As we know, presidential candidates, and their parties which raise money for them have become almost a necessity in order to run for office and to be considered a serious candidate. We see the private jets the candidates fly in, the buildings in which they rent out, but do we ever really realize the cost of all of this?
The funding of elections is hurting the democratic process. Candidates are basically being handed unlimited amounts of cash in order to run a serious campaign. The bottom line is this, people and groups are pouring in too much of their money, and it is a waste of millions of dollars which could be used other wise. Its quite funny how we have the candidates complaining how we owe over half of a trillion dollars, but at the same time they are spending millions just on their campaign. The bottom line is this, there needs to be a regulation where all candidates are given equal amounts of money and are told "heres you share, do what you want with it, you can use no more money than (whatever value is established)" This will also prove what candidate is stronger with using money wisely and making the most out of his/her money.
i believe that the way we fund elections can be both a help and a hinderance to the elections because it helps the party that has the means to get that kind of money to put out adds and such but at the same time it makes it so that the smaller party cant get enough funds to actually be a factor.
I believe that the way we fund elections today hurts the democratic process. It seems unfair that in order for a candidate to have a legitimate chance of running for president he must be supported by either the democratic or the republican parties. In the way our system works today many good candidates who could have ran for the presidency of the United States could not have done so because they would not be funded properly. The candidates of the two main parties are give way too much money and I believe that the money invested in their commercial should be more limited. That way not only would candidates from different parties have a better chance but also a lot of money would not be waisted on simply commercializing.
I feel that the way that money is raised is a hindrance to the democratic process because it is simply unnecessary. All the money that is put forth is mainly to get their name out and notify people that they are running. And the equation is that the more money you raise, the more publicity you get. This concept is not one bit fair. If you are one of the best candidates with one of the best minds to cross the ballot, but you simply cannot afford to campaign, your chances are winning or even getting your name out are slim to none.
And another point is that all the money you raise goes toward unnecessary luxuries. Some money goes toward and directly affects the people, like going to town halls and speaking, and hosting fundraisers. And all those things are only put in place to raise even MORE money that will then be used to raise more money. Its a neverending cycle that doesn't have a final destination.
I do believe that the funding of elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. The problem with the way that the election is funded is that it influences the candidates position on an issue. If a candidate gets a very large sum of money to fund their campaign from someone/a large company they are more likely to be in favor of whatever it is that those people feel is right. They would do this because it could insure them more money later for their campaign if they take a certain position to help a person out that has already given the candidate a great sum of money.
Another reason that the funding hurts the process is that, it is unfair. There is no way to really regulate the money more than it is already regulated. However it is unfair to one political party if another recieves more money; putting them ahead. Therefore the way the elections are funded is more of a hindrance to the democratic process than a help.
The process performed inorder to fund the presidential elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. Each election term, political parties raise ridiculous amounts of money to support their candidates. This is done through fundraising and bundeling of "Hard Money" (which has limits of $2,000 per candidate and $25,000 per political party), and "Soft Money"(which has no limits). As the each election passes, records are being shattered with more money than ever being given to candidates. Even quicker than this money can be donated, the political parties and their candidates are spending it. This quick spending of millions of dollars seems to be a selfish act, in an attempt to be elected, when it could be spent for other things like the national debt of the United States. Funding for the elections seems to be an unfair and wasteful way for Americans to spend their money.
I believe that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. In order to be a serious candidate in an election, one usually needs to raise a lot of money first. Without money, a candidate will find it more difficult to reach people and receive media attention. This makes it harder for a person to run for office if people do not have a chance to know who they are and what their position is on certain issues. The political system in the United States is mainly a two-party system, comprised of the Democratic Party and Republican Party. When a politician receives the support and financial backing of one of these powerful and wealthier parties, it makes it more difficult for a third-party candidate to have a chance. In addition to this, I believe that too much money is used for campaigns. The video that we watched in class mentioned how some television networks are price gouging and selling prime television advertisement spots to the highest bidder. This again places candidates who are not as well-known or wealthy at a disadvantage in reaching out to American voters. This year has seen records broken in campaign funding. In my opinion, however, the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process.
Overall, I think that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process of election. From this video we saw that the two major political parties always receive the most backing, and the amount of money given to them provides an unfair advantage over smaller parties. This basically makes elections a two party race and essentially eliminates all other potential candidates. Therefore, if you want to have a chance at being the president you have to run under either the Democratic or Republican parties. The president we choose should not become the commander and chief because of the amount of money he raised but rather because he will do a good job. At the same time, one can argue that these candidates have this financial backing because they are well qualified and that citizens would not donate money to the campaign if they had no chance of winning. While there may not be a way to develop an equal financial backing for all possible candidates, we can still see that this process in not in fact democratic because of the limitations it creates.
I feel that the way we raise campaign money is a hindrance to the democratic process. The money gained and spent is way to excessive and would be better off spent elsewhere. For example instead of flying from one important state to the next the presidential candidates could go on a tour bus and convoy and go to every state on their campaign. This would save money that is spent on the plane rides and on hotel rooms. Also, the political rally's and debates should be funded by the government and spread equally between the candidates. Also there should be a limited amount of campaign commercials so the candidates have to choose wisely on what they want to show. The limited face time would reduce the amount of time candidates would waste on slandering each other. A cap should be put on the amount of money a candidate and his/her party would spend on a campaign so money wouldn't be wasted buying votes.
In today's society, the majority of conversations are based on monetary funds, not only in politics, but in every day life as well. If a politician wants to be well known and have a shot at winning an election to their desired position, they need to raise a lot of money to get their message out there. I believe that the way parties and their candidates raise money is a hindrance to the democratic process.
It takes a lot of time and effort to go door to door, making phone calls sending emails, and other methods of raising money for a certain party campaign. I believe that it must be unfair to certain parties, as others may have better luck raising funds. Taking this further, the campaign that raises more money will be able to produce more ads and commercials than the other campaign. Your campaign could have the best ideas out of the whole election, but if you don't raise enough money, then it is nearly impossible for you to get publicity, and in turn, get votes. Even though there are some wealthy people out there that donate up to $2,000 per campaign, what are the chances that they are going to donate the same amount over and over again if that particular candidate needs more money? Economy of scale is also an option, but again, people have to deal with the plummeting stocks and their personal funds may be running low. The money that is raised is also not regulated, so we as American people don't know what our donations are going towards.
For these reasons and more, I believe that the democratic process is being hindered by the raising of campaign finances.
I believe that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. Some people donate lots of money to a candidate’s campaign. Even thought there are some laws that prevent people from donating large amounts of money, there are ways that people go around these laws and still donate lots of money. By donating a large amount of money, it allows for some people to have influences over a candidate’s campaign or term.
The way we fund elections is also bad in that it cost so much money for each candidate to run, even though the United States is in debt. Senator Obama and Senator McCain have spent so much money running TV ads and traveling while the U.S. economy is getting worse and worse. It does not seem right for them to be spending billions of dollars when many Americans could have used that money more.
That is why the way our elections are funded is more of a hindrance than a help to the election process.
The expenses of holding political campaigns and, in gereral, running for president are huge. These expenses are funded through public funding. A qualified presidential candidate will receive federal government funds along with any money from the public to cover the cost of campaigns and advertising. The main way that elections are funded is by the public donating money to presidential candidates and other commissions. I feel that this type of funding is hurting the democratic process. One problem is that the people or companies are funding a candidate and by doing so, although they may not say it, are expecting something in return. This turns the process into a form of bribery. I also feel that way to much money is being spent on advertising and other unnecessary things. I feel that if a candidate is truly worthy of being president they should not have to spend millions of dollars to prove it.
I feel that the way we raise campain money is a hindrance to the democratic process. The funding of elections is hurting the democratic process. All of the millions of dollars they raise is simpily unnecessary. The money can be used in better ways. If the canidates running are so worried about the all the money we owe to china, then they should use the campain money to pay back china if they think its such a problem. The political debates should be funded by the government and spread equally between the candidates. The money can go to better causes than there private jet rides and hotel rooms. The limit is 2,000 dollars to each canidate, i personally think a person would have the be insane to give that much money away for a campain. So the bottom line is that the elections are funded is more of a hindrance to the democratic process than a help.
The way Campaign are finaced is hurting the democratic process. First its unfair for smaller canidates. By having the front runners able to get and spend millions and millions of dollars it hurts a the other Candidate who is unable to raise so much money, yet has a lot of ideas. The democratic process is the everyone is equal and should get an equal chance. By allowing candiates to take millions of millions of dollars is making it so everyone is no getting an equal chance.
Another problem is that big companys or wealthy individuals who give out the big bucks even though they dont say it expect something in return. This is a form of bribery.
The more and more money each candidate recieve does not mean the more and more we are informed. We would be able to get enough information about the candidates even if they had a much smaller limit of money available. Also i think because the candiadates are getting so much money they are spending it on unnecessary advertisments that are negative and not infomative and on private jets and hotel rooms.
I believe that the way we fund campaigns today is a hindrance to the democratic process. I do not think that it is fair that the only way a person can run for election is if they make a certain amount of money, to even be taken seriously. There are many people out there that deserve to be in office, but they know they will never make the ridiculous number of millions that others candidates make, by calling there supporters asking for money. The money that is spent in this process can go towards something so much more important, instead of being wasted on tv commercials and ads. Each candidate should have a limit on how much they should spend in one campaign, to make it fair for everyone, not just the people who can afford it. I think that you should be chosen into office not on how much money that is donated to you, but what your views and stand points are. So for these reasons, I believe that there is too much money in the campaign process, and that it is a hindrance to the process of elections.
Campaign Finance has gone extremely out of hand. It has without doubt hurt the democratic process of America. Money is what runs the candidacy. Without it, a candidate doesn't stand a chance. In watching the video I was disgusted to see that there is actually a job that requires a person to "beg" for contributions. If a person promises to give money he basically hunts them down until they contribute. The government tries to regulate spending by not allowing soft money versus hard money and putting limits as to how much an individual can contribute, but there is no end amount as to how much money a candidate can have.
Democracy is not supposed to be a competition of wealth but a competition of what is best for the country. Yes, it is important to reach out to the people of the United States, but when there are 527s bashing the other candidate that's when we know this is enough. There should be a cap placed on the amount of money a candidate can spend on an election campaign. Let the campaign committee manage their money better and therefore waste less . It is not right to know that our candidates are spending so much money on their campaigns this year when there is a financial crisis. If those contributors have so much excessive money, they should use that money towards charity, or public welfare. The candidate that is truly fit to be our president should win the election, not the candidate broadcasting to the most people. If voters really want to know about our future president, they shouldn't be seeing them on commercials but watching the presidential debates. It is the least our voters can do.
Campaign finance has become excessive. Our candidates are spending ridiculous amounts of money on transportation and private jets. Last time I checked it does not take $50,000 to travel halfway across the country. Our candidates should act like the normal citizens that they are. If they are elected President, it is only then that they can be treated like a celebrity. Whatever happens to the candidate that doesn't win the election. He loses the election, and all the money is completely gone to nothing. That is not the example our country should be setting.
Money in a campaign clearly is a hindrance to the democratic process and the financial status of the country. If greedy politicians will one day realize this, maybe the excessive spending can be cut down significantly. But this is a complete ideal of mine. After watching the video, I have realized that there are way too many people that believe this overspending is necessary. Too many people have their jobs invested in campaigning. The United States need to think about changing this growing issue or in the future a billion dollar campaign will be considered pocket change for a campaign.
The method we use to fund elections in America is a hindrance to the democratic process. Large Corporations and very wealthy individuals have their interests placed at a higher value the interests of average Americans simply because they have bigger pocketbooks. This is because a candidate is not going to be quick to anger anyone who gave them the money they needed to participate in the election, and may go out of their way to protect the interests of their largest contributers. Additionally, the sheer amount of money that is required essentially blocks any third party candidate from having a legitimate chance at winning the election. Regardless of how capable of a leader they may be, if a candidate is not backed by the Republican or Democratic Party, they have virtually no chance of winning most elections. This massive amount of money could all also be used for something far more useful than another negative ad.
Money increasingly becomes more and more apart of this 2008 election. With both parties spending close to billon dollars on the campaign this election. There has to be a better way to be elected then to spend billions of dollars! The way we are funding this election is more of a hindrance to the democratic process then a help. It does allow the candidates to reach a much larger amount of the American people, but how much is too much? Barack Obama has purchased many commercial slots including a 30 minute cable advertisement on Election Day. Not only has Barack saturated the television with ads, but he also campaigns websites such as Facebook and all over the net, and now in video games! The In-game ads are delivered to players in 18 games including “Guitar Hero 3”, “NASCAR 09”, and “NBA Live 08”. I believe that is too much when a candidate can have that much money it’s unfair to the Democratic process, especially when he opponent is limited to 84 million dollars in public money.
The way we fund election is a hinderance to the elections. As we all know, the US is in great debt, and we owe trillions of dollars. I believe that the candidates are using too much money for the campaign. The candidates are spending millions on just travel and hotel fee, while the US is in great debt. People are donating too much unneccessary money to the candidates. They need to control the amount of money the people can donate to the candidates, and also the amount of money the candidates can spend on.
I think that the funding method of elections today hinders the democratic process. This is because to have any real chance of winning an election you must be able to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars or, in a presidential election, millions of dollars. Because of this, it makes the election not so much about who has the better position on issues, or who has the best talking points, but who can raise the most money. The more money that a campaign can raise the more ads it can produce and the more places the candidate can travel to and give speeches. Basically, in the current political campaign funding system, the candidate that can raise the most money is going to win the election.
I think that the funding done today hurts the democratic process alot. I think that we shouldnt have a set amount of money that has to be raised in order to enter the election, because there are many good candidates that cannot participate because they are not funded properly. I think that each candidate should have a set limit of money this was all candidates get a fair shot. The candidates complain that we owe all this money to other countries, and we need to pay them back whereas they could easily use there funding money to help pay for it, instead of spending money on negitive campaign adds. To me it doesnt feel right when the economy is dying down every day, yet the candidates are spending beg money all the time now. Also with the way each election has been going since the beggining of time, more and more money is spend each 4 yrs., what happpens next election? Are we just going to blow a trillion dollars on the campaigns? I believe we can stop the spending money form getting out of hand if we do something to inforce it. We should be learning good things about each candidate, instead of only watching and hearing the candidates bash eachother.
The way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. The large amount of money that is spent during elections has become too excessive throughout the years. It is true that candidates need money for travel, renting space for rallies and other unexpected expenses. However, the amount of money being spent on elections in the past couple of years is shocking. The cost of something should not exceed its economic value. However, the presidential elections do not follow this philosophy. The candidates are spending millions of dollars on their campaigns, and when they do become the President for example, they do not even earn as much as they had spent. In the 2004 elections, a total of over $500 million dollars was raised between John Kerry and George W. Bush. That is so much money and it would have been better off used to reduce the debt of the United States. The 2008 presidential race is difficult because with the rise of prices in almost every category, the candidates are spending unprecedented amounts of money. But, is it really worth it?
Is the way we fund elections a help or hindrance to the democratic process?
I feel as thought the way we fund our elections is more of a hindrance to the democratic process, then it is a help, due to the fact that it is unnecessary, and unfair. To have any chance at winning an election you need insane amounts of funding, to be able to travel the country, create ads, and have all the luxuries of a future president. The money that the democatic and republican party recives should not go to a candidates campagin it should be used to help our country in this economic crisis. Candidates are spending almost a billion dollars, and coming up with financial plans when they are wasting tax payers money on fancy limos, and private jets. Although it helps the campaign it sometimes over shadows what is really important, understanding what the candidate stands for and their ideas for the country. They become so caught up in the election process money means nothing. A candidate could be running for office that no one knows about because having less money creates an unfair advantage to the candidate with infinite sums of money.In some cases bigger companies and individuals give candidate huge amounts of money, which sometimes is used as bribery. If you really want to become president, speak your mind, tell us your views and your plans you do not need to spend a billion dollars to prove to the united states people you are worthy of becoming our president.
I feel that the way the candidates raise money is necessary but unfair. More unknown candidates who want to run may not be able to get enough money to have their voice heard. This person could even be the best president ever but it wouldn't be known if the popular candidates earned all the money for their things. I feel that money is necessary, obviously, to complete all the campaigns but the way it is earned is unfair. Therefore, I feel it hurts the people who don't have much of a chance in a popularity contest who may be an optimal candidate.
I feel that the funding for the presidential elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. Every four years, the governmental helps fund the presidential elections. Typically this would be fine, except for the fact that the U.S. is now trillions of dollars in debt. I feel that the government is giving away money that we don’t have to spend, and then expects to raise taxes on hardworking American people to make up for the money they gave to the candidates. Also, I feel that if they are going to give the candidates money from the government, then the candidates should have to limit their spending. They are spending millions of dollars on attacks against the other candidates, on travel, and campaigning. If the candidates lowered their spending, not only would they be a role model for what the government should be doing, but they would also help the government by not spending millions of dollars that the U.S. does not have. Therefore, I feel that the funding of the presidential elections is a hindrance to the democratic process.
I think that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. I think that the way we fund creates barriers and sets an automatic mind set. The candidate will feel more towards the party or people who donate large sums of their money to their party. The candidate will not even think of all the other people who want a voice but just doesn’t have the money to donate. The candidate will naturally overlook them just because they didn’t give to the cause. Also I think the money being donated is not going to the correct place. These candidates spend this money just to get themselves elected. If they do not get elected this money went to waste and people just lost money in the already bad economy. I think that the way we fund elections today is not a help to the democratic way.
I think that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. I think that the way we fund creates barriers and sets an automatic mind set. The candidate will feel more towards the party or people who donate large sums of their money to their party. The candidate will not even think of all the other people who want a voice but just doesn’t have the money to donate. The candidate will naturally overlook them just because they didn’t give to the cause. Also I think the money being donated is not going to the correct place. These candidates spend this money just to get themselves elected. If they do not get elected this money went to waste and people just lost money in the already bad economy. I think that the way we fund elections today is not a help to the democratic way.
I think that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. I think that the way we fund creates barriers and sets an automatic mind set. The candidate will feel more towards the party or people who donate large sums of their money to their party. The candidate will not even think of all the other people who want a voice but just doesn’t have the money to donate. The candidate will naturally overlook them just because they didn’t give to the cause. Also I think the money being donated is not going to the correct place. These candidates spend this money just to get themselves elected. If they do not get elected this money went to waste and people just lost money in the already bad economy. I think that the way we fund elections today is not a help to the democratic way.
The funding of elections is more of a hindrance than help to the democratic process. By the principles of democracy, every candidate should have an equal opportunity to advertise themselves regardless of the wealth available to them by their campaigns. Therefore, I agree with enforcing a set spending limit for each campaign. These limits should be reasonable caps on the money spent for transportation, campaigning, ads, etc.
However, it would be a violation of free speech if there were restrictions on what private citizens, non-affiliated with the campaigns, want to put out there in terms of support or advertisements. Hence, there should be strict enforcement of no contact between the private citizens or 527’s putting out these ads and the campaigns themselves. This would make sure that the campaigns are not involved in any efforts outside of their spending limits.
The way the system is, private groups of wealthy people can have unofficial contact with the campaigns in order to plan the timing and content of their ads. The result of this is not good for the democratic process. The overall amount of money being spent by campaigns is ridiculous and should be regulated. In the modern communications age, millions of dollars may in fact be necessary to effectively put a candidate’s name out there. However restrictions need to be set for the principle of equality and responsible spending.
In my opinion the way the funding of elections is done is unfair. One party can make more then the other or has more supporters then the other has the upper hand. They have more money for advertisement and other such events that promote their party. Both parties should have the same chance as the other. In my opinion thats real competition. Also what about the money that goes into politicians pockets thats wasted money right there. What i also think is very unfair is if one party has more money the other party isn't even a factor. Because of that image people vote or give money to the other party because its most likely they'll win. They won't be wasting their money that way. If everything else has to be regulated why not he funding of elections?
After watching this video on the campaign financing laws and regulations I have come to the conclusion that the way we fund elections is helping the democratic process. The reason is that this way of running campaigns allows all candidates to receive equal and fair payments from each donor. This process, known as hard money, allows the poorest of candidates to compete against the richest of candidates. This then forces both candidates to go out and actually campaign to the average citizens rather than to those who have money. Also this allows those who have money to have equal influence over the candidates and elections as the average citizen. Though people say that 527s are the solution to the hard money they fail to realize that 527s can hurt both candidates. Moreover the use of hard money is a great way for citizens to become involved. The citizens can turn to their neighbors and friends to earn more money for the candidates. This process is known as bundling. Still it is the psychological aspect to the voters that their money is actually very important. Thus, the voters thinking that they can actually influence the outcome of the election. Therefore, the way we fund elections helps the democratic process by getting average citizens involved.
i think that the way we fund hurts the democratic process. There are many candidates that dont have the chance to become president because they dont have enough funding to run. The Democratic and Republican parties are really the only parties that get funded. The independents, green, or any other party candidates never get the chance to be president because they are never endorsed or funded. Ron Paul was, in my opinion, the best candidate. He didnt get enough funding, therefor he couldnt run. He would have changed America, but wont get the chance because the funding hurts the democratic party.
33 comments:
As we know, presidential candidates, and their parties which raise money for them have become almost a necessity in order to run for office and to be considered a serious candidate. We see the private jets the candidates fly in, the buildings in which they rent out, but do we ever really realize the cost of all of this?
The funding of elections is hurting the democratic process. Candidates are basically being handed unlimited amounts of cash in order to run a serious campaign. The bottom line is this, people and groups are pouring in too much of their money, and it is a waste of millions of dollars which could be used other wise. Its quite funny how we have the candidates complaining how we owe over half of a trillion dollars, but at the same time they are spending millions just on their campaign. The bottom line is this, there needs to be a regulation where all candidates are given equal amounts of money and are told "heres you share, do what you want with it, you can use no more money than (whatever value is established)" This will also prove what candidate is stronger with using money wisely and making the most out of his/her money.
i believe that the way we fund elections can be both a help and a hinderance to the elections because it helps the party that has the means to get that kind of money to put out adds and such but at the same time it makes it so that the smaller party cant get enough funds to actually be a factor.
I believe that the way we fund elections today hurts the democratic process. It seems unfair that in order for a candidate to have a legitimate chance of running for president he must be supported by either the democratic or the republican parties. In the way our system works today many good candidates who could have ran for the presidency of the United States could not have done so because they would not be funded properly. The candidates of the two main parties are give way too much money and I believe that the money invested in their commercial should be more limited. That way not only would candidates from different parties have a better chance but also a lot of money would not be waisted on simply commercializing.
I feel that the way that money is raised is a hindrance to the democratic process because it is simply unnecessary. All the money that is put forth is mainly to get their name out and notify people that they are running. And the equation is that the more money you raise, the more publicity you get. This concept is not one bit fair. If you are one of the best candidates with one of the best minds to cross the ballot, but you simply cannot afford to campaign, your chances are winning or even getting your name out are slim to none.
And another point is that all the money you raise goes toward unnecessary luxuries. Some money goes toward and directly affects the people, like going to town halls and speaking, and hosting fundraisers. And all those things are only put in place to raise even MORE money that will then be used to raise more money. Its a neverending cycle that doesn't have a final destination.
I do believe that the funding of elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. The problem with the way that the election is funded is that it influences the candidates position on an issue. If a candidate gets a very large sum of money to fund their campaign from someone/a large company they are more likely to be in favor of whatever it is that those people feel is right. They would do this because it could insure them more money later for their campaign if they take a certain position to help a person out that has already given the candidate a great sum of money.
Another reason that the funding hurts the process is that, it is unfair. There is no way to really regulate the money more than it is already regulated. However it is unfair to one political party if another recieves more money; putting them ahead. Therefore the way the elections are funded is more of a hindrance to the democratic process than a help.
The process performed inorder to fund the presidential elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. Each election term, political parties raise ridiculous amounts of money to support their candidates. This is done through fundraising and bundeling of "Hard Money" (which has limits of $2,000 per candidate and $25,000 per political party), and "Soft Money"(which has no limits). As the each election passes, records are being shattered with more money than ever being given to candidates. Even quicker than this money can be donated, the political parties and their candidates are spending it. This quick spending of millions of dollars seems to be a selfish act, in an attempt to be elected, when it could be spent for other things like the national debt of the United States. Funding for the elections seems to be an unfair and wasteful way for Americans to spend their money.
I believe that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. In order to be a serious candidate in an election, one usually needs to raise a lot of money first. Without money, a candidate will find it more difficult to reach people and receive media attention. This makes it harder for a person to run for office if people do not have a chance to know who they are and what their position is on certain issues. The political system in the United States is mainly a two-party system, comprised of the Democratic Party and Republican Party. When a politician receives the support and financial backing of one of these powerful and wealthier parties, it makes it more difficult for a third-party candidate to have a chance. In addition to this, I believe that too much money is used for campaigns. The video that we watched in class mentioned how some television networks are price gouging and selling prime television advertisement spots to the highest bidder. This again places candidates who are not as well-known or wealthy at a disadvantage in reaching out to American voters. This year has seen records broken in campaign funding. In my opinion, however, the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process.
Overall, I think that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process of election. From this video we saw that the two major political parties always receive the most backing, and the amount of money given to them provides an unfair advantage over smaller parties. This basically makes elections a two party race and essentially eliminates all other potential candidates. Therefore, if you want to have a chance at being the president you have to run under either the Democratic or Republican parties. The president we choose should not become the commander and chief because of the amount of money he raised but rather because he will do a good job. At the same time, one can argue that these candidates have this financial backing because they are well qualified and that citizens would not donate money to the campaign if they had no chance of winning. While there may not be a way to develop an equal financial backing for all possible candidates, we can still see that this process in not in fact democratic because of the limitations it creates.
I feel that the way we raise campaign money is a hindrance to the democratic process. The money gained and spent is way to excessive and would be better off spent elsewhere. For example instead of flying from one important state to the next the presidential candidates could go on a tour bus and convoy and go to every state on their campaign. This would save money that is spent on the plane rides and on hotel rooms. Also, the political rally's and debates should be funded by the government and spread equally between the candidates. Also there should be a limited amount of campaign commercials so the candidates have to choose wisely on what they want to show. The limited face time would reduce the amount of time candidates would waste on slandering each other. A cap should be put on the amount of money a candidate and his/her party would spend on a campaign so money wouldn't be wasted buying votes.
In today's society, the majority of conversations are based on monetary funds, not only in politics, but in every day life as well. If a politician wants to be well known and have a shot at winning an election to their desired position, they need to raise a lot of money to get their message out there. I believe that the way parties and their candidates raise money is a hindrance to the democratic process.
It takes a lot of time and effort to go door to door, making phone calls sending emails, and other methods of raising money for a certain party campaign. I believe that it must be unfair to certain parties, as others may have better luck raising funds. Taking this further, the campaign that raises more money will be able to produce more ads and commercials than the other campaign. Your campaign could have the best ideas out of the whole election, but if you don't raise enough money, then it is nearly impossible for you to get publicity, and in turn, get votes. Even though there are some wealthy people out there that donate up to $2,000 per campaign, what are the chances that they are going to donate the same amount over and over again if that particular candidate needs more money? Economy of scale is also an option, but again, people have to deal with the plummeting stocks and their personal funds may be running low. The money that is raised is also not regulated, so we as American people don't know what our donations are going towards.
For these reasons and more, I believe that the democratic process is being hindered by the raising of campaign finances.
I believe that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. Some people donate lots of money to a candidate’s campaign. Even thought there are some laws that prevent people from donating large amounts of money, there are ways that people go around these laws and still donate lots of money. By donating a large amount of money, it allows for some people to have influences over a candidate’s campaign or term.
The way we fund elections is also bad in that it cost so much money for each candidate to run, even though the United States is in debt. Senator Obama and Senator McCain have spent so much money running TV ads and traveling while the U.S. economy is getting worse and worse. It does not seem right for them to be spending billions of dollars when many Americans could have used that money more.
That is why the way our elections are funded is more of a hindrance than a help to the election process.
The expenses of holding political campaigns and, in gereral, running for president are huge. These expenses are funded through public funding. A qualified presidential candidate will receive federal government funds along with any money from the public to cover the cost of campaigns and advertising. The main way that elections are funded is by the public donating money to presidential candidates and other commissions. I feel that this type of funding is hurting the democratic process. One problem is that the people or companies are funding a candidate and by doing so, although they may not say it, are expecting something in return. This turns the process into a form of bribery. I also feel that way to much money is being spent on advertising and other unnecessary things. I feel that if a candidate is truly worthy of being president they should not have to spend millions of dollars to prove it.
Liora Mor
I feel that the way we raise campain money is a hindrance to the democratic process. The funding of elections is hurting the democratic process. All of the millions of dollars they raise is simpily unnecessary. The money can be used in better ways. If the canidates running are so worried about the all the money we owe to china, then they should use the campain money to pay back china if they think its such a problem. The political debates should be funded by the government and spread equally between the candidates. The money can go to better causes than there private jet rides and hotel rooms. The limit is 2,000 dollars to each canidate, i personally think a person would have the be insane to give that much money away for a campain. So the bottom line is that the elections are funded is more of a hindrance to the democratic process than a help.
The way Campaign are finaced is hurting the democratic process. First its unfair for smaller canidates. By having the front runners able to get and spend millions and millions of dollars it hurts a the other Candidate who is unable to raise so much money, yet has a lot of ideas. The democratic process is the everyone is equal and should get an equal chance. By allowing candiates to take millions of millions of dollars is making it so everyone is no getting an equal chance.
Another problem is that big companys or wealthy individuals who give out the big bucks even though they dont say it expect something in return. This is a form of bribery.
The more and more money each candidate recieve does not mean the more and more we are informed. We would be able to get enough information about the candidates even if they had a much smaller limit of money available. Also i think because the candiadates are getting so much money they are spending it on unnecessary advertisments that are negative and not infomative and on private jets and hotel rooms.
I believe that the way we fund campaigns today is a hindrance to the democratic process. I do not think that it is fair that the only way a person can run for election is if they make a certain amount of money, to even be taken seriously. There are many people out there that deserve to be in office, but they know they will never make the ridiculous number of millions that others candidates make, by calling there supporters asking for money. The money that is spent in this process can go towards something so much more important, instead of being wasted on tv commercials and ads. Each candidate should have a limit on how much they should spend in one campaign, to make it fair for everyone, not just the people who can afford it. I think that you should be chosen into office not on how much money that is donated to you, but what your views and stand points are. So for these reasons, I believe that there is too much money in the campaign process, and that it is a hindrance to the process of elections.
Campaign Finance has gone extremely out of hand. It has without doubt hurt the democratic process of America. Money is what runs the candidacy. Without it, a candidate doesn't stand a chance. In watching the video I was disgusted to see that there is actually a job that requires a person to "beg" for contributions. If a person promises to give money he basically hunts them down until they contribute. The government tries to regulate spending by not allowing soft money versus hard money and putting limits as to how much an individual can contribute, but there is no end amount as to how much money a candidate can have.
Democracy is not supposed to be a competition of wealth but a competition of what is best for the country. Yes, it is important to reach out to the people of the United States, but when there are 527s bashing the other candidate that's when we know this is enough. There should be a cap placed on the amount of money a candidate can spend on an election campaign. Let the campaign committee manage their money better and therefore waste less . It is not right to know that our candidates are spending so much money on their campaigns this year when there is a financial crisis. If those contributors have so much excessive money, they should use that money towards charity, or public welfare. The candidate that is truly fit to be our president should win the election, not the candidate broadcasting to the most people. If voters really want to know about our future president, they shouldn't be seeing them on commercials but watching the presidential debates. It is the least our voters can do.
Campaign finance has become excessive. Our candidates are spending ridiculous amounts of money on transportation and private jets. Last time I checked it does not take $50,000 to travel halfway across the country. Our candidates should act like the normal citizens that they are. If they are elected President, it is only then that they can be treated like a celebrity. Whatever happens to the candidate that doesn't win the election. He loses the election, and all the money is completely gone to nothing. That is not the example our country should be setting.
Money in a campaign clearly is a hindrance to the democratic process and the financial status of the country. If greedy politicians will one day realize this, maybe the excessive spending can be cut down significantly. But this is a complete ideal of mine. After watching the video, I have realized that there are way too many people that believe this overspending is necessary. Too many people have their jobs invested in campaigning. The United States need to think about changing this growing issue or in the future a billion dollar campaign will be considered pocket change for a campaign.
-Nancy Bobrysh
period 4
The method we use to fund elections in America is a hindrance to the democratic process. Large Corporations and very wealthy individuals have their interests placed at a higher value the interests of average Americans simply because they have bigger pocketbooks. This is because a candidate is not going to be quick to anger anyone who gave them the money they needed to participate in the election, and may go out of their way to protect the interests of their largest contributers.
Additionally, the sheer amount of money that is required essentially blocks any third party candidate from having a legitimate chance at winning the election. Regardless of how capable of a leader they may be, if a candidate is not backed by the Republican or Democratic Party, they have virtually no chance of winning most elections. This massive amount of money could all also be used for something far more useful than another negative ad.
Money increasingly becomes more and more apart of this 2008 election. With both parties spending close to billon dollars on the campaign this election. There has to be a better way to be elected then to spend billions of dollars!
The way we are funding this election is more of a hindrance to the democratic process then a help. It does allow the candidates to reach a much larger amount of the American people, but how much is too much? Barack Obama has purchased many commercial slots including a 30 minute cable advertisement on Election Day. Not only has Barack saturated the television with ads, but he also campaigns websites such as Facebook and all over the net, and now in video games! The In-game ads are delivered to players in 18 games including “Guitar Hero 3”, “NASCAR 09”, and “NBA Live 08”. I believe that is too much when a candidate can have that much money it’s unfair to the Democratic process, especially when he opponent is limited to 84 million dollars in public money.
The way we fund election is a hinderance to the elections. As we all know, the US is in great debt, and we owe trillions of dollars. I believe that the candidates are using too much money for the campaign. The candidates are spending millions on just travel and hotel fee, while the US is in great debt. People are donating too much unneccessary money to the candidates. They need to control the amount of money the people can donate to the candidates, and also the amount of money the candidates can spend on.
I think that the funding method of elections today hinders the democratic process. This is because to have any real chance of winning an election you must be able to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars or, in a presidential election, millions of dollars. Because of this, it makes the election not so much about who has the better position on issues, or who has the best talking points, but who can raise the most money. The more money that a campaign can raise the more ads it can produce and the more places the candidate can travel to and give speeches. Basically, in the current political campaign funding system, the candidate that can raise the most money is going to win the election.
I think that the funding done today hurts the democratic process alot. I think that we shouldnt have a set amount of money that has to be raised in order to enter the election, because there are many good candidates that cannot participate because they are not funded properly. I think that each candidate should have a set limit of money this was all candidates get a fair shot. The candidates complain that we owe all this money to other countries, and we need to pay them back whereas they could easily use there funding money to help pay for it, instead of spending money on negitive campaign adds. To me it doesnt feel right when the economy is dying down every day, yet the candidates are spending beg money all the time now. Also with the way each election has been going since the beggining of time, more and more money is spend each 4 yrs., what happpens next election? Are we just going to blow a trillion dollars on the campaigns? I believe we can stop the spending money form getting out of hand if we do something to inforce it. We should be learning good things about each candidate, instead of only watching and hearing the candidates bash eachother.
The way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. The large amount of money that is spent during elections has become too excessive throughout the years. It is true that candidates need money for travel, renting space for rallies and other unexpected expenses. However, the amount of money being spent on elections in the past couple of years is shocking. The cost of something should not exceed its economic value. However, the presidential elections do not follow this philosophy. The candidates are spending millions of dollars on their campaigns, and when they do become the President for example, they do not even earn as much as they had spent. In the 2004 elections, a total of over $500 million dollars was raised between John Kerry and George W. Bush. That is so much money and it would have been better off used to reduce the debt of the United States. The 2008 presidential race is difficult because with the rise of prices in almost every category, the candidates are spending unprecedented amounts of money. But, is it really worth it?
Is the way we fund elections a help or hindrance to the democratic process?
I feel as thought the way we fund our elections is more of a hindrance to the democratic process, then it is a help, due to the fact that it is unnecessary, and unfair. To have any chance at winning an election you need insane amounts of funding, to be able to travel the country, create ads, and have all the luxuries of a future president. The money that the democatic and republican party recives should not go to a candidates campagin it should be used to help our country in this economic crisis. Candidates are spending almost a billion dollars, and coming up with financial plans when they are wasting tax payers money on fancy limos, and private jets.
Although it helps the campaign it sometimes over shadows what is really important, understanding what the candidate stands for and their ideas for the country. They become so caught up in the election process money means nothing. A candidate could be running for office that no one knows about because having less money creates an unfair advantage to the candidate with infinite sums of money.In some cases bigger companies and individuals give candidate huge amounts of money, which sometimes is used as bribery.
If you really want to become president, speak your mind, tell us your views and your plans you do not need to spend a billion dollars to prove to the united states people you are worthy of becoming our president.
Paul Constantino
Period 4
I feel that the way the candidates raise money is necessary but unfair. More unknown candidates who want to run may not be able to get enough money to have their voice heard. This person could even be the best president ever but it wouldn't be known if the popular candidates earned all the money for their things. I feel that money is necessary, obviously, to complete all the campaigns but the way it is earned is unfair. Therefore, I feel it hurts the people who don't have much of a chance in a popularity contest who may be an optimal candidate.
I feel that the funding for the presidential elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. Every four years, the governmental helps fund the presidential elections. Typically this would be fine, except for the fact that the U.S. is now trillions of dollars in debt. I feel that the government is giving away money that we don’t have to spend, and then expects to raise taxes on hardworking American people to make up for the money they gave to the candidates. Also, I feel that if they are going to give the candidates money from the government, then the candidates should have to limit their spending. They are spending millions of dollars on attacks against the other candidates, on travel, and campaigning. If the candidates lowered their spending, not only would they be a role model for what the government should be doing, but they would also help the government by not spending millions of dollars that the U.S. does not have. Therefore, I feel that the funding of the presidential elections is a hindrance to the democratic process.
~Kathleen DeVylder
Per. 4
I think that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. I think that the way we fund creates barriers and sets an automatic mind set. The candidate will feel more towards the party or people who donate large sums of their money to their party. The candidate will not even think of all the other people who want a voice but just doesn’t have the money to donate. The candidate will naturally overlook them just because they didn’t give to the cause. Also I think the money being donated is not going to the correct place. These candidates spend this money just to get themselves elected. If they do not get elected this money went to waste and people just lost money in the already bad economy. I think that the way we fund elections today is not a help to the democratic way.
I think that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. I think that the way we fund creates barriers and sets an automatic mind set. The candidate will feel more towards the party or people who donate large sums of their money to their party. The candidate will not even think of all the other people who want a voice but just doesn’t have the money to donate. The candidate will naturally overlook them just because they didn’t give to the cause. Also I think the money being donated is not going to the correct place. These candidates spend this money just to get themselves elected. If they do not get elected this money went to waste and people just lost money in the already bad economy. I think that the way we fund elections today is not a help to the democratic way.
I think that the way we fund elections is a hindrance to the democratic process. I think that the way we fund creates barriers and sets an automatic mind set. The candidate will feel more towards the party or people who donate large sums of their money to their party. The candidate will not even think of all the other people who want a voice but just doesn’t have the money to donate. The candidate will naturally overlook them just because they didn’t give to the cause. Also I think the money being donated is not going to the correct place. These candidates spend this money just to get themselves elected. If they do not get elected this money went to waste and people just lost money in the already bad economy. I think that the way we fund elections today is not a help to the democratic way.
The funding of elections is more of a hindrance than help to the democratic process. By the principles of democracy, every candidate should have an equal opportunity to advertise themselves regardless of the wealth available to them by their campaigns. Therefore, I agree with enforcing a set spending limit for each campaign. These limits should be reasonable caps on the money spent for transportation, campaigning, ads, etc.
However, it would be a violation of free speech if there were restrictions on what private citizens, non-affiliated with the campaigns, want to put out there in terms of support or advertisements. Hence, there should be strict enforcement of no contact between the private citizens or 527’s putting out these ads and the campaigns themselves. This would make sure that the campaigns are not involved in any efforts outside of their spending limits.
The way the system is, private groups of wealthy people can have unofficial contact with the campaigns in order to plan the timing and content of their ads. The result of this is not good for the democratic process. The overall amount of money being spent by campaigns is ridiculous and should be regulated. In the modern communications age, millions of dollars may in fact be necessary to effectively put a candidate’s name out there. However restrictions need to be set for the principle of equality and responsible spending.
Katie Jarjura
In my opinion the way the funding of elections is done is unfair. One party can make more then the other or has more supporters then the other has the upper hand. They have more money for advertisement and other such events that promote their party. Both parties should have the same chance as the other. In my opinion thats real competition. Also what about the money that goes into politicians pockets thats wasted money right there.
What i also think is very unfair is if one party has more money the other party isn't even a factor. Because of that image people vote or give money to the other party because its most likely they'll win. They won't be wasting their money that way. If everything else has to be regulated why not he funding of elections?
After watching this video on the campaign financing laws and regulations I have come to the conclusion that the way we fund elections is helping the democratic process. The reason is that this way of running campaigns allows all candidates to receive equal and fair payments from each donor. This process, known as hard money, allows the poorest of candidates to compete against the richest of candidates. This then forces both candidates to go out and actually campaign to the average citizens rather than to those who have money. Also this allows those who have money to have equal influence over the candidates and elections as the average citizen. Though people say that 527s are the solution to the hard money they fail to realize that 527s can hurt both candidates. Moreover the use of hard money is a great way for citizens to become involved. The citizens can turn to their neighbors and friends to earn more money for the candidates. This process is known as bundling. Still it is the psychological aspect to the voters that their money is actually very important. Thus, the voters thinking that they can actually influence the outcome of the election. Therefore, the way we fund elections helps the democratic process by getting average citizens involved.
i think that the way we fund hurts the democratic process. There are many candidates that dont have the chance to become president because they dont have enough funding to run. The Democratic and Republican parties are really the only parties that get funded. The independents, green, or any other party candidates never get the chance to be president because they are never endorsed or funded. Ron Paul was, in my opinion, the best candidate. He didnt get enough funding, therefor he couldnt run. He would have changed America, but wont get the chance because the funding hurts the democratic party.
Post a Comment