In adjusted. On the opposite side, there

          In
American society, campaign finance regulation is consistent as a topic of much
discussion. Campaign finance regulation refers to efforts to
regulate the way in which political campaign is funded, which includes all
kinds of spending that supported the candidates. There are many people who believe
that the current campaign finance regulation needs to be adjusted. On the opposite side,
there are people who want to keep the current campaign finance
regulations.

                                                                    
    The Pros

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

           It is necessary to add more regulations to the
current campaign finance regulations due to the
fact that money has been corrupted in the
campaigns. “Whatever the interpretation,
the ruling inarguably allowed wealthy individuals, businesses, and other groups
to use the money to influence elections with more freedom than they had before,”
(Berman). It is because of the ruling thought of the First
Amendment as a solution to reduce of money corruption. However, it combined
individuals with corporations. As a result, it created the amount of chances
for companies to spend countless money to influence elections. “Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which allowed campaign
spending by corporations and unions. Also in 2010, a federal appeals court
tossed out limits on how much can be contributed to independent political
organizations, opening the door to the establishment of super political action
committees (PAC’s),” (Price). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has
made it legal for PACs to spend as much as they want, which influences the
election legally but unjust. Super PACs
and legally designated “social welfare organizations” that receive money, often
secretly, from very wealthy contributors. (La Raja). In 2012, Obama tried to let the PACs turn in their records of
the money that have spent, but the Supreme Court made it legal for the PACs to
keep their records.

          Besides, unlimited spend of money
brings extra advantages to the candidates and force them to spend more time on
fundraising. After Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission. “Asked whether the system should be
reformed so that a rich person doesn’t have more influence than a person
without money, 87 percent of people said yes, and only 12 percent said no,” (Stohr).

It is obvious that American people realize that the unlimited spend of money
has undermined the elections because it brings extra advantages to the
candidates. Not only the PACs influence the elections but also the rich
citizens. “Affluent citizens get extra influence by turning out to vote,
working in campaigns, and contacting officials.The need for money tends to
filter out centrist candidates,” (Page). Money spent on media, organizing can
make a difference on the elections, it tends to give an advantage for those
candidates who has strong support by PACs, (Page). Besides, fundraising becomes
one of the priority for the candidates which decreases their opportunities for
them the to meet their potential constituents.

                                                      
                 The
Cons

          Money
cannot buy the election, which is always
true. “Contrary to what Super PAC’s would like
to believe, the American public carries more wisdom than a group of sheep. Simply because someone watches
a political ad it does not mean they will blindly adhere to that ad’s
messages,” (Estroff). For example, Jeff Bush, who has the biggest Super PAC,
which is Right to Rising. And It is a conservative
Super PAC which spent 60 million dollars on Jeff Bush, more than any other
Republican candidate, but Bush was out of the race,
(Estroff). Sanders won much of support from voters because he focused on small
contributions, lower and middle-class
citizens, (Estroff). Both the examples of Bush and Sanders prove money cannot
convince people to vote for a candidate. “High
spending only allows the donors to buy more speech, providing more information
to voters, so there’s more debate about campaigns and elections, and that usually
seems to be a good thing,” (Price). Even celebrities can be more
valuable than money, (Price). The videos they make on social media can make a
huge influence during the campaign. One of the reason is that people trust
celebrities more than politicians, throughout the history, many candidates have
failed their promises, which makes Americans doubtful, and it is also a good
thing.

          Money
and politics are very related. Neither of one can be pulled out from the other.

Also, it is reasonable for candidates to receive support from PACs. “It is because
the fact that candidates and elected officials may alter or reaffirm their positions on issues in response to political messages
paid for by PACs can hardly be called corruption,” (Bopp). Which is also a reason why the Supreme Court decided
to make it legal for PACs to spend unlimited money. Besides, money
benefits and forms a better election. The money that spent on the elections has given people more information. “Campaign spending has other benefits as well. Higher
spending leads to better-informed voters and higher turnout. Limiting spending
prevents candidates from performing many of the basic tasks of campaigning and
reduces independent voices to a whisper. Both outcomes afford incumbents a huge
advantage,” (Price). 

          There is no doubt
that money can influence the elections but it may not make a big difference. In order to reduce the influence and the waste
of money donated from the PACs, there should be more regulations that can limit
money spending by the outsiders. As seen on
Fig. 1, it is obvious that almost 80%, which is 4 out of 5 adult Americans
oppose the result that unlimited campaign spending was allowed by the Supreme
Court, and 17% was in favored of the ruling. If 80% which is the majority of
Americans think that unlimited spending would corrupt the election, then it
exposes the crises of trust for our government. Now,
it became common knowledge that money has wasted, which is a serious problem
because we do not have trust in our government as much as before. It is true
that they own the freedom to spend on the campaign as much as they can afford,
but money did not form a better election but make voters doubt both parties
through bashing videos and advertisements. Overall, money spent by the
PACs did not benefit the election at all. There are so many political
advertisements that bash each other and not providing good information but
biased messages. Besides, many of them are also approved by those candidates,
which made this election very ugly. Therefore, to form a better election, there
should be more regulations. Fundraising is having too much weight right now
that it takes too much time and energy for the candidates because they know
that the more money they fund, the better chances they would have, which proved
that money brings extra advantages. Regulations that limited money spending by
outsiders can solve the problem that big PACs could make a difference during
the race and provide more opportunities for new candidates
so that people would be more informed about all the candidates, rather
than only the two most popular candidates from each party. In conclusion, more
regulations can form better election by providing a better stage for and reduce
the weight of fundraising which will no longer be the priority for the
candidates.

  

 

Works Cited

Berman, Russel. “How Can the
U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?” The Atlantic, The Atlantic Monthly
Group,
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/fix-money-in-politics/473214/.

Accessed 20 Oct. 2016. Russell Berman is a
senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he covers political news.

He was previously a congressional reporter forThe Hill and a
Washington correspondent for The New York Sun.

Bopp, James. “Campaign Finance ‘Reform’: The Good, The Bad
and the Unconstitutional.” Heritage.org,
The Heritage Foundation,
www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/07/campaign-finance-reform. Accessed 20
Oct. 2016. James Bopp, Jr.. is an American
conservative attorney and constitutional scholar. He has repeatedly been
named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the United States by the
National Law Journal.

Estroff, Alex. “In Defense of Citizens
United: The Misplaced Anger of the American People and How They Are Battling
the Problem of Money in Politics.” Georgia
Political Review, 14 Mar. 2016,
tinyurl.com/hmyt8rl. Accessed 22 Sept. 2016. Alex Estroff is a journalist of
Georgia Political Review. And this article deeply discussed how invisible the
influence of corruptions are and how it affects politics. 

La Raja, Raymond J. Why
Campaign Finance Reformes That Weaken
U.S. Parties Promote Extreme and Unresponsive Politics. Scholars Strategy
Network. Scholars Strategy Network,
www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/why-campaign-finance-reforms-weaken-us-parties-promote-extreme-and-unresponsive-politics.

Accessed 29 Sept. 2016. La Raja’s expertise
includes U.S. campaign finance, elections, political parties, interest groups,
civic participation, public opinion, and political reform. He is on the
Academic Advisory Board for the Campaign Finance Institute and is Associate
Director of the UMass Poll. La Raja is also founder and Editorial Board Member
of The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, a
quarterly electronic journal for scholarly analysis and commentary on public
issues.

Page, Benjamin I. “How Money Corrupts American
Politics.” Scholars Strategy Network,
8 July 2016,
www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/how-money-corrupts-american-politics. Accessed
7 Sept. 2016. This article is perfect for the topic because it explains how
money corrupts American politics in seven ways and most of them are related to
the elections. It reveals Democratic as well as
Republican candidates have to raise big money, most of which comes from
economically successful entrepreneurs and professionals who tend to hold rather
conservative views on taxes, social welfare spending, and economic regulation.

As a result, few candidates whose views are not broadly acceptable to the
affluent are nominated or elected. Benjamin I. Page is the professor of decision-making at Northwestern
University. His interests include American politics and U.S. foreign policy,
with particular interests in public opinion and
policy making, the mass media, empirical democratic theory, and
political economy.

Price, Tom. “Does big money in politics subvert
democracy?” CQ Researcher Online,
CQ Press, 6 May 2016,
library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2016050600=hitlist=0.

Accessed 7 Sept. 2016. This report has a number
of details how the politicians spent their money since 2005 and the author also listed chart and
numbers to show only fewer than a fifth supports the Supreme Court’s 2010
ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed unlimited campaign spending by
corporations, unions, and other
organizations. He also listed many details about how Trump uses his money to for the campaign. Tom Price, a contributing writer for CQ Researcher, is a Washington-based freelance journalist whose
focus includes politics and government. Previously, he was a correspondent in
the Cox Newspapers Washington Bureau and chief politics writer for The Dayton Daily News and The (Dayton) Journal Herald. 

Stohr, Greg. “Americans Want Supreme Court to Turn Off
Political Spending Spigot.” Bloomberg
Politics, 2016 Bloomberg L.P., 25 Sept. 2015, tinyurl.com/pn395v9. Accessed
14 Sept. 2016. This article also focuses on how Americans’ view about the
Supreme Court and their feelings about the relationship between money and
politics. Greg Stohr, who is an award-winning journalist who has covered the
U.S. Supreme Court for Bloomberg News since 1998. Was on the scene for some of the country’s pivotal moments over the
past two decades, including Bush v. Gore, the Obergefell gay-marriage ruling
and the two Obamacare blockbusters. Wrote a
well-received book on another Supreme Court showdown, the 2003 University of
Michigan affirmative action cases. Enjoys trying to make arcane legal
issues understandable and meaningful, whether in print or through electronic
media. Occasionally guest-hosts Bloomberg Law Radio
program. Periodically teaches a law school class on the Supreme Court.

 

 

 

 

 

Go Top
x

Hi!
I'm Eleanor!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out