How Significant Is Money In Presidential Elections Essay
How significant is money in American Presidential Elections? (30)
Although the parties cannot exert tight control over candidates, their ability to raise and spend money has a significant influence. Studies have shown that the Republican Party spends six times more money on their campaigns than the Democrat Party. Since ‘Citizens vs FEC’ got the law passed that as much money can be given or fundraised to a campaign in any amount, sponsors, interest groups, corporate fronts and lobbyists can all contribute to a campaign.
It is said that the huge significance of money compromises America’s democracy. This is why spending limits have been introduced. In the aftermath of the crooked Watergate scandal, anxiety over campaign finance led to the passage of two major reform bills—the Revenue Act of 1971 and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974—that …show more content…
have set the guidelines and regulations for campaign finance. The Revenue Act was designed to implement federal financing of Presidential elections. Under the act, citizens were given the opportunity to check a box on their tax forms authorizing the federal government to use one of their tax dollars to finance Presidential campaigns in the general election. Congress implemented the program in 1973 and, by 1976, enough tax money had accumulated to fund the 1976 Presidential election. It was the first publicly funded federal election in U.S. history. The main provisions of the FECA placed limits on how much individuals and political committees could contribute to a single campaign and further instituted "public funding." It limited individual contributions to US$1000 and corporate contributions to US$5000. It also forbade foreign donors so that foreigners wouldn’t have any influence on the campaign. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) was created by Congress to administer and enforce the FECA.
In presidential primaries, individuals could donate up to US$1000 to a candidate and the government would match these funds up to $250 (matching funds). The catch is that if the candidate chooses matching funds, he or she must abide by specific spending limits. In the general election, presidential candidates have the option to accept $60 million dollars from the government. But in this case, the candidate can only use $50,000 of his own money for any further funds. Therefore, over recent years, political parties have decided to reject matching funds because as the cost of elections increases, candidates know that they need and raise and spend more money than the state is willing to give them. The act came under judicial review in the Buckley vs. Valeo case as the constitutionality of it was questioned. From that decision, limits were not set on how much a candidate could spend on his election, but there was a $1000 dollar limit set on how much could be contributed. All of these types of contributions that can be regulated are known as hard money.
Despite the strict regulations and laws, contributors have found several loopholes to flow money into campaigns and elections. These funds that are raised outside the limitations and prohibitions of the FECA are categorized as soft money. Because the FECA does not limit how much money can be contributed to political parties, contributors wishing to donate vast sums of money can give money directly to the parties without specifying a certain candidate. This issue of soft money is what has stemmed most of the controversy of campaign finance. 501 groups are a tax-exempt non-profit organisation in the US. They can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions. 527 groups give organisations tax-exempt status and allows them to take part in political activities. If money was insignificant, people would not find loopholes in order to receive more money.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002 banned national party committees from raising the spending of soft money. Also, labour unions and corporations are forbidden from funding issue advertisements directly and fundraising on federal property is forbidden. This act reinforces the significance of money because it shows that too much undeclared money is spent, which may undermine America’s democracy.
Furthermore, in order to be successful, US presidential candidates have to raise huge sums of money to finance their campaigns.
Most of the money is spent on TV advertisements, but they also have to pay for staffing, offices, travel, hotel accommodation and professional advisers. Campaign contributions come from individual voters, pressure groups, party committees and political action committees (PACs). A PAC is a type of organisation that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns. Super PACs are the result of a 2010 Supreme Court Ruling. Super PACs may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups without any legal limit on donation size. Super PACs may support particular candidacies. For example, in 2012 ‘Restore Our Future’ raised and spent over US$40million on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The money raised by Super PACs allows a candidate to become more well-known through
advertising.
Bundling is a concept used for studying the selection of candidates for public office. A voter typically chooses a candidate for the legislature, rather than directly voting for specific policies. When doing so, the voter is essentially selecting among bundles of policies that a candidate or a party will enact if in power.
In conclusion, money is extremely significant in the US presidential election. Money allows a candidate to become more well-known through the media. The media has been described as “the fourth estate” and the “fourth branch of government”. Therefore, it is essential that a candidate raise enough money to afford TV advertisements and other forms of media. If money was insignificant, loopholes, laws, regulations and Acts would not have been created.
Although the parties cannot exert tight control over candidates, their ability to raise and spend money has a significant influence. Studies have shown that the Republican Party spends six times more money on their campaigns than the Democrat Party. Since ‘Citizens vs FEC’ got the law passed that as much money can be given or fundraised to a campaign in any amount, sponsors, interest groups, corporate fronts and lobbyists can all contribute to a campaign.
It is said that the huge significance of money compromises America’s democracy. This is why spending limits have been introduced. In the aftermath of the crooked Watergate scandal, anxiety over campaign finance led to the passage of two major reform bills—the Revenue Act of 1971 and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974—that …show more content…
have set the guidelines and regulations for campaign finance. The Revenue Act was designed to implement federal financing of Presidential elections. Under the act, citizens were given the opportunity to check a box on their tax forms authorizing the federal government to use one of their tax dollars to finance Presidential campaigns in the general election. Congress implemented the program in 1973 and, by 1976, enough tax money had accumulated to fund the 1976 Presidential election. It was the first publicly funded federal election in U.S. history. The main provisions of the FECA placed limits on how much individuals and political committees could contribute to a single campaign and further instituted "public funding." It limited individual contributions to US$1000 and corporate contributions to US$5000. It also forbade foreign donors so that foreigners wouldn’t have any influence on the campaign. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) was created by Congress to administer and enforce the FECA.
In presidential primaries, individuals could donate up to US$1000 to a candidate and the government would match these funds up to $250 (matching funds). The catch is that if the candidate chooses matching funds, he or she must abide by specific spending limits. In the general election, presidential candidates have the option to accept $60 million dollars from the government. But in this case, the candidate can only use $50,000 of his own money for any further funds. Therefore, over recent years, political parties have decided to reject matching funds because as the cost of elections increases, candidates know that they need and raise and spend more money than the state is willing to give them. The act came under judicial review in the Buckley vs. Valeo case as the constitutionality of it was questioned. From that decision, limits were not set on how much a candidate could spend on his election, but there was a $1000 dollar limit set on how much could be contributed. All of these types of contributions that can be regulated are known as hard money.
Despite the strict regulations and laws, contributors have found several loopholes to flow money into campaigns and elections. These funds that are raised outside the limitations and prohibitions of the FECA are categorized as soft money. Because the FECA does not limit how much money can be contributed to political parties, contributors wishing to donate vast sums of money can give money directly to the parties without specifying a certain candidate. This issue of soft money is what has stemmed most of the controversy of campaign finance. 501 groups are a tax-exempt non-profit organisation in the US. They can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions. 527 groups give organisations tax-exempt status and allows them to take part in political activities. If money was insignificant, people would not find loopholes in order to receive more money.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002 banned national party committees from raising the spending of soft money. Also, labour unions and corporations are forbidden from funding issue advertisements directly and fundraising on federal property is forbidden. This act reinforces the significance of money because it shows that too much undeclared money is spent, which may undermine America’s democracy.
Furthermore, in order to be successful, US presidential candidates have to raise huge sums of money to finance their campaigns.
Most of the money is spent on TV advertisements, but they also have to pay for staffing, offices, travel, hotel accommodation and professional advisers. Campaign contributions come from individual voters, pressure groups, party committees and political action committees (PACs). A PAC is a type of organisation that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns. Super PACs are the result of a 2010 Supreme Court Ruling. Super PACs may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups without any legal limit on donation size. Super PACs may support particular candidacies. For example, in 2012 ‘Restore Our Future’ raised and spent over US$40million on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The money raised by Super PACs allows a candidate to become more well-known through
advertising.
Bundling is a concept used for studying the selection of candidates for public office. A voter typically chooses a candidate for the legislature, rather than directly voting for specific policies. When doing so, the voter is essentially selecting among bundles of policies that a candidate or a party will enact if in power.
In conclusion, money is extremely significant in the US presidential election. Money allows a candidate to become more well-known through the media. The media has been described as “the fourth estate” and the “fourth branch of government”. Therefore, it is essential that a candidate raise enough money to afford TV advertisements and other forms of media. If money was insignificant, loopholes, laws, regulations and Acts would not have been created.