidate to influence their policy making decisions. I think that this is an issue. And I think that it should be changed.
As of this writing, PACs and super-PACs supporting Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush have raised a staggering $108.5 million (2). As a voting citizen seeing how much money has been raised for this candidate, I get the feeling that these groups would control the policies Bush works for, and that Bush would be pushing an agenda based off of his donors, and not the United States public. I think that the campaign finance system needs an overhaul, with new rules and regulations. To do this, I support Hillary Clinton’s idea.
If elected, Clinton wants to overturn the Citizens United case decision by appointing Supreme Court justices who oppose the ruling (1). By overturning Citizens United, corporations and unions would not be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to PACs and super-PACs. Also, Clinton would propose a constitutional amendment that would “limit the outsize influence of wealthy donors and special interests” (1). Constitutional amendments are a long and hard process, and it would take a lot to push this one through. But, if it does go through, campaign finance would forever be changed for the better.
Sources:
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow (1)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0 (2)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205 (3)
In the recent national elections, money has been playing a major role, way more than it should be playing. Money is the main focus for many candidates, instead of more important issues, such as our environment, or the current immigration policy. Candidates are placing their attention on the needs of the corporations who help fund their campaigns, rather than on the citizens of America, who will be the ones voting for them. Ever since the Buckley V. Valeo decision of 1976, the interpretation of the first amendment has been that freedom of speech also equals the freedom of spending money (Amendment Gazette). Although these decisions were made for protecting people’s rights and freedoms, they have ended up making campaigns all about the money. Candidates with more money and corporations supporting them, are more likely to win. SuperPACS are currently allowed donations of unlimited size, meaning there is no limit to how much a candidate can receive from them (NPR). There should be a change on how campaigns are financed in our national elections, and the first should be with a price ceiling made on campaign financing. However, I do not know how exactly America would go about this. By talking in class, I think that congress would have to make a law that would cover campaign financing, or propose an amendment.
Throughout the past months, I have really disliked Trump and his stance on most issue. However, one thing that I do agree with is that he believes that the campaign finance system should be reformed (MPR News). Also, Trump is relying on his own funds to get him through the campaign process, showing that he has no obligation to corporations, which most other candidates do (NPR). Although I do not agree with Sanders on some issues, I do agree with what his plan is for campaign finance reform. Sanders said that he would want a constitutional amendment that would reverse what was decided in Citizens United V. FEC, wants co-sponsored legislation that would increase transparency, and supports public funding of campaigns (MPR News). If all these are possible, or would actually work, I am not sure of, but I like that Sanders is showing that he is tired of the way campaign funding is run. I think that there for sure needs to be a change on our current system so that the main focus for the future elections will be on the citizens needs.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow (MPR News)
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/28/434708855/charts-2016-presidential-campaign-finance-fundraising (NPR)
http://www.amendmentgazette.com/how-spending-money-became-a-form-of-speech/ (Amendment Gazette)
In my opinion, the current campaign finance system we have is definitely flawed, although it is unrealistic to expect our country to come up with and regulate laws for a perfect system, that will completely eliminate loopholes and political corruption in the system, there is a lot that needs to be changed before we can believe in our campaign finance system and Americans can be assured that candidates are running and campaigning with the right intentions and not being paid to say or do things. Campaign finance is something that has been getting increased attention, especially with the 2016 presidential election coming up “the leading issue concerning voters in the upcoming presidential election, according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, is that “wealthy individuals and corporations will have too much influence over who wins.”” (1) In California, a group of reformers are trying to put an initiative on the November 2016 ballot to improve the system, “the "Voters' Right to Know Act" proposes to make it harder for big campaign donors to remain anonymous and easier for the public to see who's giving what to whom” (2) Another thing they are working towards is banning and/or putting a limit on the amount of gifts lobbyist can give government officials, which is in my opinion a clear form of political corruption that should not be allowed. Since Super PACs were created 2010, most politicians have become increasingly dependent on them for financial support. However presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, has “relied on more than 400,000 donors whose average contribution to him is $31.”(3) Sanders is also the candidate that has the most contributions of two hundred dollars or less, in either party (3), which shows his popularity among the general public. In order to keep corporations and wealthy individuals from ruling our political system, there is a change that needs to happen to fix our system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/opinion/the-only-realistic-way-to-fix-campaign-finance.html?_r=0
http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/opinion/todays_opinions/answer-is-to-fix-campaign-finance-laws/article_344f86f7-7ae4-563e-aa39-d2a9ae17cb1a.html
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-slams-corrupt-campaign-finance-system/
This comment has been removed by the author.
I personally agree with the ruling in the Citizens United case. in the stance that money should be viewed as speech, but am disappointed in the increase of campaign financing for elections. In national elections everyone should have the chance to run not just people of wealth. In the major parties, Republican and Democrat, the people with money to finance their own campaigns are seen as the front runners like Trump and Clinton. Since super pacs have less restrictions the ceiling is raised and more money is spent solely on the campaigns.
Yes I agree that the money should be viewed as speech and people are allowed to spend it freely even supporting campaigns but there should, I believe, be a monitored amount allowed for each candidate which is within reach of the other candidates to keep it completely legal. For instance the pac money Hillary Clinton received from New york alone was 10 million dollars and 13 million in California (FEC) while in comparison other candidates received not nearly as much. Overall Clinton has raised 39 million dollars for her campaign (NY times) It is this gap that relays the sense of an elite government at work. That is understandable but within today’s america where the elite theory is chastised a equality factor needs to be emplaced to make the government seem fair and that the president could truly be anyone not just a rich businessman [*cough cough* trump].
Although I believe that money is free speech and a limit should be placed on campaign fundraising the actuality of that happening is slim and leaves me with the disappointment that the election has become so much more than the a run for president leaving the most able and leadership worthy person standing but one involving a need for money and a sell-out vote where the basis of a campaign surrounds around privitized funding not for the issues that are actually important. I hope that once a ceiling is emplaced the elections will be open once again to the fighting ideals that started them.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0 (NY times)
http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do (FEC)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home