Does Money Equal Power In American Politics Politics Essay

Does Money Equal Power In the Statesn g everyplacening Politics EssayThis essay suggests that bullion does equal power in Ameri rump political sympathies and that campaign reform is still required in Ameri scum bag society as this remains an ongoing occupation.In order to build the regard of cash in the American campaigning ashes I believe this essay should begin with a statement of the recent facts and figures in relation to the cost of campaigning in America. The 2012 campaign by Obama and Romney for the presidential race resulted in push donelay of all over $6 billion report whichincludes funds exhausted by the campaigns of both expectations, outside groups much(prenominal) as PACs, and independent organizations such as businesses1. In the evaluating of silver and nation in the presidential campaigns we must as easily look at everyday spending as this was supposed to be the answer in reforming the presidential campaigning. exploit pay is non just a puzzle in the presidential campaigns, In 2010 $1.5 jillion was the average spent by ho employ incumbents and $11.2 million was the average spent by senate incumbents, these numbers which we provide comp be with those of competitions to assimilate if on that point is any inequality2. These figures alone show the eye watering spacious amounts of currency spent today by those in political sympathies. thither be many horizons that need to be looked at to determine if money affects he democracy of America. However this is not a recent task in America, money in elections has been a worry for many decades and in conclusion an knowledgeableness of a Act in 1971 was supposed to put this problem to bed.The Federal Election carry Act (FECA) of 1971 was created to restore stacks confidence in the campaigning trunk as many people felt large contributors had the biggest voice in political campaigns. This required mount to be do public. The Watergate scandal revea lead during Presid ent Nixons campaign proved the decomposition that was at heart the political system change surface with reforms in place as those who contributed large amounts were stipulation positions as ambassadors in Nixons re-election committees, money equalling power3. This resulted in amendments existenceness do to the original FECA such as the creation of the Federal Election charge (FEC) who would catch laws such as declarations of contributions w here adhered to and brought public backup into the picture to yield to stop the influence of large contributors. However, even when efforts are made to hire campaign finance transparent to the public, there are still those who challenge this.In 1976 in the strip of Buckley v Valeo, the reforms legislated by the FECA were brought to the courts. This case argued that the alimentation made in the Act were unconstitutional. Here it was argued that money in authorities was not corruption but instead it was a form of vocabulary, inde ed was protected by the first amendment of the Constitution of America and was a rightfield of all Americans. It was decided that monetary contributions were an expression of ones support for a expectation which was a pop right4. This association of money equals speech has been the bar of any reform by and by that and still poses problems in reform. Justice john Paul Stevens in 2000 presented a forceful opinion that money is retention and not speech, surely money couldnt equal speech when money is not evenly destined, this would prove that those with the biggest wallet had the biggest voices. The need for shape up reform after an extremely large redirecting of contributions in the form of soft money led to further reform of the campaign system in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)5which tar make ited the booming problem of soft money during campaigns. This problem was as a result of the allowance of the FECA of organisations giving money indirectly to aspects t his money was not recorded by the FEC and had an unlimited budget. This was abolished by BCRA to further attempt to bring neatness to all candidates and to try, once again, ensure money did not equal power in America. Campaign reform in America tries to take the impact of money a elan from the impact of politics. besides quest groups and the subsequent PACs feed still left a straits mark on the influence of money on the campaigns.Louise Overacker in 1932 verbalized her concerns that financing of elections in a democracy is a study problem and raised the question of if democracies do not inevitably become judicature ruled by small groups6. This brings us into the discussion of take groups and PACS and their impact on American Democracy. PACs are organisations created through the FECA to allow these organisations to raise and distribute money to campaigns, allowing more money to be directed at candidates. umpteen affaire groups and large organisations create PACs7. Interest groups are kn throw to shed aims in politics in America, firstly to elect friends and defeat enemies and secondly to increase the number of people in political positions that share their views. line of reasoning interest groups on the different hand leave alone more than presumable use the friendly incumbent rule of backing the incumbent that is certain(p) to be re elected and generally shares their views rather than a challenger who may be more supportive of their interests but is not guaranteed to make it in their campaign8. Why is this? Why not support the candidate who is more supportive of your intellect and stand by them? This raises the suspicion of interest groups being more concerned with gaining the access of those in power. If interest groups are raising large quantities of funding for these candidates surely they are receiving something in return, other why continue to pump money into a lavishnessd cause?9It is k instantaneouslyn that many people involved PACs are those that are fountainhead educated and part of the upper class society which raises the question of is there an unbalance in the representation of society in America? As political scientist E.E Schattschneider said the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly refrain sings with a strong upper-class accent10. If so this puts further questions on the American branding of democracy.However those who are against this view that interest groups and psyche contributions thwart democracy argue that it does the opposite. They, on the other hand, argue that interest groups are a direct result of a democratic state. They argue that interest groups and PACs increase peoples awareness and interest in politics and whence improve democracy in expanding peoples knowledge in political matters, an aspect recognised by James Madison11. therefore in scheme this activity contributes to democracy in America. only if interest groups and PACs as discussed preceding(prenominal) look a fter and promote their own interests, they can do this by emphasising the negatives of another candidate through negative campaigning12or recurrence advocacy or by promoting the positive aspects of the candidate they are supporting. Therefore are they really serving the ask of the country or the needs of themselves? I feel they are only looking after their own interests to try to increase those in support of the candidate that will take up serve them in the event that they win their election. Interest groups and PACs are unlikely to use their funding to compare the candidates in a fair and democratic bureau in the aim of giving the public a fair and even view of each candidate. Their aim of promoting their interests will lead to forestall pictures of candidates. The fact is that organisations that make contributions, especially those with significant financial resources, want to ensure they make a Return on Investment, thats what these contributions are from many PACs and inte rest groups, they are investments not donations. As said on Capitol Hill my take is not for sale but is available for rent.13Public funding was created by the FECA to try to take the issue of money out of campaigns and to balk corruption of wealthy individuals in politics. However those who took public funding had to abide by a budget mete outn to them. The option of partial funding in presidential primaries was rejected by many as they began to use the system to well-being themselves. In 2000 George Bush decided to reject partial funding in the primaries14. This was with the aim of using this time of to raise as a good deal money as he could so that he could good out race the other opponents in his raising of funds therefore he was able to create more awareness of his campaign in the primaries over the opponents who were under strict instruction to stick to their public budgets. Bush easily received the nomination he needed but then employ public funding in the general elect ion as he has the awareness of his campaign already generated. This shows that even the candidates themselves are thwarting the system to improve their own campaigns without regard for other candidates chances of receiving recognition or a fair campaign. The ease of which Bush succeed proved that the money he received equalled power in his race for nomination despite the public funding being in place. More worryingly this year uncomplete Obama nor Romney accepted public funding. Why? Because more money can be gathered from independent sources. A frightening thought considering how much they raised. Is the ideology of a public funding system becoming extinct?15if so it is direct proof that money equals power.Why is public funding being abandoned by candidates for the White House? Mainly it is due to the increase of Super PACs and dark money16. Super PACs call inm to be alternate the previous spurt of 527 committees who raised money to influence the outcome of elections by raising unlimited amounts of money. Once this money was not used in conjunction with the candidates campaign and did not openly call for the defeat or election of a particular candidate it was completely legal. However now Super PACs can collect money from both individuals and corporations, they also cannot give money directly to the candidate but can use the money raised independently to help ensure the election of there preferent candidate. In the 2012 election the estimated money raised from outside groups was $970 million, this increase is being linked to the increase in Super PACs. $123 million is the estimated amount spent by dark money.17Dark money was a phrase adopt by the Mother Jones Magazine18which referred to the secret donations given to candidates by individuals and organisations. These donations conk in all political campaigns but seem to be nigh a part of the republican party fundraising. If people or businesses are able to donate large quantities of money to candidates without them being made public we again fox to ask how this affects democracy in America. Money donated to campaigns that are not made public means that we are unable to see if there is a correlation amid the money those secret donors have given and the decisions of the lawmakers. However the question on money in politics applies to all elections including those in the house and senate between incumbents and challengers.As mentioned in the introduction the power difference between incumbents and challengers in the house and senate where public funding isnt in place is extremely large. This difference boils down to money. Incumbents have the benefit of being well known and established and therefore do not need to spend vast amounts on creating public awareness. They also have loyal contributors already established to their campaign. Challengers on the other hand defend to raise the money needed to create awareness of their campaign. Often the incumbents simply raise large quanti ties of money to discourage competition from newborn challengers. Is it a democracy where people are not made aware of new challengers due to the large spending of incumbents? When new challengers do not even get a chance due to the impact on money? It is known that people vote for those they recognise and reject those they have a lack of information on. Between 1984-2004 57% of challengers spent less than $100,000 on their campaigns and all of them lost19. Money equals power.I have discussed many things within the American campaign system that make me question the branding of America as a Democracy due to the corruption caused by money. But does money actually get those who contribute a foot in the door? Political scientist say that the contributions of PACs does not have a major impact on legislators decisions, this is because although there is a direct correlation between donations and votes, there is no proven relationship between donations and lawmakers decisions20. However t his will perpetually be hard to prove as you cannot match contributions on a quid pro quo basis. It may have been found that money doesnt buy votes in congress but it is proven that contributors do get the loyalty of those in congress. It is known that contributions do achieve access21such as clashings with the candidates they have supported. Since most organisations will support those who are already in support of their views the do not need to persuade the candidate on their interests, therefore many of the PACs interests may be try to be mobilised through congressional committees. An example of money buying access can be seen in the Bush administration. Bush rewarded those who donated money to his Pioneer bundle up system, most of whom were wealthy energy company official, business executives and lobbyists, with individual meeting and receptions, later Bush appointed 19 of the members as ambassadors worldwide22Would the lack of large donations have the same impact? We also saw that in the reign of Nixon those who donated large amounts became part of his re election committees, would this have been the case without the large donations? And would the contributors continue to donate without anything in return? It is unlikely. The youthful York quantify gave the statistics that since Obamas election in 2008 to now, those who donated $30,000 or less, about 20% of these visited the White House, were those who donated over $100,000 where about 75% more likely to visit the President.23Statistics that dont prove anything other than money equals power and access.Although reform was again attempted again through BCRA in 2002, there still seems to be problems within the campaign finance system. There are many suggested ways in which reform can be achieved. One is the base of imposing ceilings on the amount spent in campaigns, but this may affect the competitive aspect of the campaigns. This also wouldnt help the challengers who already struggle to make themselves known to voters, therefore the well known incumbents would benefit leading to further questions of money impacting democracy. Another manageable solution is to ban PACs and stopping large donations and let candidates rely on small donations to fund their campaigns but this is unlikely to raise enough funds.24The bringing close together of public funding seemed to be the perfect solution as it took the splendor of large donators out of the picture and put limits in place by candidates. If this was put in place for all elections in the house, congress as well as the presidential elections, this would reduce the amount spent on elections. However, the budgets of these public funds need to be increased to encourage candidates to be a part of this system. It may also attract candidates who dont want to waste too much time in their campaign raising money if the budget is right25. The problem with this is that this idea has been branded welfare for politicians an idea disliked by the A merican society.26The judgment by the courts that money equals speech also needs to be revisited. With this opinion being circulated it is only benefitting those with money. In order to pursue interests through politics, money and access is needed, but these are things not equally distributed, this makes you wonder how is this a democracy if it is allowing the people with these abilities to use them to push their ideas?27In conclusion, the problem is that many of the ideas for reform have as many positives as negatives, there seems to be no direct way to solve the problem of corruption within the political system and to prevent money from equalling power. In the conk reform there was a fit out affect that what was squeezed in one place merely popped out in another28in the increasing of 527 committees and the creation of Super PACs. It is viewed that this will be the case in any reform as John McCainn tell I portend you that in 20 or 30 historic period from nowa group of others will be standing here saying weve got to clean up the system again, because therell be smart people that figure out loopholes in the system. I doubt he foresaw the run at which these loopholes would be found. The fact of the matter is that money will always be the fuelling of politics in America and therefore until some way is found to take money out of politics money will equal power. As this essay title says America has the best democracy money can buy.BibiographyBook sourcesJon R Bond and Kevin B Smith, The promise and performance of American Democracy. Thomson/Wadsworth 2009Lowi, Shepsle, Ginsberg. American Government power and purpose. 7th ed. New YorkNorton 2002Tonnahill, Neal R, American government policy and politics, 11th ed, Pearson study edition 2012Robert Singh, American government and politics A concise introduction. Sage 2003.McKay, Haughton and Wroe. Controversies in American Politics and Society. Oxford UK, Malden,MassBlackwell 2002Robert Singh, Governing America T he politics of a divided democracy. Oxford University get 2003.Samuel Kernell and Gary C Jacobson. The logic of American politics. Cq Press 2006, 3rd editionBardes, Shmidt and Shelley, American government and politics today. 2004-2005 ed, London Wasworth 2003Internet sourcesThe Atlantic Wire cash in ones chips accessed on 19/12/12The New York Times last accessed 20/12/2012The New York Times http//www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us/politics/white-house-doors-open-for-big-donors.html?pagewanted=all last accessed 20/12/12