Big Money Harming Elections

In 2010, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission went all the way to the Supreme Court. The result of the case was a split 5-4 decision, determining that the First Amendment protects campaigners right to be financed by corporations and unions. Therefore, the government could no longer restrict the economic plans in campaigns. On behalf of the majority, Justice Kennedy stated, “if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” In essence, this pronouncement changed the election process; outrageous amounts of money are now donated to support campaigns, which directly influences who is put into office.

Recently, the The Center for Responsive Politics has recorded statistics on campaign finances. The amount of cash put into these operations is staggering. Here are some eye opening numbers from recent elections:

• In total, $892,546,249 was spent on the 2012 elections for the US House of Representatives.
• $579,354,943 was the total amount of money spent in all 2012 elections for the US Senate.
• The most expensive Senate race in 2012 was the Massachusetts Senate.  Scott Brown (Rep.) spent $29,726,635 and Elizabeth Warren (D) spent $35,694,573.
• The Democratic party spent $1,112,041,699 in the 2012 Presidential election
• The Republican party spent $1,246,902,432 in the 2012 Presidential election

One of the ways parties are able to rack up these insane amounts of cash is by bundling contributions. Bundle contributions are large contributions given by a group of people to the same candidate. Wealthy people group together so they do not individually hit the spending limit, but can still donate large amounts to presidential candidates. While all of this money is beneficial for a campaign, it distracts the candidates and altars their priorities.

To explain, candidates focus more on trying to raise money for their campaign than sharing their political views with the voters. In order to win an election, the victorious candidate should be the best person to represent the people he or she is serving based on his or her policies and characteristics, not based on his or her fundraising ability. In More Money, More Problems, Klein interviewed Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat who freely expresses his opinions on the advantages given in elections from financial aid.  According to Senator Evan Bayh, candidates are “spending 90 percent of their time raising money.” This statistic shows that the focus of candidates is not on the people they are hoping to serve; it is on the people who can serve them. The most disappointing part about this statistic is that the time put into fundraising pays off. In the 2008 Presidential election, Obama raised almost 400 million more dollars than any other candidate. The outcome of this election resulted in an Obama victory, inferring that the fundraising was a major factor in his success. America was founded on the principle that the opinions of the citizens trump all, but since Obama spent so much more time and effort fundraising, the people did not top his priorities. In conclusion, in order to fulfill the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, campaigners should focus on gaining support from the people, not from rich people who offer tons of money in exchange for power.

Continuing on, another reason big money in elections is harmful is because it is too difficult to reform or add restrictions to campaign financing. When Bayh was asked about reforming the policies on raising money in elections, he answered, “asking [government officials] to change the rules from which they’ve benefited is difficult” (Klein). Since the majority of the politicians who are in positions to change the laws regarding fundraising are elected as a result of their success in raising money, it would be foolish for them to support a reform.

To sum up, big money is controlling the government. Despite outbursts from citizens, the laws regarding political financing are stable. Since the people who support these laws are the most powerful people in the country, they are incredibly difficult to overturn. Campaigners will continue to distance the government from the country’s fundamentals by focusing on fundraising over the opinions of the citizens, which proves that cash-based campaigns are corrupting the government.

Pay to Play – 2012 Presidential Election

I was under the impression that our country is facing a financial crisis.  Therefore, I find it hard to believe the staggering amounts of money that are being raised and spent by candidates in the 2012 Presidential election.  These staggering amounts of money are compiled from fundraising efforts, private donations and most significantly, the political action committees (PAC).  While there are limitations on private donations, these political action committees allow groups to form together in order to raise funds to support a candidate that will work for their interests.  In 2010, the Supreme Court unleashed these political action committees in their Citizens United decision, which permits large corporations to spend an unlimited amount in support of their candidate.  These big spenders are “not just involved with shaping dialogue…they get involved with shaping policy, which inevitably makes the good of the people secondary to the good of the deepest pockets” (CNNOpinion).  The Presidential candidates further capitalize on deep pockets through extravagant fundraisers that are not open to the average American.  This over emphasis on money and the candidates’ belief that this money can buy the election has warped our election process and threatened the power of the people.  In order to hear everyone’s vote, this political fundraising must be scaled back and candidates need to win the presidency based on their political ideas and not based on the deepness of their pockets.

Over the past four years, our country has been faced with massive financial woes, yet our political candidates are working frantically to raise unbelievable sums of money to support their campaigns.  As of March 31, 2012, President Obama, the Democratic candidate, has raised 147.4 million dollars and the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has raised 87.5 million dollars (Reuters).  Between the two primary candidates, 234.9 million dollars is being tied up in our upcoming election.  When did it become necessary for a political candidate to need hundreds of millions of dollars in order to pursue a chance at the White House?  Over time, our country has bought into this “pay to play” mindset, which believes that the candidate with the most financial support will win the presidential election.  Thus, the candidates have become much more aggressive in their fundraising efforts, seeking out the power players with the deepest pockets.  In the beginning of May, President Obama teamed up with actor, George Clooney, and together they raised 15 million dollars in one night (CNN).  Could these millions of dollars not be better allocated to our country’s needs instead of being used as bidding money for the presidency?  With millions of dollars being spent on negative campaigning, this is a hard question to ask.

With such large sums of money in each candidate’s campaign funds, there are temptations to utilize these campaign funds to further the candidate’s own personal needs outside of their run for the presidency.  According to Huffington Post, Mitt Romney utilized over 12,000 campaign dollars to pay for a corporate jet to travel to San Diego to monitor his vacation home renovations (ABCNews).  Another example of misuse of campaign funds occurred in the 2008 Presidential election when John Edwards reportedly used campaign funds to hide his extra-marital affair (HuffPostPolitics).  The over-abundance of campaign funds has encouraged such examples of misuse.

In order to regain the power of the people, this excess in political fundraising must be curtailed and restrictions put in place.  Each candidate should stand on equal ground and campaign for the presidency with his mind and not his money.  The political parties and action committees must be curbed in order for each and every citizen to have the opportunity to witness a candidate’s true platform.  Voters do not need the negative influence that corrupts the campaign process.  “By leveling the economic playing field, our politicians have a chance to return to being representatives of the people, not just the ones who know the right people or make the right promises” (CNNOpinion).

Limits Are Needed for the Money Spent in Elections

During the past two trimesters of our government class, we have had extensive discussions over the high usage of money in political campaign elections. In our upcoming 2012 presidential election, our nation has seen the critical role that money plays in the electoral process. The main question is: Are the voters focusing on voting for the candidate who is most fit to run our country or who has had the most money to influence the voters in the voting booth? According to CNN, during the 2008 and 2012 elections, Obama has managed to earn $200 million. The amount of money put into campaigning is disturbing and corrupt. Why is it that Obama needs this much money to run for re-election? These unrealistically high amounts of money force the people to be manipulated and persuaded to vote for the candidate that can spend more than his or her opponent. The CNN article states, “They [promoters for candidates] get involved with shaping policy, which inevitably makes the good of the people secondary to the good of the deepest pockets.” This proclaims the most corrupt part of elections: people focus more on the earned economical status of the candidate rather than the good of that particular person.

 

CNN claims that this corruption and distortion is given credit to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. This allowed corporations to spend unlimited funds to promote a candidate. Our current campaign process has turned far from aiming to allow the voters to choose who they feel will best represent our nation, the democratic process, to the other side of the spectrum: fraud. In the article, it states, “By leveling the economic playing field, our politicians have a chance to return to being representatives of the people, no just the ones who know the right people or make the right promises.” This quote has outstanding advice to the voters of America. We should not vote for who has the most money, best connections, or most influencing media. We need to take the time to choose the candidate that will serve our nation best. People are illogically giving their votes to candidates based on the influence of money rather than their service they will give to our country and what they stand for. The money raised in campaign elections has a high influence and manipulation rate in the ballot box, which needs to be put to an end.

Currently Romney and Obama together have earned near $300 million. If this money were to be put aside, would the two candidates be where they are standing? Would they have gotten this far? Money should not be this great of a factor in elections. We are a nation of almost nine percent of the population at a loss for employment. The money the candidates earn is simply money given to the rich. A vast range of the American citizens are jobless, yet the people chose to fundraise for the wealthy. I believe we hold the power as voters in the upcoming election to prove that money is not the sole indicator of who to elect for president. On November 6, 2012, the voters have the control to change our current sham of an election process, by voting for the man who will best serve our country regardless of the amounts of money  he has raised and whether or not he can he can outspend his opponents.

President Barack Obama: A Revolutionary President & Campaigner

In our study of “Voter Participation” in the Elections Process, I was fascinated by the ways in which people respond to political campaigns.  As suggested in our textbook, going to the polls is the most common way that individuals become involved in the election process.  Voters can participate in elections in other ways either as an individual or through collective action.  Individuals can participate by becoming informed, endorsing or financially supporting a candidate or party, or writing to an incumbent officeholder.  However, in order to effect significant change in public policy, individuals must team up with other like-minded citizens to communicate a message.  Networking at the grassroots level, being part of a community, and exchanging ideas with other citizens are fundamental to and enrich the democratic process.

During our class investigation of voter participation in elections, I was intrigued by the references to mobilizing new voters.  In fact, according to John P. Frendreis, a Professor of Political Science at Loyola University in Chicago, jurisdictions that experience a close-knit sense of community and well-organized local party organizations historically have higher voter turnout.  Often, the mission of local level party organizations is either to increase voter participation in a jurisdiction anticipated to vote “favorably” on issues of concern or to convince people to vote for a particular candidate or party.  As suggested in a study by Ben Pimlott, the grassroots politics of local organizations can mobilize the swing votes that often determine the outcome of elections.

Based on this premise that jurisdictions with strong local-level party organizations have higher voting turnout, I was curious to examine the effect that such organizations had on the Presidential campaign in 2008.  From a historical perspective, this election was one of the most interesting, arguably the first where new information technologies became embedded in the process.  Therefore, it would be important to examine how this campaign was strategically conducted.

 

In his article, “How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power,” David Carr explains how President Obama began his revolutionary campaign with a novel strategy to promote his label.  This article analyzes President Obama’s successful use of technology not only in his campaign, but also in his subsequent Presidency.  By using the new digital tools, the Presidency became more transparent allowing the government to run more effectively and with a new level of intimacy with respect to the individual citizen.  Barack Obama and his administration communicate directly and instantaneously to the nation using Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs.  The significance and power of these entities were poorly understood concepts by the seasoned and well-positioned Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as the Republican challenger and traditional old school politician, John McCain.

During Senator Obama’s campaign for President, he was able to communicate to the nation on a mass scale, raise campaign funds, and advertise his run for the White House at a much lower cost.  Relative to the traditional political techniques that include voter lists, phone banks, and direct mail, the incorporation of Internet technology into politics levels the playing field and makes it easier for a candidate to campaign.  Money and the traditional forms of social influence that it can buy are diminished in importance, and the electoral system becomes more Democratic and more just.  The networking of citizens can now occur from one’s laptop at the cost of the monthly Internet service, rather than a country club membership.

Information is power, and databases allow politicians to more clearly understand the constituency they are representing.  The political and election processes have evolved again, as they have several times in American history as the result of a fundamental change in the technological framework of information and communication.

Click here for a link to another great Obama Campaign video on Youtube.

Money’s Influence on Elections

Money’s influence on the election process has increased due to social media and the availability of advertisements for campaigning. In the 60’s it was common for a successful House candidate to spend less than 100,000, but by 2008, the average cost of winning a seat in the House topped 1.4 million. Buying advertisements has been the primary resource for spending money to reach out and influence voters, so the person with the most advertisements and the most successful ads, will have the greatest touch on the voters opinion.

In our work in government class we discussed the pros and cons of the influence of the money in politics. The amount of money being spent for each candidate increases every election with few exceptions. Most would say that the increasing influence of money is a great thing because it allows for more to be informed of the views of the politicians, but I would say it is a disadvantage.

Government has tried to control the raging flow of money in elections by limiting candidates to amounts of money they are allowed to spend. This isn’t such a bad idea because of the downsides of allowing the rich to spend as much they want to get their voiced opinions out to the public, giving the poor a lesser chance of winning power. If a rich man was allowed to spend all of his money, he would have access to more of the public and have more of an advantage over the poor man. Since the man with the less money has insufficient funds to spend on advertisements, he must work harder to have any voice at all in his efforts to campaign.

In the senate and house, the money plays a major role in who is elected or reelected. When an incumbent, someone running for reelection, is in the race for reelection, they have an an advantage in raising money for their campaign. The challengers raise about half the amount of money the incumbent did in total, and there are fewer incumbents then there are challengers. The trust built or lost in the incumbent’s influences the amount of money they are able to raise and if there is a sufficient amount of money raised then their reelection is pretty much guaranteed.

The 2008 Presidential election was predicted to be the “1-billion dollar election”. It was also thought to be the most expensive and longest election in American history. The candidate with the most money was guaranteed presidency. Barack Obama spent more than 747.8 million dollars in his campaigning, which happened to be 400 million dollars more than his leading competitor, John McCain. The reason for the vast amount of spending was because it was the first open seat in this generation, because of the state of the economy and the war in Iraq. The candidates that had no shot at presidency were the candidates with little money to spend in comparison to the leading competitors

The Interesting Use of Money of Campaigns

During our most recent Government lessons, I was most intrigued by the staggering amount of money spent in elections and campaigns. Michelle Bachman spent over 11 million dollars campaigning for a House seat, almost three times more than her opponent. She was re-elected, most likely because people electing knew much more about her than the other opponent. Many people have argued that money is corruptive and bad for elections while others say it is necessary. After I finished this assignment, I wanted to dig a little deeper into the power of money in elections and trying to follow the money trail.

http://media.avclub.com/images/products/productgroup/351/MoneyPolitics_closeup_400_jpg_400x400_upscale_q85.jpg

Elections, whether it’s for the House up to Presidential race, are fueled by money. According to Opensecrets.org, “In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.” That is an absolutely amazing statistic and it shows that the candidate with the most money will most likely be the victor.

In the 2008 election, John McCain received about 50% of his money from individuals, 25% from federal funding, which leaves 25% to the category “other.” Who knows who or what “other” means, but it seems a little sketchy.From federal funding alone, he earned about $84 million dollars (Source: opensecrets.org). To gain federal funding, McCain had to meet qualifications, including, “Spend public funds only for campaign-related expenses or, in the case of a party convention, for convention-related expenses;Limit spending to amounts specified by the campaign finance law; Keep records and, if requested, supply evidence of qualified expenses;” (Source opensecrets.org). During a great recession at this time, it bothers me that Presidential candidates can receive funding from the government if he cannot support his campaign properly. However, if the candidate does not break any of the rules above, he does not have to pay anything he received back.  Bringing it back to the election, Barack Obama nearly had three times the money received compared to John McCain, a large advantage in today’s media-filled elections. I’m not saying that Barack Obama won because he had more money to spend, but he did earn a significant, and maybe even unfair, advantage in the Presidential race. Not only did Obama win, but John McCain (kind of) wasted 84 million dollars in a lost campaign.

Another thing I want to learn about is the usage of money in elections. The total expenditures for the total 2012 Presidential elections is in the picture below: (you can click on it to zoom)

Administrative is the largest amount spent toward, which includes running a campaign, including staff salaries and benefits, travel expenses, office rent, utilities, equipment, etc. Basically, administrative expenses are what it takes to run the campaign. In fact, salaries and benefits for members of the administration pretty much equals the amount to create fundraising. Salaries and benefits get the most money out of anything else, which is pretty sketchy to me. Money in campaigns was always a mystery to me; I always thought pretty much all of it was for campaigning. However, it seems that about more than half of the money received goes towards personal expenses. Bringing back John McCain, if over half of the campaigning money was not even used for campaigning, this leads to over $45 million dollars spent for the personal luxuries of running for President: jet rides, fancy dinners, 5 star hotels, etc.. Money in campaigns is a very dangerous threat and must be documented well in order to stop any sneaky business.

Money in elections and campaigns is a tricky business. Money is necessary for informing the people about the candidates but too much money could result in a problem. In elections, money can cause underdogs and favorites in an instance. Michelle Bachman was known nation-wide compared to the almost anonymous opposing candidate. In campaigns, money is used for a variety of things, including the important like fundraising and the mysterious expenses, like the $10 million dollars spent this 2012 election for “miscellaneous administrative.” I do believe that money fuels elections, but the amount of money spent in campaigns might need to be toned down just a bit. The extra money in one candidate’s pockets could be the difference in a close elections.

Money: Influential or Corruptive?

Money plays a vital role in the election process, and ever since the early days of the Republic, money has been a major influence on candidates and their campaigns. There are essentially two points of view regarding the influence of money; as a corrupting influence and as a form of political speech needed in elections. Many Americans believe money distorts the election, and gives some candidates an unfair advantage that goes past the election itself and into the policy making process, but i disagree. And according to political scientist Daniel Shay, it was a common practice to “treat” voters, such as George Washington for example, was said to have purchased a quart of rum, wine, beer, or hard cider for every voter in the district where he ran for the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1751. Since then, money has been used to fuel campaigns, in the form of paying for campaign ads, commercials, media ads, such as TV, radio, and newspaper, and sometimes even a newspaper completely.

By the late 1960’s, money had become critical for 4 main reasons: Decline of path organizations, more voters up for grabs, television, and campaign consultants. All 4 of these reasons changed the way political campaigns are run and are the reasons why money plays such a powerful role in today’s electoral system. These reasons led to efforts to control the flow of money in elections. In response to the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, which ended with the court finding limits on corporate and union campaign spending unconstitutional, Heather K. Gerken (Professor of Law at Yale Law School), stated that, “Rather than trying to limit the power of money in politics, we should harness money’s power to fix politics.” So when answering the question of, is money a corrupting influence? I say no. I believe that money is not a corrupting influence in the election process, but that money is needed for a solid campaign to run smoothly.

The Freedom To Spend

A frequently discussed political issue is the role of money in elections.  It seems as though no matter what a candidate does, for any political election, his or her monetary wealth must be touched on by the media.  Candidates are criticized for spending too much, spending too little, running too many ads, or not spending enough on advertising.  If any inference can be made from these constant reports on the money spent on an election, it is that money is important to the election side of the political process.

Though there is a heated argument over how important spending is to elections, it can be reasonably asserted that money, for its very basic purpose, is required to fund a political campaign, therein lies a problem.  Can money play a role in elections without leading to corruption?  Is the utilization of one’s wealth for political purposes a right granted by the freedom-defining documents that govern the country or a cheating tool used to “buy” your say in legislation?  Valid points support both sides of this argument, making it an often-discussed topic whenever an election rolls around.

Supporters of the freedom to spend or give money in an election have one major argument that they use to back their opinions, and this is the first amendment.  In court cases like Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010), the advocates of election spending state that spending money is an expression of freedom of speech.  Their argument revolves around the idea that candidates have a right to spend money, run ads or political movies, and conduct their campaign without government oversight because interference would be a violation of their first amendment rights.  Still, it is difficult to prove the extent of the amendment when the issue they are discussing is not directly mentioned.  Even so, how could the issue be mentioned?  When the Bill of Rights was written, all a candidate had to do to win an election was offer free alcohol to anyone who would give him his vote.  This argument has a few flaws in its stretch application of the first amendment, but is sound as a reason to not limit the amount a candidate can spend to get elected.

The population that believes excessive spending in election to be harmful raises a multitude of valid points as well.  The first, and obvious, assertion is that through unlimited spending, candidates are able to “buy” policies through their wealth.  This gives an uneven playing field to the candidates without as much funding as their opponents because the candidates are simply “out-spent.”  Additionally, wealthier candidates are able to make themselves more visible to voters than candidates who cannot afford as many television ads or radio broadcasts.  Voters can’t vote for candidates they cannot see.  Supporters of limited election spending also claim that money not only affects elections, but also leaks into the legislative process.  Politicians can reward their biggest supporting PACs or wealthy donors with legislative decisions that the donors favor.  Legislative decisions suddenly become based on gaining votes rather than making unbiased political calls.  These are all warranted concerns that need to be voiced to keep a fair electoral system.

No matter which side someone supports, the persistence of this issue is undeniable.  The fact that money in elections was an issue when George Washington was campaigning is evidence of the eternal nature of this debate.  It is somewhat paradoxical that the only way to reform this problem, for either side of the argument, is through government legislation, yet the only means of getting somebody into office to put the legislation into effect is by supplying that candidate with monetary support.  Because the debate will no doubt continue, the importance of money in elections is, was, and will be an important issue for every election.

-Paxton S

A Dollar Paid is a Dollar Earned… Or is it?

You can never have enough money!

Money has always been a contributing factor in political races across the political spectrum, but lately, money seems to bear an even greater importance in the races. An executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network states, “Throughout this decade, money wins 95% of the time.” Also, a research which has been taking place for many years states that it costs about 16% more money each year in order to run. This being said, limited money can be a problem, especially if you intend to win. Another interesting fact concerning money is that to run for state House and Senate, winners in this decade have spent upward of $100,000. With all of this eye opening evidence and blatant facts, there is no way to disprove the fact that more money equals more votes, right? Wrong. To understand why this is wrong, you must know that you could have a billionaire running against a millionaire. Both people can support their dues and successfully run to win, but does the billionaire have the edge? not at all. For example, at this year’s 2012 Iowa Caucus, Rick Santorum defeated big names such as Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, who spent over 20 million dollars each in Iowa. Santorum only spent one million dollars all in, yet he came out on top. Despite this being a small battle in the war for the Republican nomination, it speaks volumes for those candidates with less funding who want to compete and win their political race.

Super PACs are also very important when it comes to money and elections. PAC stands for ‘Political Action Committee,’ this organization campaigns for or against political candidates. Federally, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives more than $1,000, while at the state level, an organization becomes a PAC depending on that state’s election laws. These Super PACs are sometimes the deciding factor when it comes to more money and more votes. So all of this being said, while it is probably true that ‘A dollar paid is a dollar earned,’ it all depends on how this money is being gathered, whether it be from donations, outside spending, government plans, or Super PACs. For example, these Super PACs can collect unlimited amounts of money, and use it all toward one candidate whom they want to win. With all of these overwhelming facts and enticing ideas pushing me farther toward the pro side of this argument, I still have my doubts. For example, think of two candidates in around January, and think about who might be the richer candidate by that November. Say they both get millions and millions over this time span, but candidate #1 makes 50 million more than candidate #2. Candidate #1 won right? maybe, maybe not. Candidate #2 could actually have won because his net worth would be higher, therefore it didn’t matter what sum of money he made, because his net worth was already larger. This being said, I believe that it is not possible at all to know how much money really matters when it comes to campaigns when only factoring in who wins and loses.

In my opinion, modern politics is one of the most complicated systems around when it comes to raising, spending, or anything money. There are so many important factors like votes prior to an election, primaries, finding good candidates, and the fund raising, which all require lots of money. Our country faces deadly challenges, lots of upkeep, and lots of demand for leadership, and these are the factors which should win over money every time. In the end, gold doesn’t always buy you success in politics, but you better be willing to get some, because in the long run it could be the difference between success and failure.

More money better elections?

Influence of the Buck

In Government we have learned about money and how it affects elections.  Is money a corrupting influence or a helpful hand in the election process?  This issue has been debated for a long time whether or not money is a good or bad thing in politics.  It was decided by the Supreme Court with the case of Citizen United v. the Federal Election Commission. Some people were happy with the overturn of the law, with the Supreme Court taking the side of Citizen United and  some were not.  The corruption of the election process was greatly increased with the conclusion of the case while the pros of the passing of the law are greatly outnumbered by the cons.

For those of you that think money is a corrupting influence there are many websites and writers that side with you.  With the Supreme Court decision regarding Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission it opens a lot of opportunities for corporations and others to influence the campaign and election process.  Upset with the supreme court’s decision president Obama says “The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”   I agree with President Obama that it does open the floodgates for special interests groups to influence the elections. Other influencers of politics are corporations and company heads that give substantial amounts of money to certain candidates’ campaigns.  Daniel Newman president and co-founder of Maplight, an organization that tracks donations and the influence they can by said, “seats in Congress are bought and influenced by special interests who give candidates the money to get elected and money to stay elected.”  With corporations and special interests groups giving money it can greatly influence how the delegates vote on certain bills because delegates want money to stay in office and they cannot vote opposite on pressing issues that are important to the corporations.

On the other hand, with more information provided by the special interests groups no matter how scathing the information is, it is still more information for regular voters to see/hear.  With voter knowledge not being great as stated in an article on The Ignorance of Voters the more information that can be introduced to people the more informed and confident they will be. It should also give people more incentive to research candidates to see if what is being said is true or distorted information.  On the issue of money influencing political decisions and votes according to Cristopher Cotton “Academic research has not found much of a link between increases in a candidate’s campaign spending and increases in the probability of the candidate winning the election.”  Special interest groups and corporations can saturate the market with multiple TV commercials, radio ads, and other advertising venues, but if you have one good ad/commercial it can influence and have more of an impact on voters rather than having 3 or 4 subpar ads/commercial.    It obviously takes a lot of money to run a campaign, but the highest funded campaign does not always win like the campaigns between Perot v. Bush v. Clinton.

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission was a decision that allows for corruption in the election process.  It opens up the possibilities for corporations and special interests groups to give money to candidates for special favors, votes, and just to have an in with the political world.  In response to some saying that the decision was a great win for the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution, I would say that maybe it was the right decision legally, but the repercussions of opening the field to corporations and special interests groups pollutes the whole political system of America.