Respond to someone from Post 3
This week your task is to respond to a classmate from post 2. You can pick someone you AGREE with or you DISAGREE with. Either way you need to use at least one new piece of evidence to support or attack their argument. You should write a minimum of a paragraph adding to their argument or taking it a part. It could be helpful for you when trying to understand their argument to read the sources they used. I look forward to reading your posts.
Your post is due by midnight on Friday, October 23rd.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 1:06 PM
18 Comments:
I agree with Tera that in order to address the issue of the Citizens United decision, super PACS and campaign finance as a whole that we need multiple steps to ensure that the issue is truly being solved. Like Tera, I think Hillary Clinton’s proposals for dealing with campaign financing reform are well thought out and have merit to them, though they would be dependent on several factors. Clinton’s first proposal is to overturn Citizens United is dependent on at least one Supreme Court justice retiring during her tenure as the president (1). A few justices who have been on the court for a number of years such as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia are more likely to leave the court relatively soon due to age, opening up the opportunity to appoint a judge who would be more likely to overturn the decision of Citizens United (2). However, if a Republican candidate won the election and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to retire in addition to Justices Thomas and Scalia, it would be many years until the Supreme Court would be able to be changed from conservative to liberal stances on issues.
In addition, Clinton’s plan for pushing legislation or issuing an executive order should Congress be too polarized to make a decision is a very good plan as Clinton is thinking ahead and planning for multiple outcomes. If a Constitutional amendment were to be posed, the wording would have to be concrete and unambiguous, thereby closing up potential loopholes that would enable for more unaccountable money to enter politics. While both of these options would be good for campaign reform, I anticipate Clinton would have trouble with Congress due to her scandals and the Tea Party’s continued animosity towards her. In an ideal world, the issue of campaign finance should drive both Democrats and Republicans to work together, but rivalry and polarization may prove this to be too difficult.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/ (1)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx (2)
Campaign finance is an issue that seriously needs to be reformed in America today; with the rise of super-PACs and various forms of unlimited spending, the election has turned into a contest on who can get the most money. It does not matter as much how the money come, either: currently, Ted Cruz has raised 50.9 million dollars, with 71% of this coming from donations of $1 million or more (1). These millionaires influence policy more than the public does, and it undermines the importance of the people in the presidential race, which is unfair. I agree with Madeline’s view on campaign finance reform and wish to expand on her solution.
I agree with Madeline about how the FEC and FECA were originally meant well. These acts and rules were passed in the 70s, after the Watergate scandals featured large campaign donations by individuals (2). The FEC originally had stringent limits on how much individuals or interest groups could raise for candidates, hoping that those limits would make the election more democratic; it would “limit...the distortion that money could cause” (3). The reason that the FEC did not work was due to cases such as Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United, where spending limits were overturned due to the thought that money equaled free speech (3). The government has gotten itself into the very dilemma that we were trying to avoid forty-five years ago, as billionaires and super-PACS influence policy through their massive funds.
There is a way to tackle the issues that have arisen from Citizens United and other similar decisions. Madeline thinks correctly that a spending ceiling should be implemented, but policy needs to extend beyond a ceiling in order to avoid loopholes and scandals. A limit on how much super-PACS and individuals can contribute, similar to those passed in 2002, is a step forward that would back up the total spending ceiling. An overturn of Citizens United would also benefit the reforms greatly. Finally, a heavier emphasis on a mandatory, honest money report (how much, from who, when) that happens frequently from candidate campaigns would decrease loopholes of high spending. The system of campaign finance would benefit from the stricter laws and regulations of the immediate post-Watergate era. Smaller voices that would be harder-pressed to gain big money could be heard, and the system of financing an election can finally become about the people and what they want, not just billionaires and super-PACS (3).
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/28/434708855/charts-2016-presidential-campaign-finance-fundraising (1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part1.html (2)
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article36972897.html (3)
I agree with Leela that as a consequence of the flaws in our campaign financing system, incumbents have an unfair advantage when running for reelection.
It’s no coincidence that in 2012, almost every single incumbent senator and representative who ran again won reelection (Loiz, Bowie). An impactful contributor to this occurrence is the fact that in the same year, the average incumbent representative spent 443% more than the challenger and the average incumbent senator outspend challengers by 316% (Loiz, Bowie). I also agree with Leela that spending limitations hurt challengers more than they do incumbents because of incumbent advantage in name recognition, campaign and financing bases, successful campaigning experience, etc., and one way to make things more equitable for challengers and make the system more democratic is to ban super PAC spending. PACs favor incumbents for their own monetary and political gain, which is apparent because labor PACs give 2/3 of their money to current office holders while business PACs give over 90% of theirs (Open Secrets). PACs undermine democracy because money is key in elections, and this is the biggest flaw in the United States’ campaign financing systems.
Sources:
http://www.demos.org/publication/billion-dollar-democracy-unprecedented-role-money-2012-elections (Loiz, Bowie).
https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/dollarocracy/04.php (Open Secrets)
I agree with Gina that there needs to be a reform to stop politicians from basically buying their elections. This way it makes campaigns more about the issues instead of the money. With this in mind there would be more people seeking election that have not in the past. Which then would bring in fresh ideas that could have the potential to change our government for the better. It is not right that it should require almost a billion dollars to run for President (1). Even though I believe that this change would be for the better, large corporations would almost surely oppose this action due to it cutting down on their influence. Gina also makes a good point when she mentions that the supreme court would have to overrule themselves in order for this to happen. But, if these changes do come to pass it would be a huge leap towards making the United States fair and equal for all.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
After reading Diah’s blog post, I could not agree more. Corporations should not be able to, as Diah put it, “buy candidates a seat in office.” I agree with Diah that it would be preferable for every campaign to be publically funded so that an candidate with wealthy donors does not have an unfair advantage. However, I do believe that individuals should still be able to contribute to candidates that they believe in, but to an extent. Right now, individual donors are able to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to superPACs and 527 groups. I believe that we should put a cap on how much individuals can donate. It is unfair that our “government really is more responsive to the policy preferences of the donor class than to average Americans.” (2). I agree with Diah, and think that this should change. Like Diah, I like Hillary Clinton’s proposal to “limit the outsize influence of wealthy donors” (1). I think that by putting caps on how much individuals can give to superPACs and 527 groups, our campaign finance system will start to improve.
Sources:
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow (1)
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-supreme-court-uphold-personal-limits-on-campaign-contributions/removing-aggregate-campaign-limits-would-make-a-bad-situation-worse (2)
I would have to agree with Leela in that I also think our current campaign finance system is flawed. As she mentioned, the system we have now gives incumbents a great advantage over other candidates making the system unfair and less democratic. Not only do they have more name recognition among the public but because of that they also receive more money for funding from PACS because they are so much more likely to be re-elected then other candidates. In fact according to an article by Boundless “The percentage of incumbents who win reelection after seeking it in the U.S. House of Representatives has been over 80% for more than 50 years, and is often over 90%.” (1) Such high numbers show how virtually all incumbents are re elected. Another thing that supports this is an article from PolitiFact that said, when asked in general if people approved or disapproved with they way Congress is handling its job, the approval ratings of Congress in October 2014 were around 12-14% yet 96.9% of incumbents were re-elected (1) which clearly makes no sense, If so many people don't like the way Congress is run, why are the same exact representatives being re-elected? Although the system is not completely hopeless, there is definitely a lot that could be done to improve it and make it more fair for all candidates, for example implicating powers that would allow Congress to limit the amount of funding candidates can receive as well as working towards proposing amendments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/opinion/the-only-realistic-way-to-fix-campaign-finance.html?_r=0
2) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/
Ana's post is dead on with the views of the flawed campaign system. AS much as it is completely unrealistic for it to be perfect but the way candidates run their campaigns is obscene. With wealthy runners like Donald Trump who is spending "3.32 billion in real estate licensing deals, brands and branded developments, such as his Celebrity apprentice" reality tv show and the Miss USA pageant. 1,69 billion in commercial or mixed-use properties in New York City that he or his companies own outright including Trump Tower and 40th Wall Street." this is all his money, but what about candidates that cant afford to pay for it all themselves? Not only do I agree with Ana's post but I learned something new from her bringing up the Voter's Right to Know Act which makes it harder for big campaign donors to remain anonymous and easier for the public to see who's giving what to whom! The last part is what really excites me, I think knowing who is giving what and too whom is the best idea any one has had so that no company can secretly endorse a candidate they specifically say "Gifts and revolving door offers are tilting policy away from the public interest" so that specific people that Ana mentioned cant rely so heavily on big corporate donations.
http://www.votersrighttoknow.org/
http://nypost.com/2015/06/17/trump-funding-presidential-campaign-without-donors/
After reading several of the blog posts, I have to agree with Meghan that there are several problems involving our current campaign finance system. As Meghan stated, super-PACS give incumbents a monetary advantage in elections. Additionally, “many are disturbed by predictions of upwards of $2 billion being spent by super PACs on the upcoming presidential election “ (USNews). Meghan also noted that many think the best way to deal with campaign finance issues is to put a price ceiling on campaign spending and on SuperPACs, however, I don’t 100% agree that this would be the best way to deal with the issue because corporations would eventually find ways to get around the price ceiling. I do agree with Meghan’s statement that overturning the Citizens United Case would perhaps be a better solution to fix some of the problems of our current campaign finance, although as she stated the downside of this is that overturning the court case would take a lot of time. The Citizens United Case claimed that “Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.” (SCOTUSblog). Overall, I agree with Meghan that we need to make some serious changes to our current campaign finance system.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics (USnews)
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ (SCOTUSblog)
I agree with Zach that PACs and superPACs are causing candidates to run for their support and not for the average American. To the candidates, donations in the hundreds of thousands to millions may sound incredible, but it is just not possible for the general public to donate that much to a campaign individually. PACs, in the most recent elections, have made it so that they will only give a candidate money if they support specific policies and vote in ways that will have a positive impact on the PAC’s company or organization. It is uncanny that Jeb Bush, as Zach said, has raised over $100 million, especially since almost all of those donations came from superPACs. As of August, 24 donations made by superPACs to Bush’s campaign were between $1 and $5 million (1). For a comparison, the candidate with the next highest amount of donations was Scott Walker, who is no longer in the running for president, with $20 million. Like Zach, I agree that overturning the Citizens United case may be the best way to solve this problem of PACs donating too much toward campaigns, but it would be extremely difficult for this to happen. In 2014, the Senate tried to forward an amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court decision and put campaign funding back into the hands of the general public. There was no clear majority though, and the Republicans filibustered the proposed amendment (2). Even though this was the case, I still agree that campaign funding should be limited to these large corporations.
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/campaign-super-pacs/ (1)
https://www.thenation.com/article/senate-tried-overturn-citizens-united-today-guess-what-stopped-them/ (2)
I agree with Matthew that campaign finance reform is a popular issue that has only been dealt with superficially and needs strong overhaul. Loopholes, workarounds, manipulation, and legislative inefficiency has allowed absurd levels of cash to flow into campaigns on all levels of government. In fact, our entire campaign process is insane in comparison to other countries. Canada’s recent record breaking 78 day campaign is nothing compared to the American presidential campaign starting in early July of 2015 until November 2016 (NPR). Furthermore, the level of deal brokering and political pandering has been studied to make our congress less efficient legislatures. Senators and Representatives not only have to fulfill their role in representing their constituents political beliefs, but must also appease their corporate “friends” in order to have the funds necessary to compete in the next election cycle. A study has found a deep connection between campaign contributions and pro-business legislature being passed, seeming to imply that the system of political and economic favors seem to work in the current corrupt system while hurting the American economy and thus the American people (Center of American Progress). Matthews polling numbers showing the people's demand for campaign reform has reflected on the 2016 presidential election. Sen. Sanders, Sec. Clinton, Gov. O’Malley and Mr. Trump have all spoken out against the broken system and promised some level of effort to reform or rebuild the system (CNN). However, many are critical of Clinton's comments considering her own reliance on Super PACs and soft money. With such a large majority of citizens seeking at least some level of meaningful reform to the campaign finance system, it appears obvious that more work should be done about it. For now though, it seems that most ideas are abstract at best and nobody's quite sure what this meaningful change would look like or how it could be implemented at a relatively low cost. Until someone determines how to change it effectively, it seems that we are stuck with the system we have now.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450238156/canadas-11-week-campaign-reminds-us-that-american-elections-are-much-longer
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/clinton-sanders-democratic-fundraising-super-pac/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2014/05/02/88917/how-campaign-contributions-and-lobbying-can-lead-to-inefficient-economic-policy/
After reading the blog posts from last week, I agree with Madeline’s post that initially the regulations established under the FEC and FECA were a good idea. I also agree that now, some four decades later, these rules and regulations ineffective and outdated. In this day and age, corporations and special interest groups have much more say in government than the average American citizen. This is aided in particular by the extensive loopholes in current campaign regulations. For example, leading up to this year’s presidential election campaign, Jeb Bush took advantage of one of these loopholes. Even though everyone knew he would be running for president, Mr. Bush put off announcing his candidacy because as long as he wasn’t officially running yet, he could raise unlimited sums of money through his Super PAC “Right to Rise.” Under the law, “[t]he word ‘candidate’ is key. Since Bush isn’t yet an announced candidate, he is essentially exploiting a loophole in the law and soliciting for his own super PAC.” (MSNBC). This is just one example of the many ways in which campaign spending can be exploited and give some candidates an unfair advantage.
I believe that Madeline’s idea for a spending ceiling on campaign funding is a great idea, as it would level the playing field for all candidates. It would mean that while corporations could still influence candidates decisions and policies, they would not have unlimited amounts of money with which to do so. This would hopefully help bring about a return to a political world in which Americans have a say in their politicians’ decisions.
(MSNBC) http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-exploits-huge-loophole-campaign-money-rule
I agree with Scott that our campaign system needs radical reform. I think the idea of a spending ceiling is a good one and could limit the amount of money poured into the system. The ideas about having set time tables for elections are certainly interesting, but I think that it would be almost impossible to enforce. Scott is also correct in noting that much of Ben Carson's campaign cash has come from individual donors, about 45% of his donations were from people giving more than $200 [1]. I think this is probably due to the fact that the Republican nomination is still up in the air. I would predict that whatever candidate wins the nomination will receive plenty of large donations from the usual suspects. Why would Goldman Sachs donate to 8 potential Republican nominees when they could just wait until the party nominee was chosen?
[1]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/22/two-ben-carson-super-pacs-are-teaming-up/
I agree with Umaimah that campaign spending has radically spiraled out of control since the Citizens United v. FEC decision, and action must be taken. While the overturning of the case would be effective in changing campaign finance, the timeframe when that would happen is spotty. A case related to campaign finance needs to reach the Supreme Court, and it needs to agreed to take it on. Despite this, the Supreme Court overturning Citizens United v. FEC is incredibly likely because it was a 5-4 decision, and as Umaimah pointed out, unpopular with the general public. Umaimah’s proposal of a Constitutional amendment passed by Congress setting limits on fundraising and spending would solidify limits on campaign finance, and prevent corporations and select individuals from donating absurd amounts of money to campaigns. Her point that it almost passed in 2014 unfortunately no longer represents the chance of a campaign finance amendment passing through the current Congress. The voting on the proposed amendment was blocked by Senate Republicans when the Senate still had a Democratic majority (Everett). Currently both chambers of Congress have a Republican majority because of lower turnout rates for Democrats during midterm elections (Desilver). After the 2016 election due to blunders, including the eighth Benghazi investigation, by the Republican party, the passage of a constitutional amendment with campaign finance reform is a real possibility with a new Congress in 2017. I have to agree with Umaimah that small donor contributions are important and are a fundamental part of expressing political opinions. These contributions also help gauge how dedicated supporters are and draw the media's attention to a candidate whose poll numbers pale in comparison to the donations they receive. Most importantly, since there is no foreseeable future where there is any regulation on self funding, the Trumps of the world would dominate the airwaves while everyone else scrambles for change without them.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/senate-block-campaign-finance-amendment-110864 (Everett)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnout-always-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/ (Desilver)
I think that Zach made some excellent p0ints, many of which I agree with. He spoke about how there is too much money involved in Presidential campaigning, and how Super PACS and PACs are an issue that needs to be dealt with immediately. I would like to add on to what he said about limiting corporations’ donations to candidates and political parties. I think that corporations should not have the same rights as a citizen, because it undermines the whole idea of Democracy. Corporations have much more money to use to influence candidates and their policy making (1). The average citizen simply does not have enough money to make their voice heard on their own (such as Donald Trump and key contributors). It is irrational to give companies and corporations the same rights as citizens, because they are not citizens, but a part of the economy of America. Zach and I both think that this is an issue that must be solved, but is not easy to do so (because of the difficulty of passing an amendment without many loopholes).
There is a point when money stops becoming free speech, and begins to be power. In that case, corporations should not influence the government with their seemingly endless money because that is what citizens are able to do. Not only are national companies influencing the campaign, but international companies are making a change. In the 1996 campaign for president, Chinese businessmen contributed funds to Clinton’s campaign. This was later found illegal, and the funds returned back to China (2). This event should be used as an example of how corrupt the system is currently, as the majority of funds is given through PACS (which is what Zach went deeply into), and corporations.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/ (1)
http://www.democracymatters.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-money-in-politics-2/overview/globalization-of-campaign-funding-the-problem-of-private-money-in-politics/ (2)
I agree with what Ana talked about in her blog post in that our campaign finance system is definitely flawed, and Congress should work to reform it in the upcoming years. Just like Ana mentioned, I know that it is unrealistic to get rid of all flaws and "loopholes" to this system, but there does need to be a change. Ana brought up the “Voter’s Right to Know Act,” which after reading about, I think it would help to reduce the power that money has in campaigns in California, and provide a precedent for other states to follow.
The “Voter's Right to Know Act” proposes that laws in California will be made to display true donors to the public, ads must shows who they are really funded by, it will prohibit gifts given from lobbyists to politicians, and also provide an overall limit on secret influence on government decisions (1). However, to get this Act on the ballot by the 2016 election, Jim Heerwagen (creator of the Act) and his team must get at least 600,000 signatures on the petition (2). But, many Californians agree that the campaign finance system is broken, about 69 percent, and they want to see a change and more honesty on campaign finance(2). On a National level, campaign finance reform has become a major issue for certain candidates to talk about, especially Sanders, Trump, and Bush (2). These candidates all know that big money is affecting politician’s decisions, and are promising to tackle this if elected. Just as California is pushing for campaign finance laws, so are states like North Dakota, Maine, and Washington (2). North Dakota is proposing a ballot initiative for 2016, showing that even the smaller states notice, and want this issue fixed (2). People, no matter what state they are from, are realizing the over powering influence that money has on politicians. I think that although only a few states are proposing these Acts and laws to be passed, that Congress, in the near future, will be forced to face the issue of campaign finance reform.
http://www.votersrighttoknow.org/ (1)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-california-guarantee-the-right-to-know-the-names-of-political-donors/2015/09/16/2b232f62-5c78-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html (2)
I agree with Eli that it is time to see change come to campaign finance. Over the past few years campaign spending has become outrageously high and yet policy has stayed the same. We need to update the regulations to better deal with today’s spending habits. Eli makes a good point that some of the spending can be explained by inflated travel and media costs, but the increase of inflation is disproportionate to the increase in spending.
I agree that Clinton and Sanders have both developed potential solutions. Clinton with her plan to overturn Citizens United and Sanders with a proposed amendment that would undo the decision. If they can get those plans passed by the House and Senate, it would be interesting to see how the next year’s elections and campaigning process differs from the present.
http://time.com/3534117/the-incredible-rise-in-campaign-spending/
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/npr-reality-check-on-campaignfinance-reform-it-would-be-difficult-and-slow
I disagree in part to Scott’s response. He writes that the campaign system itself is broken, and that we need to reform the campaigning process itself. I don’t know if he meant campaigning, because he never proposed a solution to the aspect of campaign itself aside from campaign finance. And though I believe that the problem we need to look into is how the campaigns are financed, I believe that campaigning itself plays a huge role into why the campaign finance system is so corrupted. So I decided to look at how the change in the campaign become the President of the United States affected the change in campaign finance.
With our first President, there was no campaigning, George Washington, there was no Presidential campaign, he was just voted in unanimously against his will. Obviously, we’ve come a long way from there, as a Presidential campaign now skyrockets into the double to triple digits of millions, sometimes out of the candidates own pocket. One factor that I think plays into this change is the population that is being campaigned to. From the time of the founding fathers to now, there has been a great diversification in the population. Through immigration, many people groups have been introduced to the country and thus changed the demography that presidents have to campaign to. The campaign for white christian European immigrants would be very effective in the small population of the early republic. On that note, the size of the people able to vote has grown as well, candidates have to effectively market over time to women, people over the age of 18, and racial minorities, something not even considered at the time. So, historically, campaigning has had to grow increasingly large to appeal to so many people as well as increasingly clever to tie the interest of so much diversity of the population towards one candidate. The biggest influence on the changing on campaign over time, however, has been the change in media. As media evolved from soap-box standing, to newspaper press, to radio, to the television, and eventually to the Internet, the American people began to expect more showmanship out of the campaigning. The cost needed to post an advertisement in the newspaper, at that time an effective campaigning stratagem, compared to the cost needed to run an advertisement on TV, leaves one to question: Is the campaign finance system really an indicator of corrupt politicians and systems, or are they just adapting to the changes they’ve been facing for centuries?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/then-and-now/presidents/
http://myweb.cwpost.liu.edu/paievoli/finals/505Sp_03/Prj1/irene_piechota.htm
In regard to his stance on the issue of superPACs, I completely agree with Zach. I think it is a huge problem that they have the ability to give excess amounts of money to candidates for their election process and still be given the rights of a single person under the law. SuperPACs are the biggest problem regarding the campaign finance system because without them, the money spent on elections would be significantly less. For example, during the 2012 election, a superPAC called Restore our Future raised upwards of $153.7 million to pump into the campaign fund of the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney (Open Secrets). Further, as Zach also mentioned, had Romney won the race, he would have been more likely to base his legislation off of what the superPAC wanted, considering they were his biggest contributor. Like Zach, I think that this is cause for a change; it is both necessary and inevitable.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home