The 2008 presidential race has quickly increased to become of the most expensive presidential campaign ever. In order to be considered a legitimate candidate, one must raise or provide millions of dollars to keep up with the other candidates. With such demanding financial needs candidates look to big contributors to help finance their bids for presidency.
The Federal Election Commission has recently released information about donors and who they contributed money too. Not surprisingly a lot of high profile celebrity’s names are on these lists. Many of the celebrities donated the maximum allowed by law. Donations can’t exceed $4,600, which although seems insignificant with respect to some of the celebrities fortunes, still helps to boost the candidates total campaign funds. Do you agree or disagree that there should be a maximum donation? By capping the amount that an individual can donate are they leveling the playing filed so none of the candidates can benefit from a particularly generous donor.
A list of celebrities and who they have donated to can be found on CNN’s website. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/16/celebrity.contributions/index.html . A lot of the celebrity donations have gone to democratic candidates, who in past elections have been closely tied to the liberal party. Do you feel that by doing this, celebrities want to give themselves good public relations, or are they really interested in the political matters that each of these candidates stand for? For example Steven Spielberg gave to three different Democratic candidates, all the same amount of money. Is he attempting to help these candidates with this smaller donation, or is he attempting to get good press for his philanthropy?
By releasing these records do you think that they are giving voters more reasons to make uninformed votes based on their celebrity allegiances?
13 comments:
I don't think that by releasing the list of the celebrities who donate money to the candidates will have heavy influence on voters. The celebrities don't really make it a secret themselves, and those that are extremely involved make it public knowledge even before these lists were made public. So I am not convinced that their influence on politics is much more than a superficial one.
I think celebrities are so interested in politics and getting their views out because they have the platform to so. Whether we like it or not, it is going to be there because celebrities are constantly in the spotlight and we are a very celebrity obsessed society. While I do believe that celebrities do hold some influence because of this platform, I do not think that they hold enough influence to make a significant difference in a majority of the voters.
This is a tricky situation when it comes to the public relations aspect of it. On one hand both the candidates and celebrities are getting good public relations by being tied to each other and their candidates fundraising. On the other hand, what reliable voter really cares which candidate Hugh Hefner donates money too? It's more of a fun fact than a determining factor for most people. Also, I do agree with the salary cap on donation. It gives all the candidates a fair chance at running. Celebrities donate millions of dollars to charities and so they could easily do the same to candidates. This would give the candidates a huge advantage, especially the superstar candidates like Clinton and Obama.
As far as celebrities being really interested in political matter and issues or just giving themselves good PR, I think it’s unfair to say that all of these celebrities don’t have a political view or care about the issues. I think for the most part they know a fair amount about the candidates they are donating too. In the case of Steven Spielberg donating to all the parties; that may be a PR stunt. I believe its necessary to have their celebrities backing the candidates because it’s a major source of fundraising for their campaign. Not many people are going to not vote for a candidate because of the celebrity backing them. So, all in all it’s a good thing for both parties. The candidates get the money and the celebrities get the publicity.
I definitely agree that there should be a maximum donation cap--without it I think the donation levels would be grossly unfair. Also, I think celebrities donate both for good PR and for their own political ideals. Honestly, despite people's obsessions for celebrities, I doubt it would sway their vote because of whom they were donating too. I doubt (and hope) people aren't going to vote Democrat because Barbara Streisand donated to the party. I think that if they have the financial means to contribute, the candidates need all the support they can get in this expensive race.
Generally, it is hard to argue with the fact that when celebrities get involved, the public starts to pay attention. Now, posting the names of celebrities and amount of money that given and to whom they have given it too may not make people run out and vote...or change their idea about who to vote for. Yet I do think that if the public is aware of the face the celebrities care, then the "average" american may start to want to get involved as well. I do think that if celebrities are going to make it public, they need to back only one candidate. With Spielberg backing all the democrates, it makes it clear that he is a part of the democratic party, but it doesnt necessarily make it clear as to what or who in particular he is "rooting" for. Again, his opinion should not be repsonsible for getting people to vote like him, but i personally think it's kind of confusing and almost seems like a cop-out. There should definitely be a cap on how much is allowed to be donated. While its great that celebrities are using their dough to support a cause that effects our country, there could reach a point where the financial advantages become unfair...and politics doesnt need anymore of that.
-Kate Ryan
I truly believe that most of these celebrities are interested in politics and they want to do all they can to help these democratic candidates out. I disagree with Spielberg giving to three different democratic candidates; he should only donate money to the candidate he plans on voting for in the upcoming 2008 elections. I do think it makes perfect sense to have a limit on the amount of money that people can donate to each candidate because it wouldn't be fair for one candidate to receive a plethora of money over another candidate.
To have a cap on the amount of a donation does not really make much of a difference. I think that in theory it's probably a good idea or else these campaigns would just become more and more ridiculous as time wears on as far as spending goes. That money could go to much better things like foreign aide and domestic assistance, but that is besides the point. . .
I agree with mturner in saying that having a list of actors who have contributed to the candidate of their choice will have little bearing on how people vote. I would never base my vote off of which Hollywood heartthrob was doing, and if that is all that's on the American people's minds than they have some really deep digging to do. I sincerely believe that people really do use the best intentions when voting and do take the institution of elections and voting pretty seriously, especially with the performance of our current President and how voting to for a party or for someone because they support one single view of yours is not always wise.
I really don't think that celebrities donate to campaigns just to give themselves good public relations. At the end of the day they are normal people like us and they each want the best person to do the job. They donate money to person they want to get elected. Since these people are constantly in the spotlight they use it to their advantage by helping to get their choice candidate’s name out there. This may prompt people to further investigate certain candidates. I’m sure there will be some uninformed people who may vote for who their favorite celebrity votes for. However, the mass majority of the population will vote for who they would like to see win. So the few people who do follow celebrities when voting, their votes probably wouldn’t make a significant difference.
As far as Steven Spielberg’s case, I think that he may not at this point have an opinion of which democratic candidate he wants to win. So by donating to three different democratic candidates, he is showing his support for the party, but hasn’t really chosen a favorite yet.
I definitely believe there should be a cap on individual donations (I'd also like to see a cap on campaign spending as a whole, but that's another story). I don't however think that celebrities are donating to look like good philanthropists (at least not most of them). Lots of "average" people donate to campaigns as well, but their names aren't going to appear in a news article.
They have the money, why not contribute to their candidate of choice or candidates of their political party.
I'm more comfortable with celebrities donating to campaigns than large corporations. It's not like Clinton is going to turn around and make Spielberg press secretary or something for his $1000 donation. Corporations have a political agenda. I think celebrities just want to be part of the political process and they can afford to do it on a greater scale than middle class citizens.
Every American should be able to spend their money however they desire. Although celebrities are thought by many as being held to a higher standard, if they feel that donating to a specific political candidate is the manner that they wish to spend their money, they should be able to do so accordingly. Celebrities are thought to have a lot of money, but that does not remove the fact that they are American citizens. In America, everyone is granted several freedoms. One of the most important freedoms is the right to vote. There is no clause that states a person can not become involved in a political campaign and donate time or money to a political campaign. I continue to think that it is wonderful that celebrities are becoming involved in politics.
As we have discussed in class, the amount of young voters is at an all time low. I feel celebrities’ donating and becoming involved in political campaigns and making donations, is a superb way to communicate to younger generations the importance of becoming involved in politics. By releasing these records celebrities are being revealed to the public as contributors, and I feel this helps reinforce that everyone should get involved in one's government. I am in favor of celebrities making donations to political campaigns.
On the topic of having a set maximum donation amount, I can say that there have been many debates on this subject. Campaign finance reform has always been a vibrant issue in the halls of Congress when it comes to analyzing political campaign funding. As of right now there is a maximum donation limit, and I feel that donators should have a maximum limit to the amount of money they wish to donate. Without a maximum donation amount set the possibility of corruption increases dramatically. If there was no maximum donation amount limit, the possibility increases that a candidate who wins an election will have to perform favors in return for those who donated excessive amounts of money to their campaign. In addition, making donations to a political campaign should be run on the premise that whoever wishes to show their support for a candidate or candidates should be able to, regardless of the level of contribution. No one should be deterred from donating to a political candidate with the fear that their donation is not sufficient and will not have an impact on the candidates' campaign. For the reasons mentioned, the maximum donation amount should remain in place.
I also don't think that public knowledge of which celebrities donating money to candidates will have much - if any influence on voters. When i hear a celebrity endorses a candidate, i regard it as nothing more than interesting information.
I think those who are more easily influenced by celebrities are younger people who are not able to vote because they are under 18. I feel adults and those who can and will vote will not take how their favorite or their most hated celebrities political choice in to consideration when they vote.
I think the only thing these celebrity donations and endorsements do is bring the attention of the candidate and the race to people who may not normally care about politics.
-R.Shiff
to answer one of the questions, yes, there should definitely be a cap to the amount anyone can contribute. There is a reason why acts like the McCain-Feingold law were passed to help curve the insane spending that goes on for candidate support. However despite the fact that legislation has been passed to limit spending, it does little in the way of limiting spending because candidates are coming out earlier and earlier every 4 years. There's still another 19 months until the election!
In regards to Celebrity spending, they should be allowed to support whomever they want and can do with their money what they please.
In regards to the spending records, yes those records should be released. It is our right as informed citizens to know who is giving money, and how much. Am I going to vote for Barrack Obama because P.Diddy or Steven Spielberg contributed to his campaign? I don't think so, and I sure hope no one else does either. I don't think that someone would not vote for someone because Sean Penn doesn't like a candidate, just I don't think someone would vote for a candidate because of Sean Penn's support. I have some hope that voters would have a little more integrity than that.
Post a Comment