Posts
There was some excellent discussion last night on the merits of campaign contributions affecting the outcome of political elections.
This is a good article by Time from the 2008 election cycle that gives a brief history of Campaign Financing, and sheds some light on the use of Federal Funds in Presidential elections. Click Here
"This year's election (2008) will be the most expensive in history — presidential candidates have already raised over $900 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And that's not counting the millions in the coffers of the parties, political action committees and advocacy groups that are just now gearing up their advertising campaigns. A century on, the laws have changed, but the reality hasn't. Running a national election campaign still costs serious amounts of money, and no candidate has ever won a national office on good ideas alone."
Also, this is a link to the FEC (Federal Election Commission - oversight agency for Campaign Finance) that details the maximum allowable donations by Individuals and National Party Committees to individual candidates. Click Here
I want to continue to facilitate discussion on this topic. Why you think donations are good/bad, what kinds of reform you think are appropriate, and maybe someone can detail how other Democratic countries deal with the topic are all some suggested discussion topics. It would be nice if we had some opposing viewpoints here, so if it seems like there is a consensus building, hopefully somebody can argue an alternative viewpoint (even if it is not exactly what you believe).
*Edit* Apparently my blogging week is next week, not this, but I still think the topic is relevant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I did research into other countries and came up with the following:
ReplyDeleteUnited Kingdom: Their system seems similar to the U.S.'s but it seems that they have less transparency meaning not all contributions are reported. Additionally, I do not believe there is a cap on individual donations.
Japan: There system seems to be different. Campaigns are often short and spending is very modest.
Australia: Seems to be the same as the U.S. candidates receive funding from large corporations.
I can’t find hard numbers but it appears as if U.S corporations spend far more on campaign contributions than any other country.
Well the U.S. may have the greatest level of political transparency it is also the country whose politicians receive the greatest amount of money through campaign contributions.
Perhaps our system is not as great as we thought....
We as a country have turned money into one of the most influential tools in almost every aspect of todays society and our campaigns are yet another example of the power that money can have. I think when you mix both economic and political power together things can become very dangerous. I think this is why all of this campaign money is in essence complete bullshit. At the end of the day, as we brought up in class, the ones with the most money now have the most influence in our political system, and to me that is not what politics should be about. I agree with Chris, our system is not what we make it to be.
ReplyDeleteSweet! Thanks for so much information. I think our discussion last night was very good and I was wondering besides the actual cost of the campaign what happens to the money the candidates raise? Does it to go to their alma maters, their charities or in their own pockets or does most of it actually go into all the running and advertising?
ReplyDeleteI understand the cost has increased but there is so much money raised there has to be some left over?
Here you go Jennifer: http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/04/what-happens-to-leftover-campaign-money/
ReplyDeleteI think it's tough to argue that the way money translates to power in the US is not a problem.
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess I want to move beyond the obvious a bit, and maybe try to see some ideas for solving the problem (just for kicks).
My thought would be to make it mandatory that any campaign contributions remain anonymous. I could see the formation of a small government agency, elected for life (similar to the supreme court), that is in charge of taking the campaign contributions from donors and distributing them to candidates of the donors' choosing.
I know it isn't perfect, but it would allow for campaign contributions to keep only the rich from running for office, while at the same time eliminating any influence of donors and/or obligations felt by successful candidates.
Thoughts?
ps. Unions can contribute to campaigns, just like corporations.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that the UK doesn't spend as much if not more money on campaigning then the United States does. Perhaps it's because their elections do not take place as often as ours do, perhaps because quite a few of their offices are held by people who only are there because of who their mummy and daddy were. Also, as far as my little research tells me, there's no limit as to how long the Prime Minister can hold office. Regardless, I'm still surprised those campaigns do not generate at least as much money.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, Chris did mention that there is no individual limit on donations, and that many of the campaign donations go unreported. So that too could answer my suspicions.
I love your research skills Jared. :)
ReplyDeleteDane I like your idea A LOT. Anonymous donations would be great but since people make donations in order to influence their respective parties, I think campaign donations would dwindle hugely. There would be no more incentive really. Or people would probably manipulate the system... claiming anonymity but then you know (watch this episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm its PERFECT http://www.megavideo.com/?v=GZK9RBII).
ReplyDeleteI also love this quote... "Sometimes running for office can leave a candidate in financial straits. Sen. Hillary Clinton left her bid for the democratic nomination for president with $22.5 million in debt, more than half of which was her personal loan to the campaign. In June, Sen. Obama asked his fund-raising team to step in and help Sen. Clinton pay off her election debt. Clinton also campaigned on her own for donations."
Haha I'm sure Hillary's life was terrible in all her debt... thankfully Bill, their mansion, and her millions of suits were protected by the help from other democrats and donations. Ugh I don't know what else to say without being terribly cynical...
The Supreme Court ruling on this was ruinous. It essentially priced 90% of Americans from the 'political marketplace.' I also think that the need to raise such ridiculous sums of money takes away from the ability to govern.
ReplyDeleteI love Dan'es idea of anonymous donations a lot. More than that, I LOVE Laura's idea of giving unions the same donation rules as corporations. They have self interests just like corporations do, and it seems obvious that they should follow similar regulations. Ha AL.
ReplyDeleteI thought of the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode as soon as the comment on anonymity came up. I agree with Richard, it's an unfortunate reality that our politicians have to take in so many contributions just to run that some of their political beliefs are left behind. I feel like the transparency of our country is what makes the contributions to a party less corrupt. I think it would be hard to establish because the people (like Larry David) like the notoriety behind donations and contributions.
ReplyDelete