Sheila Kromholz Analysis
Sheila Kromholz article “Campaign Cash and Corruption: Money in Politics, Post-Citizens United” describes the influence campaign contributions have on politicians. Kromholz begins the article by detailing the reasons why campaign donations are influential. Kromholz then follows that up by explaining the results that influence has had of the political system. This article was useful for my topic because it provides an explanation for why money has a large influence in politics. Kromholz explains how spending in political campaigns have been increasing over time, with the most of the spending done by PACs, making politicians more dependent on donations to win. The article also explains how the influence of money affects polity. Kromholz brings
up the example of Alaskan Representative Don Young who sponsored a bill that removes polar bears from the endangered species list because his top donor lobbied the bill. The article’s biggest strength is its use of statistics to back up its claims. The article provides numbers showing that the amount of campaign spending has been increasing since 1998, information on the amount of money donated by different sectors, and the amount of money spent by PACs. One of the article’s weaknesses is that it gives very little attention to the corruption that campaign donations create. The influence of money on politicians was only covered in a single section of the article. Within that section only a single example of corruption was given. Another one of the article’s negatives is that it’s ending. Kromholz changes from an article that is evidence based into opinion piece in the concluding section. Her ending statements are not backed up by any evidence and exist as a message for the reader.
up the example of Alaskan Representative Don Young who sponsored a bill that removes polar bears from the endangered species list because his top donor lobbied the bill. The article’s biggest strength is its use of statistics to back up its claims. The article provides numbers showing that the amount of campaign spending has been increasing since 1998, information on the amount of money donated by different sectors, and the amount of money spent by PACs. One of the article’s weaknesses is that it gives very little attention to the corruption that campaign donations create. The influence of money on politicians was only covered in a single section of the article. Within that section only a single example of corruption was given. Another one of the article’s negatives is that it’s ending. Kromholz changes from an article that is evidence based into opinion piece in the concluding section. Her ending statements are not backed up by any evidence and exist as a message for the reader.