The Democratic Paradox Of Campaign Finance Reform Summary

‘Despite several attempts to regulate campaign finance, money increasingly dominates the U.S. Electoral process and is the main factor contributing to a candidates success’ Discuss (30 marks)

Gerrymandering has existed long before there was a word directly referring to the action it entails. Gerrymandering is essentially the changing and controlling of district boundaries in order to manipulate the outcome. The term, which was printed for the first time in 1812, is a combination of the word “salamander”- the reason for this being that the first district (in Massachusetts) to be gerrymandered resembled the animal- and the last name of the governor of Massachusetts at the time, Elbridge Gerry. The manipulation of the outcome of congressional elections is rooted from corruption and the lack of a “perfect” way to please both the majority and the minorities in drawing the district boundaries.

Gerrymandering may prevent the purpose of members being elected on a single-member district basis because districts can be drawn favoring one political party. Gerrymandering is when districts have been drawn so the boundaries of legislative districts in bizarre or unusual shapes to favor one party. Gerrymandering protects incumbents and discourages challengers and it strengthens the majority party while weakening the opposition party

It’s hard to imagine a period in American political history that hasn’t been dominated by a duopoly of political parties. Even though resistance from the founding fathers on the issue of political parties is well documented, the two-party system we are well accustomed to developed shortly after the emergence of the United States as an independent nation. Whether it was the Federalist/Democratic-Republican system in the late 18th and early 19th centuries or the Democratic/Republican system we know today, two ideologically opposite parties have always maintained dominant control of the American political system. The existence of third parties and independent candidates, therefore, complicates the political system that we have used for

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

struggle for democracy” (Greenberg 2014, pg. 287). Problems do remain at the polls and also

The demons of a misinterpreted judicial review have corrupted the legislature, the courts, and our political process. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional. The landmark Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision ruled that political spending is a form of free speech and corporations have license to contribute exorbitant amounts to politicians. Citizens United ensures denies the voices of citizens as representatives are beholden to outside interests rather than their constituency. I, Justice John B. Gibson, hold that the power of judicial review is too widely interpreted and, to keep government officials accountable, must be vested in the masses to rediscover some twinge of our once budding representative democracy.

‘Breaking Free with Fair Elections’ we learn about the myth of that “Fair Elections systems force taxpayers to support candidates they do not like” when the reality is that taxpayers taxpayers who contribute to public funding are not paying for a candidate, but rather a fair chance for every candidate.

It is time that the voters are the only one’s deciding elections. Candidates should be running on issues, not money. They should not be allowed to get money from wealthy investors, who keep the playing field unlevel. Any person who wants to run for office, and is qualified to run for office, should be able to regardless if they have a lot of money to set up a campaign or not. It is time for Campaign Finance Reform.

With the introduction of “soft” money in politics, elections no longer go to the best candidate, but simply to the richer one. Soft money is defined as unregulated money that is given to the political parties that ends up being used by candidates in an election. In last year’s elections, the Republican and Democratic parties raised more than one-half of a billion dollars in soft money. Current politicians are pushing the envelope farther than any previous administrations when it comes to finding loopholes in the legal system for campaign fundraising. The legal limit that any one person can contribute to a given candidate or campaign is one thousand dollars. There is, however, no limit on the amount of money one

The debate about campaign finance reform is not a new problem but has a long history of change. The first major debate over campaign finance arose from Andrew Jackson’s spoils system. During Andrew Jackson’s 1828 term, he would give out positions in his office to those who supported him during the election. The practice would inadvertently lead to the assassination of President James Garfield and create the first law that placed a restraint on relationships between donors and candidates known as the Pendleton Act of 1883. The law required that civil service positions be filled based off of merit rather than party affiliation. The regulation on campaigns would continue in 1896 when the government took

The right of free speech granted to all citizens in the first amendment, the necessity of funding expensive political campaigns, and the fact that small donations make a candidate responsive to the needs of their constituents, all make any restrictions on campaign financing unneeded and onerous. Congress should strike down any bills attempting to reform this essential part of the U.S. election process. Any further restrictions on donations to political campaigns will prove detrimental to the United States functioning system of elections by limiting individuals’ freedom of speech, making our candidate’s campaigns underfunded and unresponsive to the needs of the American people.

In order to make a reform possible, it is necessary to decide what problems we are attempting to reform. “Obviously, we need to reform the habit of using cheap and unreliable voting equipment such as Votomatic card punches, but that is not a constitutional issue” (Kienitz, via Internet).

From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700’s you had to be a white male landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has over the election process and politicians. While money has it’s

With the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye.      There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.