More Money Can Beat Big Money

In this article by The New York Times, Iowa Senator Tom Hawkins advocates the idea of "limiting the influence of big money in politics” to direct a focus on the voters and their voices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/in-campaign-financing-more-money-can-beat-big-money.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=campaignfinancing&st=cse

Money Gap Widens in GOP Presidential Field

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/15/141390417/campaign-finance-reports-reveal-gop-disparity

New campaign finance reports offer the first detailed look at the haves and the have-nots among the Republican presidential candidates, with just over a year left in the race for the White House.

Those Green Pieces of Paper

Health care v. Afghanistan; Education v. Foreign Affairs.

Which issues should be dealt with immediately? However you decide, that is how you should vote. How you should not vote is choosing whichever candidate has the most commercials. I think the role campaign money plays in elections is absurd. A candidate should not lose because he couldn't raise enough millions of dollars. Think about it. In the Presidential Elections in a contemporary light, if one doesn't raise enough money so that his/her face and name is plastered on every billboard in America, one's chances of winning decreases significantly.

We constantly complain about those dreaded campaign commercials. Whenever they come on, they make use want to hurl our TV through the upstairs window. Yet, these commercials that cost ridiculous amounts of money increases name recognition which ultimately gives the candidate an instant upper hand in the election. This is an example of how money plays into our choosing. Do those candidates who don't have the money to buy out a television network--unlike their opponent--have an equal chance of winning the election? The answer is no. And in today's world, an alternate solution seems impossible.

Even if America came to their senses and decided upon an alternate solution, what would they entail? And this is where the Feds come in.

In the court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission to protect its film, Hillary: The Movie, from John McCain’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act included several provisions:

1. Ended soft money

2. Electioneering communications must be disclosed if the direct costs of producing and airing the communications aggregates to $10,000 or more.

3. Political parties may no longer make both independent and coordinated expenditures but now must choose between the two

4. Contributions to candidates - $2,000, contributions to state, district and local party committees $5,000 per year, Contributions to national party committees - $25,000, only $37,500 may be contributed to candidates and no more than $37,500 to other committees that are not national parties

5. The new law may raise the individual contribution limits for Senate and House candidates who are facing self-financed candidates

Citizens United argued that the BCRA violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. In a decision that could have a dramatic effect on the upcoming elections, the Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group. The case hinges on whether corporations can be barred from pouring money into election campaigns or whether they have free-speech rights -- and the right to spend their cash to influence elections, just like individual people do. This case is significant to campaign financing because the result of the decision could increase spending for corporations, unions, and nonprofits in the election.

The ruling came down to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who gave the majority the fifth vote. In the wake of the ruling, Justice Kennedy states, “[o]ur nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights.” Allowing corporations to flood our elections by buying influence slowly degrades this nation’s democratic principles. Over time, the dominant force in politics would become money and corporations—not the people.

The amount of money a candidate raises should not be the indicator of his success or failure. The determinant should solely be based on the issues he/she believes is most significant.

Our lives are controlled by those green pieces of paper, but that doesn't mean it should control who we choose to run our country.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml#Disclaimers

http://www.globalissues.org/

Taking A Crack Down on Spending

In the 2008 general election, President Barack Obama spent $740 million out of the $745 million he raised and Presidential Nominee John McCain spent $333 million out of the $368 million he raised.

For a country that has a $14 trillion national debt, we continue to give consent to multi-million dollar political campaigns.

Is it absurd to think that this money could instead be used rebuilding this country rather than used to fund a plethora of campaign signs ignored on highways and lawns?

I do believe the Feds should limit how much money can be raised. Besides, those politicians who choose to spend campaign money by going to the Argentina and hiking the Appalachian Trail and such instead of putting towards aiding our country only further reinforces the reason why spending should be limited.

Lawrence Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission and a national expert on campaign spending stated, "It's about money, it's about free speech, and it's about the ability of corporations to influence elections through the direct use of their ... money." I don't know about you, but "influence" is just a sugar-coded way of saying "bribery." The American citizens that are within the political strata are virtually bribed. "Whose face do I see the most?", "Who has the most bumper stickers?" and finally, "Who has the most money?"

While campaign spending limitations is not the sole answer to restoring America to a “city upon a hill,” it sure is a positive first step.

Global Financial Crisis

Debt

Global Warming

Poverty

Food & Agriculture

Military Spending

Foreign Aid & Affairs

These are only six economic issues America could address with the money used in campaigns. Heck, America could address more than one crisis listed. Imagine how much better off we would be! Yet, we're not. Instead, we're digging ourselves into a deeper black hole.

So now the question is, what do we have to do to climb back out of this hole? I think there is a possible solution. The federal government should set a maximum dollar amount of how much money can be raised in a Presidential election and regulations of what that money should be spent on. Yes, it may seem juvenile, but these candidates behave like a high school student using their Dad's debit card. They spend money because they can. And what's the perfect items to buy with this money? Everything that has their face and/or name large enough for the world to see. Because of the role money is playing in modern day campaigns, Presidential elections have simply became a beauty pageant.

honorable mentions & sources:http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/campaign_finance/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=campaign%20finance&st=cse

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-24/politics/south.carolina.governor_1_jenny-sanford-south-carolina-gov-buenos-aires/2?_s=PM:POLITICS