Note: You can get credit for posting on this blog until Tuesday night at midnight.
Campaign finance refers to the money that is given to campaigns. While around the world there are many different forms of this from private to public financing, the United States has a combination of factors which you can read about here, and here. Nearly all national candidates raise some money from private donors or organizations. Presidential candidates also have the option of taking public money which all have done for the general election (except Barack Obama in 2008, a trend that we will likely see continue moving forward). Some argue that campaign finance must be reformed in order to limit or eliminate private money entering the system. Their arguments generally support the idea that there are many ways that unlimited money can be donated which creates an unequal ability to influence elections and contributes to corruption and the dominance of wealthy individuals and organizations. Others argue that campaign finance should be unregulated. Supporters of this position suggest that campaign donations are a form of political speech and that this speech should not be limited in any way, they believe that this is a form of political participation that would be taken away from citizens. Recently a the Citizens United Supreme Court case altered campaign finance is a large way but allowing corporations and unions to contribute unlimited money as long as it is not donated directly to a campaign, but can be used to independently advocate for or against particular candidates.
- After reading a bit more about current campaign finance laws in America, and the Citizens United decision, do we need campaign finance reform in America?
- Do you support the idea that campaign donations are a form of speech and must be protected or that private donations should be regulated or eliminated to create a more equitable political system?
- How do you think the current campaign finance laws will affect the 2012 presidential race?
The campaign finance laws in my opinion are outrageous! if a candidate is capable of raising an obsene amount of money- for instance Obama - then he should be free to spend the money on an elaborate campaign.
ReplyDeleteBy imposing regulations on the amount that one can give to a candidate is essentiatly a violation of freedom. One should be allowed to spend their hard earned money on whatever they'd like.
While I do think it is unfortunate that the majority of candidates running- lose and people's money are "wasted", it is still the choice of the voters to submit the funds, not up to the government to enforce restricting laws on challenging campaigns
Campaign finance laws are not an impediment to free speech, rather they serve to facilitate a fair and democratic campaign process. Just like we need business regulation to ensure that the economy doesn't become a complete free for all where the rich just get richer, campaign finance needs to be regulated to ensure a (semi-)balanced election. The Citizens United decision simply enables those with millions of dollars to acquire even more control within the political system. If there are no regulation laws over how much a corporation can give to a candidate, it essentially just becomes a race where whoever has more money wins. I personally don't see how that embodies American ideals- I would think the American people would want the candidate who wins to be the one who the majority support, not the one who is in cahoots with big-shot corporate executives.
ReplyDeleteI think that the current campaign laws can have two opposite effects on the 2012 presidential race. One outcome is that the candidates now receive inordinate amounts of funding which they may not have ordinarily gotten, tipping the race in one person's favor. However, the Citizens United decision may also be brought into debate as Occupy Wall Street grows stronger, and for those who oppose the decision, they may be able to rally against the ruling as well as whichever candidate who ultimately benefits from it.
The campaign finance laws in America are completely legitimate. I understand that a politician would want to spend as much as they can afford in an election but I honestly think that it goes against what the election is really about. It should not be about which candidate has more money to spend on advertisements but rather all the factors that actually do matter such as their policies, speeches etc. I also think that it is frankly a waste of money and the money used for campaigning should be used for a better cause. America is having a financial crisis right now and there should be a limit to how much people can spend.
ReplyDeleteI really do not think that it is violating any freedom. America is a free country but there are still limits to what we can do and I do not think it's ridiculous for there to be a limit to how much a candidate can spend on their own campaign. They are free to do whatever they want with that money.
From what I understand and from my limited research, the underlying argument is that of two different values: protecting equality and protecting one's right of free speech. In general, both are very high up in the value system. They're both so important and both are needed to maintain a just society. However, regarding the issue of government regulations of campaign finance specifically, one value must be compromised; and in my humble opinion, that value is the right to free speech. In a case like this, in which the outcome can have MAJOR ramifications- i.e. who the future President will be- I think it is okay for free speech to be sacrificed. While that may be a little far-fetched, because campaigning may not be a direct cause of the President that is chosen, campaigning certainly is viewed as important enough that HUGE donations are made. Clearly, people expect to see results from campaigning. As a result, I believe that maintaining equality and preventing corruption is a value that must be preserved here over the value of free speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiments of Talya and a few others who support the regulations. Capital is NOT the same as speech. I disagree with Sarit's sentiment that people should be able to do whatever they want with their hard earned money. That's hardly the case in any situation in America. That's the reason there's a black market, because you can't spend your money on whatever you want. Some things are illegal.
ReplyDeleteI think limiting the amount of money able to be donated will create a more equal playing field. It will give candidates who might come from a less affluent background a chance to run and this will help insure that the government isn't only available to the upper class or elite, but can be accessible to the "common man" as a Jacksonian might put it.
While I do believe that people deserve to spend their own money on things they see fit there must be legal barriers in certain facets. Campaign finance laws allow for an equality that would not exist with out certain regulations. Preventing corruption and inequality is something that this country prides itself on and in the area of choosing a leader it should be no different.
ReplyDeleteIt is imperative that the presidential race does NOT turn to a candidate solely because they have the financial support that others do not. As a voter I find it reassuring that the government regulates the financial realm of the presidential campaign.
While it is true that people have their right to do with their money as they please (though this is a relative statement since one can argue taxes force a person to spend/give up money against their will) I do support the Campaign Finance Laws. We must remember that America was a country that was born to be for the every day man and not run by the rich.
ReplyDeleteThe Campaign Finance Laws simply place a limit on how much money can be spent, it is not saying that the rich can't spend an insanely large amount of money, they can, but not at the cost of annihilating the competition. By making the laws, they are evening the playing field as much as possible and helping politics be a fair place for even the "little guy".
I do not think that the laws are a violation of any freedoms- everything has it's limit. We, as citizens, have freedom of speech, but if you say a racial slur you can still be charged with a hate crime. And we can do as we'd like, but disgracing the flag in most circumstances is considered a federal offense. Everyone is encouraged to donate money to the candidate of their choice, but within reason. Things cannot just be limitless, that causes chaos.
- Leah Avner
I think that presidents should be able to receive as much money as they would like, it is the citizens way of showing support to the candidate and like it says by taking that freedom away it is like taking away freedom of speech. It is a way for that citizen to show that he supports this man and his campaign.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a free country where citizens have many rights and for people to be taken away the ability to support a possible future president of their country it just doesn't seem fair. And i agree very much with Sarits points, like she says if hes capable then he should be allowed.
Whether or not you identify with the Occupy Wall Street movement, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the vast majority of Americans can identify with their frustrations. As the 99%, it seems that the United States is geared towards big business and big money. Money spent on political campaigns seems to promote just that. Spending multi-millions of dollars on political campaigns is completely absurd, considering the intense economic and social issues that our country faces. In addition, not having campaign finance laws means that “grass roots candidates” who don’t have huge sums of money to shuffle around don’t stand a chance. If all political candidates were only allowed to spend a predetermined amount of money on their campaigns, the public would be able to see at least a somewhat equivalent representation of a particular candidate. I think that Talya said it very well- these laws help ensure that the election process is fair and just.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably one of the most complicated blog that we have had to assess so far. There are two major U.S. principles under scrutiny in this situation and both have their pros and cons. Although, I would like to say that I completely agree with the campaign finance law because it promotes more equality, I can’t help but to feel that implementing limitations in this case is also unfair. I hear both sides of the argument. Therefore, with such a predicament I look towards people who know more about the situation than I do, like the Supreme Court. They heard Citizen United’s case and decided that completely restricting campaign finances was unconstitutional. I can accept that.
ReplyDeleteAs a side point, the wealthy people or corporations who are interested in supporting a particular candidate would have found a way to provide the candidate with unlimited funds anyway. Regardless of whether the law actually permitted them or not. At least with this leeway the other candidates will also have a fighting chance at raising more funds from their supporters. In this aspect, all the candidates have an equal opportunity to gain America's support, and with that their financial aid.
Campaigns are a very public and prominent part of the political system. Whether we like it or not, all publicity concerning those campaigns is protected under the amendment of free speech. In my opinion, there is no difference between a person standing on a street corner trying to get support for a candidate and a person donating money to a campaign. Practically, donating money to a campaign will go further in helping the candidate than anything else. While it is seemingly crazy that campaigns can theoretically have unlimited funding, it is not up to the federal government to decide how much a person can donate to a cause they choose. The political system has never been equal and will probably never be. Those candidates that drum up the most financial support have an easier time of getting their image to the public. However, there is no absolute guarantee that just because they had the biggest, most glitzy campaign with funding greater than some overall budgets of countries that they will win. The upcoming campaigning for the 2012 presidential race is already underway. The president is already out there trying to raise money as well as his many Republican counterparts. In today’s world, the greatest means to reach out to the people is also some of the most expensive. Raising money is part of the political game and, if a candidate is the right person for the job no matter his campaign finances, he has just as much of a shot as anyone else.
ReplyDeleteI think that the campaign finance laws definitely need to be changed. I think it’s ridiculous that campaigns can have unlimited funding, and I think that that practice has to stop. Obviously a candidate is going to want as much money as possible, because in the political race, being able to raise a lot of money is important, but we must also consider what happens if that candidate who is getting millions in donations from private individuals and corporations becomes president. What kind of influence do these corporations have over the president? I read an academic article for another poli sci class a while back that basically said that money translates into political power and that the richest 5% have the most political influence. I think we must consider, especially now that the only people who are prospering in this country these days are the top 5%. I may be wrong, but I always thought that the great thing about free speech is anyone could participate in it. The ability to donate millions in campaign donations is obviously something that only very few can do, and I find it kind of strange that anyone would classify it as “free” speech, it’s not really very free, is it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarit and everyone else who said that the campaign finance laws are a violation of free speech. I understand that there exists a fear that big business will be able to wield even more influence in the political game and that this may even possibly lead to corruption, but in my mind this cannot excuse the fact that the laws violate the first amendment right of free speech. If someone wants to spend millions of dollars on a billboard supporting a particular candidate he has the right to do so and how could the government tell him that he can't? Without a constitutional amendment, Congress cannot simply suspend free speech even if their motives are to support a more democratic electoral system.
ReplyDeleteEven before the Citizens United decision, I wonder how much of an effect the campaign finance laws really had. From what I read it seemed that corporations were able to find loopholes and continued to give money to the candidates they wanted just more indirectly. Aside from a rise in the dollar amount of contributions we can expect to see in the 2012 elections I'm curious to see if there will be any other practical ramifications of the Supreme Court decision.
In my opinion, I think that there should be a limit on how much each candidate can spend or receive for their campaign. Their campaign should not be based on how much money a candidate has or makes based on his followers; it should really be based on the candidates thoughts and ideas for bettering America. This way also opens up the opportunity for middle or lower class citizens to run for president; the job is not just for the elite anymore.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that this restriction takes away from the public supporting the candidates because they can support by voting. I also don't think it takes away freedom of speech because they are still running a campaign and they still get to speak to the public and pass on their views and what they think they can do to make this country a better place.
If the candidate is good enough to run this country, they won't need loads of money to do so. I think that the money can be a little distracting if you ask me.
I definitely think that unlimited campaign funds would lead to an unfair election process. It does not seem to me that limiting these funds violates freedom of speech - there needs to be some restrictions otherwise everything gets out of control. It would be unfair to those who want to run but don't have the same financial resources as those who are wealthier. I think it sends the wrong message if we allow unlimited financial resources to be given to presidential candidates.
ReplyDeleteAmerica stands for freedom of speech and of equal opportunity. I agree with those who said before that the campaign finance laws in America are both practical and fair. That doesn't mean that all are equal, as I believe that they favor the rich and influential. America, however, also gives everyone the opportunity to succeed and that is what makes it fair. Being able to raise a large amount of money says a lot about one’s ability to advertise and campaign and the message you are trying to relay. At the same time with what is going on with the Occupy Wall Street movement, we are seeing the other side of the issue as there is a desire to make the economy and the political system both more uniform and inclusive.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not think the campaign finance issue will be a major factor in the Presidential race, it is clear that the next President will have to address all classes of society in both the Presidential race and in their Presidency
Campaign Finance is an interesting and complicated issue because, as Pamela said, at the core of this debate are two American values pitted against each other - anti corruption and inequality against free speech. Both sides of the argument bring strong points in their favor, but I personally support the position that private financial support to a specific candidate should not be government regulated. It is unfortunate that some voters vote for a candidate based on who has flashier commercials and more money to spend on a campaign. However, the solution is not to regulate the amount of money that can be donated. Even if these laws were set up, candidates would think of innovative ways to campaign which will probably, just as unregulated campaign finance, have the potential to be corrupt. Often when a celebrity endorses or opposes a candidate this increases or decreases a candidate’s popularity and influence whether people will vote for him. This too may seem to be promoting inequality - whoever has access to these public figures can gain their support and votes. Should this too be stopped? Should we ban free speech of actors, musicians and athletes to even out the playing field in political campaigns? Corruption in politics is a significant problem and should be eliminated, but regulating the amount of money that can be donated to a candidate is not the way to solve this issue. Regulating campaign finance is a violation of free speech and it will not achieve its goal of decreasing the amount of influence the wealthy have on politics.
ReplyDeleteI agree that unlimited funding would make campaigning unfair but at the same time I agree with Rebecca; if a candidate can convince people that he'd be a good investment then good for him for having promoted himself well. But it seems that certain financial advantages would in fact pose a problem with regard to campaign finances because one candidate would most probably have a clear advantage over the other, causing the general public to cast aspersions.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Miriam's argument that capping the campaign donations will not reduce the influence the wealthy have on policies and politicians. The term 'wealthy' indicates how this group uses its money as leverage to further its own interests. Therefore, regulating the system would by definition limit the efforts of individuals, unions, and corporations from having too much influence on politicians and policies.
ReplyDeleteWhile one can argue the issue of free speech, it's important to acknowledge actions that can be harmful in the long run to the people. Therefore, it's we must set limits on campaign donations in order to prevent future unfair political preferences as a result of unjust campaign practices.
- Elana Honick
I don’t believe that giving money to a candidate necessarily falls under the category of freedom of speech, that being said I believe that individuals should be able to donate as much money as they want to a political campaign. What I think become problematic is when huge corporations are side stepping the regulations and essentially donating obscene amounts of money, more than any individual can afford, to a political campaign. I think it that sense we need campaign finance laws because cooperation are essentially eliminating the peoples free speech because an individual couldn’t donate as significant amount of money as a cooperation can. In terms of the 2012 election I think money, as is always does, plays a huge role in getting a candidate elected. The more money they have the more negative ads they can run.
ReplyDeletePosted for Rebecca A.:
ReplyDeleteEvery competition has rules and regulations and in my opinion the presidential race should be no different. I think that it makes sense to limit the spending of presidential candidates so as to ensure that all candidates are in an even playing field. There is something to be said for allowing candidates to spend as much money as they can in an effort to preserve the right of freedom of speech. As a country that prides itself on liberty it is healthy to question whether or not putting such a limitation on candidates is Constitutional. In fact it keeps us in check. Despite this I think that we need to remember that we are a country that provides equal opportunity to both wealthy and common people. We need to remember to maintain such a balance in presidential elections as well. In my opinion America does need finance reform.
Rebecca Abrams