Political campaigns stand as one of the staples of a democratic system of government, giving the citizenry access to the politicians who could represent them on a local, state, or national level. In america, every election is different with varying rules, ballot structures, level of media coverage, and participating constituents. Currently, the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign is in full force and quickly approaching the national conventions, which will finally declare who the Republican and Democratic nominees will be. Campaigns in principle should enhance the democratic election process, allowing the electorate the ability to question and evaluate the ideas and goals of the candidates. However, in the modern age, political campaigns in the
…show more content…
is campaign financing, which has become a highly contested subject in American political discourse because of its apparent lack of democratic principles. One of the landmark regulations on funding for campaigns was the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which lifted the ban on both nonprofit and for-profit organizations’ ability to make independent political expenditures, drastically changing more than fifty years of campaign finance law (Demarchi 22). This legislation and the rising costs of political campaigns have resulted in a growing reliance on the private sector for funding. This reliance, as a result, has led to skepticism about the influence of campaign donors beyond the election. One example of potential influence is Representative Joe Barton, whose biggest source of campaign funds has been from the oil and natural gas industry with $1.4 million donated since the 1990 election cycle. In 2010, following the BP oil spill and federal hearing, Barton apologized to BP for the government performing a “shakedown” of them (Calmes). This clear favoring of BP, in light of the natural disaster the company caused, illustrates the potential influence major campaign donors may have on candidates after the race for office …show more content…
The media tends to tell people which candidates deserve consideration and what criteria to evaluate them by. This is damaging because it limits the pool of candidates and affects who the electorate votes for at the polls. In addition, if the media focuses on the wrong issues or character traits of the candidates, then the citizens are using the wrong criteria to evaluate them. Furthermore, regardless if various issues and candidates receive some coverage, people ultimately only remember what was emphasized, subtly but greatly impacting their information levels and choice at the polls (Ramsden 65-81). Thus, because of the level of effect the media has on the voter’s decisions, it is important to consider the message it conveys, which, with its prevalent focus on horserace coverage over candidate’s policy platforms and qualifications, seems to hurt democratic values. Not only does the media’s interpretation of who is winning effect the voter, but it also impacts campaign contributions. According to a study at the University of Wisconsin, media coverage with a horse-race spin help determine the frequency of campaign donations, which clearly have a powerful impact on the campaign’s success (Mutz 1015-1016). Overall, the media’s
is campaign financing, which has become a highly contested subject in American political discourse because of its apparent lack of democratic principles. One of the landmark regulations on funding for campaigns was the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which lifted the ban on both nonprofit and for-profit organizations’ ability to make independent political expenditures, drastically changing more than fifty years of campaign finance law (Demarchi 22). This legislation and the rising costs of political campaigns have resulted in a growing reliance on the private sector for funding. This reliance, as a result, has led to skepticism about the influence of campaign donors beyond the election. One example of potential influence is Representative Joe Barton, whose biggest source of campaign funds has been from the oil and natural gas industry with $1.4 million donated since the 1990 election cycle. In 2010, following the BP oil spill and federal hearing, Barton apologized to BP for the government performing a “shakedown” of them (Calmes). This clear favoring of BP, in light of the natural disaster the company caused, illustrates the potential influence major campaign donors may have on candidates after the race for office …show more content…
The media tends to tell people which candidates deserve consideration and what criteria to evaluate them by. This is damaging because it limits the pool of candidates and affects who the electorate votes for at the polls. In addition, if the media focuses on the wrong issues or character traits of the candidates, then the citizens are using the wrong criteria to evaluate them. Furthermore, regardless if various issues and candidates receive some coverage, people ultimately only remember what was emphasized, subtly but greatly impacting their information levels and choice at the polls (Ramsden 65-81). Thus, because of the level of effect the media has on the voter’s decisions, it is important to consider the message it conveys, which, with its prevalent focus on horserace coverage over candidate’s policy platforms and qualifications, seems to hurt democratic values. Not only does the media’s interpretation of who is winning effect the voter, but it also impacts campaign contributions. According to a study at the University of Wisconsin, media coverage with a horse-race spin help determine the frequency of campaign donations, which clearly have a powerful impact on the campaign’s success (Mutz 1015-1016). Overall, the media’s