Why The 2016 Election Is Different

Candidates such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are surrounded by money. This will allow for easy unlimited funding from the citizens who agree with their views and will benefit from them winning. Presidents would obviously reward these organizations once elected in one way or another. This will allow wealthy individuals to make a much more significant impact on elections. While old PACs had a cap on how much could be donated by individuals, while prohibiting organizations and companies from donating, these new “isolates” super PACs can receive unlimited donations. A major company may decide to spend a few million dollars to support a specific candidate if it could return profit on the investment from taxation policies the winning candidate puts in place. This puts a large importance on money in the election, and less on debates and views. This is shown in the current election, with two of the candidates being some of the biggest financial influencers in the United States. Donald Trump is one of the faces of the business world and has huge influences in the business world. Hillary Clinton was a former first lady and has many large backings. This election has two of the biggest iconic faces in this country, most likely due to this new

The election of 1860 and 2016 divided our country. There are some similarities and differences, but both elections had the same effect. Each point in time had problems, and each candidate had a different point of view on how to solve these problems. The people who are voting for our future president need to have some background information, so that’s what I’m going to give to you. Hopefully after reading this, you will be sure the person you’re voting for is right for the country.

The 1992 and 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections were two of the most famously negative campaigns in history and share multiple similarities despite being separated by twenty years. In 1992, incumbent President George H.W. Bush was seeking reelection against Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, while the 2012 general election saw incumbent President Barack Obama seeking reelection against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The campaigns of both incumbent presidents incorporated heavy use of television attack advertisements in the attempt to improve their political image, discredit their opponent, and win reelection.

The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committee's

elections all the way to choosing the next president of the united states. In recent years however there has been an upsurge of people making an independent political action committees called super PAC. Super PACs are unique due to them being allowed to spend an unlimited amount of funds in support which ever candidate they choose. there are however some strings attach to super PACs such as them not being allowed to give money they have collected directly to the candidate or coordinating with the candidate's own political action committee. Super PACs have created a issue on whether it is fair to the opponents of whoever is running against them if they do not have a super PAC, because they can not match the amount of spending a person has spent on political ads or other forms to help get votes when compared to people who have a super PAC helping them.

With the campaign contribution, money plays a major role in the partisan elections. It leads to long ballots causing problems for citizens in terms of elections. Voters are able to partake in the straight

In the United States, there are little limitations on how much candidates can spend on their campaigning. Making it easy for people such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the recent 2016 election to pull ahead by publicizing themselves. Less wealthy candidates like George Pataki and Rick Perry are at a disadvantage going into the election, not only is it unfair but unjust. These candidates do not get to put themselves out to the public without spending a fortune leading to them not winning the election. As of the most recent presidential election, candidates would spend millions to put their name on television or billboards. If there were a limit on candidates

The presidential election of 2000 between Bush and Al Gore was one of the most tendentious ballads of all time. Due to miscounted votes in Florida the election was ordered a recount, to initiate who would be our next president of the United States. Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State of Florida certifies the recount to occur in all fairness to the people. She concurred that 18 out of the 67 counties didn’t run their ballots through for a second time. This was also one of the closest election we have had in presidential history, 327 was the difference between the referendum. The 2000 election was more legitimate than it was counterfeit. Allowing there to be a recount giving a deadline of December 12th is legitimate to figure out who will

The election of 2016 was an event that brought out the worst in Americans. Joanne B. Freeman describes that the constant arguing between voters and the persistent burlesquing between candidates in the most recent election is not all that different than the 1800 election. Both elections also used forms of media of the time to gain votes. The media of 1800 were newspapers, rather than instagram posts and tweets. I agree with these notions and that the election of 1800 is not a “stepping-stone to modern party politics”. I think this way as well. The two elections are extremely different because the recent election was majority focused on the two-party system, while the 1800 election came down to two candidates of the same, democratic-republican,

American presidential election of 2016 was a few weeks ago, many are scratching their heads following the outcome result. Many, including myself are, asking the question who voted to bring Trump into office? No the better question is who did not vote to keep Trump out of the office. This must have been the same feelings and questions people had in the election of 1968 with Nixon, as the options they were left with to choose was not one of which many were enthused about. Richard Milhous Nixon born on January 9, 1913 in Yorba Linda, California. (Biography.com Editors, paragraph 2) Donald John Trump, born in June 14, 1946, in Queens, New York. Both were one of five Children of their families. (Biography.com Editors, paragraph 2). In both of their of biographies, Nixon attended Duke University and earned a degree in law but Trump attended Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania, and graduated with a degree in economics. What lead these two in to politic and clinching the title of the presidency as “Law and Order candidates.

The 2004 and 2012 Presidential Elections demonstrated the voter’s commitment to incumbent Presidents during tough times and major crises. In 2004, voters were interested in foreign policy, terrorism and the current wars. In 2012 the national focus was the economy, following the financial crisis that began in 2008. Consequently, the challenging nominees had backgrounds appropriate for the issues, but had the inability to stand out as a better option. Perhaps because, typically incumbents have the advantage of better name recognition, experience and their agenda has had longer time to be defined.

The government of the United States is bought and sold like stocks. Billionaires and corporations have poured an incomprehensible amount of money into thousands of political campaigns. According to opensecrets.org, the average cost to win a senate race is now $11,474,362. For the 2016 presidential race alone the Koch brothers plan on spending $889 million. It is nearly impossible to win an election without the support of billionaires and corporations. The impact that money has on elections has spiraled of control. A political revolution to fix the power the wealthy have in politics is already happening. Senator Bernie Sanders is the one leading this revolution. Even without the revolutionary policies, Sanders would set in place to end the American Oligarchy his campaign is still important. Sanders leading by example and showing the country that it is possible to run a campaign without support from the elite. Sanders campaign has raised $75 million so far with an average donation of only $25. If

In the land of politics, the more money that one has is the better. This is no exception when it comes to campaigns and elections. The goal of any political campaign is to get their nominee the votes they need to win. Whether this is through negative or positive campaign tactics, one thing can fuel a campaigns success is money. Money in a campaign means that more advertising can be bought. This is the perfect way to get the candidate seen by the public and is also a way to paint a negative picture of the other candidate. However, questions can be raised where does the money that funds campaigns or campaign advertisement come from, should there be regulations imposed to monitor where it comes from and what part of the campaign does this money fund? Questions like these and more were answered in the Supreme Court Case Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commissions and many were not happy about this ruling.

The 1980 presidential election of the United States featured three primary candidates, Republican Ronald Reagan, Democrat Jimmy Carter and liberal Republican John Anderson. Ronald Reagan was the governor of California before he decided to run for the presidency. John Anderson was a representative in Illinois and Carter was the incumbent. The lengthy Iran hostage crisis sharpened public opinions by the beginning of the election season. In the 1970s, the United States were experiencing a straining episode of low economic growth, high price increases and interest rates and an irregular energy crisis. The sense of discomfort in both domestic and foreign affairs in the nation were heading downward, this added to the downward spiral that was already going on. Between Carter, Anderson and Reagan, the general election campaign of the 1980s seemed more concerned with shadowboxing around political issues rather than a serious discussion of the issues that concerned voters.

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.