Responses Due in 24 hrs

POST ONE

Using a reasonable person standard, one might assume that millions of dollars in campaign contributions have a deleterious effect on a candidate’s behavior, given that the money has to come from someone’s pocket and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Looking back over the past 14 years, the pattern of change in presidential elections and midterm elections is the same – growth. Worse still, those who achieved victory in the House of Representatives outspent those who lost their bid by almost 3-to-1, and the delta between the costliest campaign and the most frugal was a whopping 101-to-1. (Center for Responsive Politics n.d.)

OpenSecrets.org

The aggregate cost of the 2012 elections exceeded 6 billion dollars. With nine zeros to the right of the significant digit, this is money from very deep pockets. In 2012, the top five Political Action Committees (PACs) contributed 16.8 million dollars. As significant as that may appear, the top five individual donors contributed 173.3 million dollars, and unlike the PACs who spread the funds between parties, the individual donors were monolithic in one direction or the other. (Center for Responsive Politics n.d.)

Lee Drutman, writing in The Washington Post, posits that no one is really trying to “buy” a candidate so much as they are establishing a foundation of understanding from which to establish a “relationship” with the elected official. For the small player or non-contributor in the process that is politics today, there is no “relationship” built on massive campaign contributions, leaving one to question just whom the elected official is representing when decisions are being made. (Drutman 2014)

Regardless of the aggregate cost of running a political campaign, unless someone has devised a mechanism to turn money into votes, purchasing an election is a fiction. It is a fiction sold to the public with the same carelessness displayed by the use of the term, “assault rifle” which may be an attempt to make the public think there are selectable-fire military weapons in use or the journalist is simply ignorant. (Pamer 2015)

Granted, in the 2012 elections in the House of Representative, losers only outspent winners in 25 races, but just as there are states and there are swing states, there is a similar nature reflected in political districts. For example, in California District 12, incumbent Nancy Pelosi (D) outspent challenger John Dennis (R) by a 4-to-1 margin ($2,001,648 to $480,226). When the winner was nearly a foregone conclusion, as was the case of the Democratic incumbent receiving 85% of the votes in a district containing the city of San Francisco, the fact that most of the money went to the favored candidate is only logical. (Center for Responsive Politics n.d.)

Achieving name recognition and getting one’s message to the voting public in a close election hinges on the ability to fund an effective campaign, but the reality of the chosen example is that no amount of money spent by John Dennis would have enabled him to be victorious this election. It is a work of fiction to believe John Dennis could have achieved victory, unless he was actually able to turn money into votes. Ultimately, it is the hand marking the ballot, not the hand writing the check, that determines the victor.

Bibliography

Center for Responsive Politics. Election Stats. n.d. https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/elec_stats.php?cycle=2012 (accessed December 9, 2015).

—. Summary Data - 2012 Race: California District 12. n.d. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=CA12&Cycle=2012 (accessed December 10, 2015).

—. The Money Behind the Elections. n.d. https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ (accessed December 9, 2015).

—. Top PACs. n.d. https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/toppacs.php?cycle=2012 (accessed December 9, 2015).

—. Winning vs. Spending. n.d. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/bigspenders.php?cycle=2012&display=A&Memb=H&sort=D (accessed December 10, 2015).

Drutman, Lee. The Washington Post: Why we still need to worry about money in politics. December 15, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/15/why-we-still-need-to-worry-about-money-in-politics/ (accessed December 9, 2015).

Flitter, Emily. Reuters: Why U.S. billionaires may not be able to buy the 2016 election. June 2, 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-billionaires-idUSKBN0OI07I20150602#GilLQI3SSTWa5ixP.97 (accessed December 10, 2015).

Pamer, Melissa. San Bernardino Shooter’s Friend’s Purchase of Assault Rifles Probed. December 10, 2015. http://ktla.com/2015/12/10/san-bernardino-shooters-friends-purchase-of-assault-rifles-probed/ (accessed December 10, 2015).

POST TWO

  1.   There is too much money in politics today. The money that is used in politics is not primarily used to support the actual candidate itself, it is actually used against the opposite political party. In the 2012 election it came down to Barack Obama for the Democratic Party and Mitt Romney for the Republican Party. Obama raised $393,206,398 and only $49,764,651 was used for the Democrats, while $333,851,814 of that money was used against the Democrats. (Opensecrets.org) Romney raised $186,401,701 and $90,580,049 was used for the Republicans, while $95,275,499 was used against the republicans. (Opensecrets.org) Obama had raised double the amount of Mitt Romney. With this money organizations and individuals are allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money towards ads, to send mail, create commercials, or advocate for the election or defeat of specific candidates. Outside groups were able to use independent expenditures and electioneering communications to raise an unlimited amount of money to use at their disposal for or against candidates.

          President Bush tried to put a stop to the unlimited amount of campaign contributions by signing the Campaign Finance Reform in 2002. This bill was signed into law to bans softs money and prevents special interest groups from spending corporate or labor union money on broadcast ads that mention a candidate just prior to an election. (APUS) Of course this new law was considered unconstitutional in 2003 so political parties were allowed to resume raising an unlimited amount of campaign contributions again. The court also lifted the ban on ads aired by special interest groups, but they did adopt a stricter standard that must be followed at all times. But with the law being overturned now we are back to allowing an unlimited number of dollars to be contributed to campaigns. I think that money talks, especially in today’s economy and political elections. “The 2016 presidential election will be defined by big money more than any other in recent history.” (Frumin) A lot of people believe that Jeb Bush is absolutely wanting to run for President, but they also believe that he is exploiting a loophole related to campaign financial rules by delaying his official entry into the Presidential race in order to raise large sums of money for a super PAC that is supposed to be entirely independent of his all-but-certain campaign. (Frumin) This helps Jeb Bush because a Super PAC is allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money on advertisements to promote a candidate that is unaffiliated with that group. This is the perfect representation as to why there is too much money in politics.

2.    2.     The amount of money in American Politics today is not a problem. If more money is being spent on ads, commercials, special mailings, it is being used to promote things that the candidate stands for. Jim Bopp believes in more money, bigger donations, more corporations and billionaires and outside groups making more noise, openly or anonymously. “…­the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife—for “single-handedly” keeping him competitive with Mitt Romney’s super pac, as if this was a noble rather than humiliating distinction for a presidential aspirant with a theoretically national network of support.” (Bennet) A lot of people would not know what these candidates stand for if it were not for ads on television or advertisements or sharing of information on social media sites.. Which none of these are possible without money. “The more money that is spent, the more individualized messages will be able to be funded. The more individualized messages, the more voters will feel that the message is pertinent to them, and the more they’ll learn.” (Bennet) I think that the more money there is in politics will lead to increased voter turnout which is what the United States needs.