Campaign Financing: The Power of Money in Politics Campaign Financing has been a debated topic for many years. Recently, campaign financing has become such an immense concern due to the levels of money being thrusted to government officials running for different elected positions. The increases in outside spending for campaign financing we, as a country, are experiencing, is a preposterous amount: There has been a 245% increase in presidential elections, 662% increase in house elections, and 1338% in Senate elections since the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case occurred on January 21, 2010 (Hasen 21). The amount of money used in the 2012 elections proves to be even more unbelievable. From the beginning of 2011 trhough the
…show more content…
These individuals have one main argument which falls along the lines of “restricting money restricts first amendment rights” due to in the Taft-Hartley ruling; the court decided to agree with the idea that money from an individual is equal to speech, therefore it is infringement of rights if an individual cannot spend their money the way they want to (Jost 479). The reason the ruling still didn’t allow unions or corporations to fund campaigns are due to the fact that they are not living entities therefore they don’t have constitutional rights, but individuals who believe in campaign financing still take this as win (Jost 479). President Truman’s take on the case is that it is “dangerous intrusion on free speech” if money is taken out campaigning, because there is a reason why that person is receiving the money that they are (Jost …show more content…
Ezra Klein, a columnist for the Washington Post, believes this is an excellent way to look at it, but in more of the thought of partially giving up; he believes “pundits and campaign reformers overrate money as a determinative in the outcome of races” (Hasen 32). This is more of a negotiation tactic that he attempts to take which isn’t really going to win or lose the war, but it is a very intelligent way of looking at the whole situation. He believes obtaining enough money is necessary, large corporations tend to polarize campaigns, and negotiating with Republicans about disclosure laws are key to making campaign financing the best he can possibly make it. The other viewpoint with the same ideals is Jonathan Bernstein’s; his main argument is “Large donors, lobbyists, and others who bundle contributions are able to obtain broader access to legislators or staffers to make the case for legislative action (or inaction)” (Hasen 33). This is actually an extremely intellectual way to look at the topic. It takes out any long process and is the most realistic way of looking at the situation due to the amount of republicans that are opposed to the reform. This negotiation would allow the most change in a timely manner for the reform and could possibly settle the debate for a while. The problems that neither Klein, nor Bernstein addressed in their articles are that it still has flaws
These individuals have one main argument which falls along the lines of “restricting money restricts first amendment rights” due to in the Taft-Hartley ruling; the court decided to agree with the idea that money from an individual is equal to speech, therefore it is infringement of rights if an individual cannot spend their money the way they want to (Jost 479). The reason the ruling still didn’t allow unions or corporations to fund campaigns are due to the fact that they are not living entities therefore they don’t have constitutional rights, but individuals who believe in campaign financing still take this as win (Jost 479). President Truman’s take on the case is that it is “dangerous intrusion on free speech” if money is taken out campaigning, because there is a reason why that person is receiving the money that they are (Jost …show more content…
Ezra Klein, a columnist for the Washington Post, believes this is an excellent way to look at it, but in more of the thought of partially giving up; he believes “pundits and campaign reformers overrate money as a determinative in the outcome of races” (Hasen 32). This is more of a negotiation tactic that he attempts to take which isn’t really going to win or lose the war, but it is a very intelligent way of looking at the whole situation. He believes obtaining enough money is necessary, large corporations tend to polarize campaigns, and negotiating with Republicans about disclosure laws are key to making campaign financing the best he can possibly make it. The other viewpoint with the same ideals is Jonathan Bernstein’s; his main argument is “Large donors, lobbyists, and others who bundle contributions are able to obtain broader access to legislators or staffers to make the case for legislative action (or inaction)” (Hasen 33). This is actually an extremely intellectual way to look at the topic. It takes out any long process and is the most realistic way of looking at the situation due to the amount of republicans that are opposed to the reform. This negotiation would allow the most change in a timely manner for the reform and could possibly settle the debate for a while. The problems that neither Klein, nor Bernstein addressed in their articles are that it still has flaws