political science 6 parts in 12hrs

INSTRUCTIONS: In this activity, you assume the role of Senate majority leader who has received a memo about full federal funding of presidential campaigns. You will review arguments for and against public funding of political campaigns, cast your vote and then provide a written explanation of your decision.

INTRODUCTION: To: Chandra Enakshi, Senate majority leader

From: Brian Luce, chief of staff

Subject: Full federal financing of presidential campaigns

In recent years, more and more candidates have opted out of the public funding system, with only one candidate participating in 2016. Elections have also become vastly more expensive, with presidential candidates alone raising over $1.5 billion in 2016 (not counting party committees, PACs, or outside groups). Congress needs to decide whether elections are a public investment or a political free market for citizens and candidates. We support a bill that would fully fund all major-party presidential candidates.

To Consider:

A bipartisan group of senators has proposed that Congress control campaign expenses by fully funding and setting an upper limit on financing for presidential campaigns. Presidential contenders so far have refrained from taking a position on the legislation.

Arguments for:

1. Legal precedents are promising. Matching federal funds already go to presidential primary candidates who have raised at least $5,000, in contributions of $250 or less, in each of 20 states. For the general election, each major-party nominee already is eligible for federal funding if he or she agrees to spend no more than that amount.

2. The funding required would be small. Even if it cost $1 billion, that is hardly a fiscal drain in a nearly $3.8 trillion annual budget.

3. The effects would be pervasive. Candidates and party leaders would stop covertly courting big donors with phone calls, lunches, and personal visits, and would focus instead on the needs of average citizens.

Arguments against:

1. Constitutional precedent for requiring political candidates to accept public funds is weak. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court upheld limits on campaign contributions for candidates who accept public money, but it also defined spending money for political purposes as expression protected by the First Amendment, thereby giving individuals the right to raise and spend as much of their own money as they choose, if they forego federal funds.

2. Campaign spending would soon spiral once again. The federal government may not restrict spending by individuals or organizations working independently from the political parties, and federal funds would merely supplement, not supplant, private fundraising.

3. Less than 10 percent of taxpayers currently support public financing through voluntary federal income tax check-offs, and voters likely would view bankrolling elections as serving politicians, not the people.

Additional Research:

The following links present the arguments on the more general topic of public financing for all types of elections. As you read them, consider them and how they would apply to the case of presidential elections. Choose at least one link for each side of the argument and make sure to read through the entire text. Once you have enough information, move onto the next part of the activity.

Pro Public Financing:

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/more-combating-corruption-other-benefits-public-financing

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2015/02/18/can-public-funding-initiatives-for-political-activity-increase-openness/

Anti Public Financing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/evidence-suggests-that-switching-to-publicly-funded-elections-is-rarely-a-game-changer/2014/09/25/aaabb55a-4267-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html?utm_term=.093e0312210f

http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Public-Funding-Research-Brief.FINAL_.pdf

Will you support or oppose legislation for full federal financing of presidential campaigns? Why?