Sunday, April 8, 2007
Limitations on Campaign Spending
A New York Times editorial recently addressed the issue of the primary and general presidential elections spending. Because of the excessive amounts of money that candidates spend on their campaigns and are given by wealthy private interest groups and individuals (especially during the primary election), the issue of whether or not there should be money limitations becomes an issue of great importance.It was recently reported in a Quarterly fund-rasing results report that Clinton has raised $26 million, Obama has raised $25 million and Romney has already raised $20 million while there is still 19 months left before the election (www.nytimes.com). It was said in the editorial that a candidate's ability to raise money for the election puts an automatic damper on the race because the more money a candidate is able to raise, the more likely to win the Presidency they are and this is then really just a representation of private interest group opinion rather than the general American public. (To read the article-http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/opinion/05thu1.html ).If a candidate is going to be able to use unlimited private funding for their campaign, then can it be said that the position of the president is given to the candidate who can raise the most money and not who would be best fit? And is the election controlled by the large corporations and wealthy private individuals who are able to give large amounts of money to the candidate of their choice and control public opinion this way?There was a Campaign Finance Law that was created, however it is optional for the candidates to abide by. (To read more about terms and conditions- http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Disclosure ). Basically, if a candidate decides to agree to the terms of the Law, there are limitations made as to how much private funding they may receive and the amount they receive from Public funding is proportional to that. This way, the Presidential race is not descriminatory towards those who are not as fortunate in being given exessive amounts of money from private individuals and the election can be much fairer in that it does a better job in voicing the opinions of the public rather than just those large and wealthy corporations and individuals.Do you agree that this finance law should be made mandatory to all candidates? And also do you think it will be successful in controlling the election from being manipulated by the special interestests groups or individuals with significant financial recourses?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The amount of money that the candidates have raised so far as astronomically ridiculous. I don't know if this is just me not completely understanding how politics function, but is there really a need for all of that money? I feel that since we are a country where much debt is present, that money should be invested elsewhere. I absolutely think that there should be a cap on how much a candidate can raise so that there can be a much more fair race between who can provide the most for our country, rather than who is most popular with the financially elite.
I dont think that the candidates who gain all of this money are just a representation of private interest group opinion rather than the general American public, otherwise there should be an uproar within our country. Obviously there are enough people supporting each candidate in addition to the private interest groups.
Also, if there was a Campaign Finance Law created, I don't understand why it is optional. There aren't too many laws that I know of that are optional...so I find this a little concerning. I don't understand the point of creating a law, for the sole fact of it being optional? If there was a law created, it was obviously created for a reason, and I believe that all candidates should therefore abide by it. With this law, I do feel as if campaigns would be more fair for real "average joes" to run.
Barack said it best, the fundraising for the 2008 presidential race is "obscene." I absolutely think that campaign finance laws should be stricter and actually enforced. Like Meghan asked, when did laws become optional?
True, it may not be wealthy individuals and corporations who directly vote a candidate into office, but they are largely responsible for whose message reaches the public and for creating name recognition. The more money a candidate receives, the more advertising and campaigning s/he can afford. Therefore, special interests have a huge affect on the political process. This is not the way presidential politics should be played.
Shame on the media too for turning the campaigns into money making horse races. Public opinion polls are bad enough, but at least they rank candidates according to general public sentiment. A candiate shouldn't be awarded credibilty and salience in the media because of his/her money making capability (popularity among the wealthy). I also think the media's framing of the 2008 campaigns as a competition for money further disillusions people from politics. It makes the political process seem even more out of the hands of ordinary citizens and turns it into a contest for millionaires.
I was just about to blast Hillary for being hypocritical because of her promise to work on campaign finance if she were elected. There's no time like the present, right? Then I thought again, and I realized she's just playing the game by the (grossly inadequate) set of prevailing rules.
As far as McCain and Obama agreeing to public financing for the general election, I say- who cares? That makes about as much sense as gorging yourself and rationalizing it by saying, "my diet starts tomorrow." The campaigns have started so early, by the time the general election rolls around, they will have already spent millions upon millions of dollars getting their messages out ahead of the others who have slimmer piggy banks.
I don't actually blame any of the candidates though, I blame the system. It really is unfair, biased and in need of serious repair. However, I think the responsibility is in the hands of the public to shape the kind of government we want and to demand change. We have to bring campaign finance reform to the top of the congressional agenda. Like Anna Roosevelt's family enouraged, we have to become active and responsible citizens if we want to see change.
Until then, presidential politics will likely continue to be a game of "obscene" spending.
I agree with the above bloggers’ posts when they said that the amount of money being raised this year is ridiculous. I certainly believe there should be a cap to this, so that everyone will be given an equal playing field. After all, where do future elections go from here? Each year the spending on elections will continue to increase. I think that by limiting the amount of funding a candidate receives, it will show who can really stretch the dollar to get their message across the most. I think that if candidates are limited to the amount of money they can spend, they will think of more creative and cheaper ways to get their messages out to the public.
Our government was set up so that the people have a voice in voting for their officials. The problem is that wealthy individuals and corporations are donating money to who will best serve their interest. So these candidates who have the most money aren’t always doing what is best for the country; they are doing what will make their big supporters happy. I think by limiting the amount of fundraising for candidates, it will limit the amount of external interests that need to be kept happy.
I agree completely that there should be a cap on campaign spending. The campaign turns more and more into who has the most money and not who is the most qualified. I actually find it kind of sad to hear that a candidate's ability to raise money for the election will make them more likely to win the Presidency. How is this determining who is best fit to run our country?
I really don't think an optional law makes sense at all. Obviously it should be mandatory. Otherwise, how would it be enforced? I'm not saying that it would completely eliminate the campaigns from being manipulated but it is a big step in the right direction.
Post a Comment