When one studies the upbringing of the nation we know today as the United States of America, it can easily be concluded that one main factor acted as the driving force for the desire to separate from England : taxation without representation. The idea that the people could have no say within the realm of politics that affected their daily lives infuriated many and led to rebellious acts such as the Boston Tea Party. In today’s American political structure, the concept of representation still holds much importance, which can be seen through all of the elected positions that can be held today. From President of the United States to Parish President of Saint Charles Parish, all of these positions possess an integral function to our democratic
…show more content…
In today’s political spectrum, money often can be a deciding factor over which party will win an election. While this may not be what the framers of our nation intended to happen with our election process, it allows for the support of candidates in a way other than just receiving a vote. When given money, candidates are allowed to do more things that can foster approval for their election, such as : trips to various location, commercials on television and radio, and hiring more support staff that can make their election process easier. According to OpenSecrets.org in the 2016 presidential race, between both candidates close to four million dollars were raised by PACs (2016 Election Overview). While this money may pale in comparison to the amount of money that actually go into a presidential campaign, four million dollars can still go a long way in helping a presidential candidate reach the constituents that they need to reach. It would be unfair to the middle class and lower class Americans if only the ridiculously wealthy were even able to run for smaller government positions such as parish/county presidents and clerk of courts. Political Action Committees are able to back these candidates if they so choose to support them and give them part of the money needed to run a serious …show more content…
However, normal Political Action Committees have a five thousand dollar limit to give to a candidate in any election and are limited to giving fifteen thousand dollars a year to any national political party (What Is a PAC?). This limit was added to quell the fears of the wealthy forcing their agenda upon the middle and lower class of American citizens. A new kind of Political Action Committee emerged in 2010 after the supreme court decision made in “Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee,” in which it was decided that “individuals could have no limit on how much they donate to corporations due to free speech” (Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?). The rise of these new “Super PACs” has paved the way for the wealthy to have an outlet for them to spend obscene amounts of money on the candidates of their choice. However, these Super PACs are not allowed to give money to the candidates, but rather form a corporation that supports the candidate in the form of buying television ads and sending out emails to potential voters. This allows these rich individuals to show their support for candidates but not directly fund them, which would leave less room for questionable motives. In the ever changing political landscape, this has given wealthy businesses and individuals a huge point of leverage in which they can gain influence in the
In today’s political spectrum, money often can be a deciding factor over which party will win an election. While this may not be what the framers of our nation intended to happen with our election process, it allows for the support of candidates in a way other than just receiving a vote. When given money, candidates are allowed to do more things that can foster approval for their election, such as : trips to various location, commercials on television and radio, and hiring more support staff that can make their election process easier. According to OpenSecrets.org in the 2016 presidential race, between both candidates close to four million dollars were raised by PACs (2016 Election Overview). While this money may pale in comparison to the amount of money that actually go into a presidential campaign, four million dollars can still go a long way in helping a presidential candidate reach the constituents that they need to reach. It would be unfair to the middle class and lower class Americans if only the ridiculously wealthy were even able to run for smaller government positions such as parish/county presidents and clerk of courts. Political Action Committees are able to back these candidates if they so choose to support them and give them part of the money needed to run a serious …show more content…
However, normal Political Action Committees have a five thousand dollar limit to give to a candidate in any election and are limited to giving fifteen thousand dollars a year to any national political party (What Is a PAC?). This limit was added to quell the fears of the wealthy forcing their agenda upon the middle and lower class of American citizens. A new kind of Political Action Committee emerged in 2010 after the supreme court decision made in “Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee,” in which it was decided that “individuals could have no limit on how much they donate to corporations due to free speech” (Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?). The rise of these new “Super PACs” has paved the way for the wealthy to have an outlet for them to spend obscene amounts of money on the candidates of their choice. However, these Super PACs are not allowed to give money to the candidates, but rather form a corporation that supports the candidate in the form of buying television ads and sending out emails to potential voters. This allows these rich individuals to show their support for candidates but not directly fund them, which would leave less room for questionable motives. In the ever changing political landscape, this has given wealthy businesses and individuals a huge point of leverage in which they can gain influence in the