http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/human-rights-cartoon-107-the-effect-of-money-on-elections/
Are the current methods of fundraising and financing elections good for our democracy?
Are the current methods of fundraising and financing elections good for our democracy?
Due Monday morning (7:30 a.m.)
41 comments:
Personally, I don't think raising money is as big of a factor as made out to be. At least on a smaller scale, such as running for representative seats. I think that the winners get more money because they are popular, not that they are popular because they get more money. Sure, having more money helps because you can get your name out there and make sure everyone knows why you are clearly the better choice, but an unlimited amount of advertising still won't win over the people who have decided on their choice.
However, elections are about winning over the undecideds, in which case this excessive advertising does help. Hopefully, the undecideds will seek more info themselves via internet or some other form of unbiased medium (thus not Fox News). If all of the undecideds did their own research, this amount of campaigning wouldn't be as necessary. Unfortunately, there are plenty of ignorant voters who wait for the information to be thrown at them rather than going and looking for it. Due to the amount of people like this, mass campaigning seems to be an efficient strategy.
I don't think these methods of fundraising are bad for our democracy. All the information is available somewhere, whether the candidate spends $5 million or $5 thousand. What I think is bad for our democracy is the fact that not every voter seeks this information.
I feel in contrast to 50 years ago, ad campaigns for elections affect alot more Americans because of the high popularity of the internet, 24 media-accessibility and word of mouth. It seems like during election season, everywhere you turn is a sign or an ad for a canidate. I do not think there is one thing we do not know about who is running. The media digs into the personal lives of each running and finds every minut detail that can sway or shock voters. I feel like only the essential pertaining how well the canidate would do their job are important. Sometimes all of that information can be overwhelming and distract you from the postive things those who are running can do. Turning on each news channel and seeing only commericials and attack ads can get distracting and honestly annoying. By the end of the election, I am sick tired of hearing everything about each canidate and hearing all about them. On the other hand,they need to do anything in the their to get voters who are unsure where they stand but the signs, commericials and constant ads can get to be too much!
In terms of raising money, I feel that though their methods are very good, taking money out of your own pocket it is too large of risk. Fundraising is essential and I believe it is very important to the benefit of the canidate.
Have I been asked this question a couple of months ago during our economic collapse, I would have said no way. The government is raising too much money for their own good and they don't even know what to do with it. Yet learning about the recent topic about how representatives receive and rally money has changed my view on this topic.
Everything that a candidate raises has to be put forth into something productive for the country. So no matter how much a candidate raises, it always goes back for the good of the country.
Raising money by bundling and such are great ways for people to fund raise money. It shows that people are putting faith into those they want to elect or re-elect. It's the person's doing that is sending out money, not the candidates. This is why there is nothing wrong with our system of fund raising.
Now a day, there are numerous ways to raise money for an election. Most of these methods include the television, the internet, the radio, and the newspaper. These methods for financing an election are very strong ways for raising money that does not harm the democracy; in fact it can be beneficial. The voter has many ways of getting information about a certain candidate, and the election overall. So much advertising is a great contributor for a candidates fundraising for an election that doesn’t harm our democracy. In fact, this method can be beneficial on the other hand because the public is getting information about its candidate through many resources, which could help the candidate win more votes.
I believe that money plays a large role in an election, but it is not the deciding factor in who wins. Although money may not decide who wins, it can certainly have a negative impact on our democracy.
The power of fundraising and spending in politics can help influence ones view on a candidate. As the article states, “The candidate with the biggest budget receives more airtime and more exposure than the other and is therefore better known to the public. In addition, he or she can use this airtime to misrepresent the other candidate’s positions. So it seems that elections can be ‘bought’, by candidates or, more worryingly, by the funders behind the candidates.” This shows that the democracy of our country is impacted by fundraising.
This also brings up the point that the private funders can influence our government and cause harm to our democracy. Many large donations to political candidates and parties come from private funders. These funders don’t usually donate out of the kindness of their heart, but in return for a favor if the person or people they support are elected. This fundraising can influence our democracy because the people funding the elections are influencing the decisions of the person elected, and not the people they represent.
Yes I believe that our current ways of fundraising and financing elections is good for our democracy. It gives the donators a chance to see who they are voting for. With the internet you can ask the runners questions that are important to them for determining who they will donate to. The money that each canonicates raises helps them with advertisement on radios and TV’s which can help get more voters to want to vote for that canonicate.
Are the current methods of fundraising and financing elections good for our democracy?
I think in some ways, yes the current methods of fundraising and financing elections are good for our democracy. The candidates with the most money are more capable of spreading their word and getting their name to be well known. However, what about the candidates that don't have the most money, but have a really good message and better policies? Advertising also plays a big role in fueling campaigns. Through the media, whether it be internet, telephone, mail, radio, television, flyers, signs, and newspapers; candidates try to reach out to all possible voters. Each medium of the media reaches out to different age groups. But sometimes, this advertising gets rather repetitve and annoying. The media will dig deep to find anything negative about any candidate, and all of that information will spread across the nation. Thus, hindering the candidate's votes. Through backfire commercials, or commercials using children, candidates can either get back at an opponent, or persuasively convey their message. But, through all of this advertising and campaigning, it makes me wonder if candidates shouldn't have used the fundraising money for other things, like promoting their causes or helping others.
I think that the current methods of fundraising and financing elections has its pros and cons.
I feel that fundraising is good for our democracy because it allows candidates to educate and inform the citizens of the united states about their thoughts and views on certain issues that effect their everyday life. Many people, such as myself, dont follow politics. It is advertising that is funded by donations that give me pretty much all my knowledge on the subject. Without these adds, I wouldn't have a clue about politicians and what they stand for.
However, i feel that a lot of this money is also spent in a negative way. Instead of making commercials that bash a candidates opponent, why not use the money to help people or give it to a good cause? I feel that this would make a candidate look much more appealing to the people, especially voters, and at the same time, it would be helping people and possibly changing things for the better. I think that that is what most people want.
I have mixed views about this question because of many different reasons. I feel as though and for the most part this is proven, whichever candidate that has the most money is most likely going to win and I do not think that is good for our democracy. You have the most money you can get your name out more, more people will hear about you, and you’re going to win. But what about that other unknown candidates that arent rich and cannot raise a lot of money but may have better views and understands the public much more. He or she will not win because they cannot get their name out there because they don’t have the support and money they need. Everyone should get a fair chance but with the way our system is set up there really isn’t a fair chance for everyone. However I do feel that if someone wants a certain candidate to win they could and should give money to them if they want. These are some of the reasons why I have mixed opinions over this question.
I strongly feel that the overall amount of money a candidate raises for their campaign really determines who wins the race. Yes, it helps, but I don't think it tells the story of that election. I feel that people truly vote for who they believe can successfully lead their community, or the country, not the people who the see the most on the TV. So, I don't think the financing for elections hurts our democracy, but it certainly doesn't help. People are donating their hard earned cash to people they don't even know who might not even win the race. People are spending money on commercials or ads for candidates when they can rather use that money for such necessities such as food or insurance, especially with economy of late.
Election results should be based on personal opinion, not money spent on campaigning. If thats a problem, candidates should think of methods of campaigning that are less expensive. For example, in the recent town elections, the Democratic Town Committee had representatives and even some candidates personally call people of Cheshire and spread the word about them. It was short, quick and too the point. And, I didn't cost a penny. Was it effective? Nobody knows, but I am sure it helped a little.
This just goes to show you that money doesn't buy results.
The current methods of fundraising and financing elections have been working for our democracy ,but i dont believe they are the best methods to follow. It seems to me that the winning candidate is determined more by the amount of money raised instead of the number of supporters he/she has.
I'll further explain my thinking with this small scale example,
Candidate 1 - has 20 supporters and donated $1000 each ,having a total of $20000 raised
Candidate 2 - has 500 supporters that could only afford donating $10 each ,having a total of $5000 raised
As you can see, even though candidate 2 has way more supporters than candidate 1, his/her chances of winning are slim to none(according to our system) since candidate 2 raised much less money than candidate 1. Everyone doesnt have a tremendous amount of extra money to help support their candidate/political party. With our current system,even though a candidate may have better ideas,views and an understanding of the public's interest, it's almost impossible for them to be victorious unless they have rich connections willing to donate an abundant amount of money.
I do not believe the current methods of fundraising and financing elections are good for our democracy or for our country for that matter. The fact that over 1 billion dollars were used in the 2008 campaign in the current time of rescission is no example to set if you trying to become the role model for the entire nation. As this historical election took place in the countries time of need the only example that the political leaders of both parties were showing was that in a time of trouble the leaders that should step up and stand for change only depended the hole that we have to climb out of. Aside from setting a poor precedent the other problem with how fundraising for elections is done is with the 527 groups being able to collect unlimited amounts of money, they have the ability to send any message they want and I feel this takes away from the messages being sent by the actual candidates. This makes the elections more about outside parties and less about the candidates and the democracy they stand for.
Money may not always equal happiness, but it certainly equals an election. Nine times out of ten, the candidate with the most money takes the cake, or in this case, the office. Although a candidate's values, position on issues, and political and educational background should have the most impact on voters, it wont help if they've never head of you.
So are the current fundraising methods good for our democracy? No, probably not, but it still is a democracy. We get to vote. Its just a matter of, in many instances, which candidate voters have heard of. That can be radio announcements, commercials, and adds in the paper. The truth of the matter is, is that elections have almost always been about the money in the bank. Its just the way it is. Would it be great if everyone voted on political views, of course. But that's just not how it works.
To assume the idea that elections would be better if money wasn't a factor is preposterous. How does that expose Americas values of capitalism and democracy. It would go against our own national standing. The reality is that elections need money, and those with the most, win. Would it be great if all elections weren't like that, sure, but that isn't the case. And that case doesn't seem to be changing in the years to come.
I believe the current methods of fundraising and financing elections are not good for our democracy. Some of these methods include raising money through 527s, the public, and private contributions. I believe this because out of almost every election, whoever had the most money raised usually won. This is not good for out democracy because people are not winning because of what they believe in, but by how much money they raised. Also candidates running with the best ideas and intentions for our country could lose because they didn’t have enough money to compete with their rich competitor.
I think a change is needed in some of these methods. We should have more restrictions on the amount of money a candidate can take in. These restrictions will make the race for office fairer.
Are the current methods of fundraising and financing elections good for our democracy?
I believe the current methods of fundraising and financing elections is beneficial for our democracy. I feel these methods are working because they allow the most popular and most supported canidates in an election to recieve the highest amount of media attention that will allow the people to be educated enough to choose the best canidate. The way the system works is that the more support a canidate recieves, the more money they have to fund advertisements made through television, radio, newspapers and other forms of media. Thus when we(the voters) see a lot of advertisements for certain canidates, we are aware that those are the canidates who are recieving alot of support and recognition for their ideas. This allows the voters to look further into these canidates and be much more educated on them, their projected policies, background, and much more.
I think that the current methods of fundraising and financing elections are somewhat good and bad for our democracy. I think that it's a good way for people to know who the candiates are and there views about certain topics, therefore they can donate money to whomever they like the best. A downfall is that people with more money can get more exposure with viewers. So the money the candidates are getting are being used for more publicity, therefore those people are mostly likely going to win. In someways it's unfair because the winner can do things but may not have the right views on topics that others would have, but just couldn't get noticed.
Katherine Peinhardt
The democracy established in the United States was put into action for purposes of maintaining freedom for all citizens. Although it has taken many years and is arguably unfinished, it is a shame that there is still such a lack of the values of a truly democratic government in American elections. This seems very ironic in my eyes. The people who are supposed to protect liberties of the people, and who want to prove themselves to voters, are the ones holding their money as an extreme advantage over other hopeful candidates who are unable to raise as much. It seems as though it becomes a financial dictatorship, one candidate monopolizing the election because they simply have raised more funds. The extreme necessity for vast amounts of money keeps the elections from being truly free and unaffected. There are unspoken monetary limitations placed upon those who cannot compete with the nearly three hundred million dollar total of the democratic party's fundraising for 2010, for example.
I think that the fact that there are so many exchanges of money between people, corporations, and politicians leaves the unhealthy possibility for corruption. With the giving of money, comes expectations from the givers. From these expectations come bias and eventually corruption. There is no way to remain completely as a person of your own ideals when others are supporting you with strings attached. It seems that with every deal, every so-called "donation" to a candidate, comes what is merely insurance of having some pull over their motives. These strings thrown upon the candidates form a web which cannot be simplified. It forms so many harmful promises, which are so hard to question in the end. This, to me, seems as though it violates the values of our country's foundation.
The patterns of election victories in past years show that, most often, the candidate with the most money wins. This is not a mere coincidence. Though it may have helped them to gain more attention and popularity through TV advertisement spending, etc., it seems as though there is some sort of untruthful and unhealthy correlation.
In this way, sometimes the race for an elected position might be swayed to become more of a race for the most funds. This is not where the morals and goals of our political leaders should lie, especially in times like these. There are other places that that money could go that would benefit more people in more places. This is what frightens me most about this pattern. Where will the fundraising stop? It seems to be increasing without bound, even in a recession.
Katherine Peinhardt
I don’t believe the current methods of fundraising for elections can be good for our democracy. Throughout many of the elections, it has been proven that the candidate with the most money has come out victorious. This may not prove that that person is the best person for the job, but just able to get the most money. A candidate who has access to more money than another has the ability to advertise himself much more. He will be able to get his name and face out to everyone in the country, state, or town better than someone with less money to spend. In all, a person with more money has a better chance of winning and may not be the best qualified for the position. So the methods of fundraising may actually hurt democracy.
Our current methods of fundraising are not really so good for our democracy. Currently, elections are won based on which candidate can afford more TV time, websites, newspaper/magazine adds, and other forms of advertising. In larger elections, such as the presidential race, candidates use their pseudo-celebrity status as a way to gain money. Most of that money is then poured into a flashy campaign add either used to bash their opponent or to shine the spotlight on one aspect of themselves while completely overshadowing the issues.
Statistics prove that a majority of the time, the candidate who spends more money on their campaign wins the election. This being true, how can anyone make the claim that elections are based solely on the issues?
I do believe the methods of fundraising and financing are good for our democracy. When candidates run for office, the voters which are us, want to know about the candidate. A way for the candidates to advertise themselves is through campaigning. Campaigning allows the american people to learn more about the candidate. For example, their plan for if they get elected, their personal background, their beliefs etc.
Candidates get money for their election through their supporters. If a voter feels strongly about a candidate they will give them money to help with their campaign. Fundraising is beneficial because it helps the candidate, but is also a way for voters to show their support; they know their money is going towards something they like.
I do think raising money is extremely important. Money is what helps you to advertise yourself. For example, newspaper aids, commericials etc. Also, based on past elections the candidates with the most raised money have won.
I don't think the current methods of fundraising and financing elections aren't very beneficial for our democracy. I base my reasoning solely on the fact that amount of money fundraised is more than enough. The donaters that also contribute massive amounts of money can also use their money and vote as bribes for something in return. If this truly was the case, then our government today can be corrupt.
The amount of money candidates raise for their campaign is excessive. Sure they need some money to promote themselves and let people know they are running, but they don't need to spend so much money so that you want to kill the candidate because you have seen their ad a million times. The money that candidates raise can be used in far more effective ways than winning a position such as specific legislative activities.
If large amount donations are being given to candidates along with votes, the donater might want something in return from the candidate if elected. This process of bribery can lead to corruption. By these candidates, they are defeating the purpose of democracy and putting the power of the people into the hands of only the wealthiest people of our country.
Besides the excessive amount of money fundraised and the possible bribery from donaters, the system seems to be fair in an election. All candidates have equal power in fundraising money and trying to win the public's vote. It's all a matter of how much the candidate thinks he/she should raise in order to win people's votes.
Overall, I do not believe that the fundraising methods in an election are good for the Democratic Party and the country as a whole. Throughout several elections, the results have shown that the candidate with the most money usually wins. This isn’t a good system because having the most money doesn’t necessarily mean that you have all of the needed characteristics to fulfill your role. With groups like the 527, a party can receive unlimited amounts of money. This money that such groups are giving is associated with biased messages toward specific candidates. Information that’s not regarding the election is made known to the public and irrelevant knowledge can sway the opinions/votes of the people. Through news papers, internet, signs, and the radio, candidates send a message to the people in order to highlight their strengths and to persuade others to vote for them. If a candidate has more money than other, he automatically has the advantage because he/she will have to ability to be heard. In cases such as this, the individual with the most money is chosen, but this does not mean that they are the best for the job. Because it has been proven that the person with the most money tends to win, it is skeptical to say that issues and the experience of a candidate even matters.
The methods for Fundraising and financing are not bad for the election. Usually the person with the most money wins the election. Batack Obama raised three times more money than John McCain. The money is mostly used for advertising. The more money you have the more advertising you do. Thats how people notice you. Thats how most undecided voters pick the candidate. However not all the money is used in a good way. Sometimes it is used negativley when the candidate wants to shows something bad about the other candidate. People should really look at the views instead how much money the candidate has raised. Everyone does not get a fair chance to because people who have raised a low amount of money are not really famous, but also lose because they can't advertise as much. Overall the method for fundraising is not that bad.
yes I think that the current ways of fundraising and financing elections is good. more tv ads and more ads ont he computer are more likely to be seen because everyone watches tv and uses a computer. it shows people who they will be voting for in the long run so these ads are also good for that. and personally i think that being able to see the candidate and get to know them is a lot better than not knowing and just voting based on other people or based on the party. so yes, the currents ways of fundraising and financing elections in our country is very good.
The method used to raising money is very effective and a good way of doing so, but also hurtful. People that want to donate are not forced to and can donate any amount they want. Although, extensive amounts of money are used for campaigns. Millions to Billions is a large price for a couple of commercials and banners and several dinners. The money could be used for charities, and people who actually need the money. Although, everyone has a free will of donating and spending money as they please and as long as it helps people win what they dream of winning, thats the "price" people have to pay.
(Alexis Taylor)
stridegum
I believe that the current method of fundraising is too big. I believe it takes away from who is the better candidate and shifts it to who has the more money. It also does not allow anyone to run for president, it narrows it down to the people that can afford to send out a massive amount of ads in order to even be called a candidate. This is also unhealthy for the government because it means big money controls the government which isn’t good for anyone.
Although i believe that the current method of fundraising is too big I believe it is necessary. I believe this because if the candidates did not spend such a large amount of money on advertising it is possible that we could elect a registered sex offender or someone who could not act as president.
I personally believe that the amount of money raised for campaigns and advertisements during the presidential elections is a major factor in who gets the upper hand. This seems to be common sense, seeing that the national population is likely going to vote for the person that they have heard the most about, relatively speaking. Sure, a presidential candidate is most likely going to be well liked for his attributes, but if someone is unknown, a chance to win an election is slim to none. While I feel that there are ways that this current system could be changed for the better, it is still a fair system in that voters choose who they vote for. Money that is raised is just another factor rolled into everything going on during an election, and sometimes is a big factor.
It can be seen through history and many statistics that the candidate that raises the most money is typically the one elected. In an election where there are 2 very strong candidates, alot of money is going to be raised.I don't believe it is fair to assume that a candidate's election into office should be based on either money spent or money raised. I feel as though it is almost hard to see the amount of money raised and spent on candidates and elections while the economy is going through such hard times. However, there are not many dramatic changes I would make aside from minimizing the television advertising because it costs so much.
Any period 7 after this is late.
I think the methods of fundraising and financing elections are good for our democracy however I think these methods are being abused. I believe they are beneficial because candidates need means for campaigning and getting their message out for elections because that can become very costly for one person to finance. People who strongly believe in a person should help for them to become elected because if they are one to win, the people will also seek the benefits of the candidate of their chose to be elected, so in that re-guard I think it makes sense. However when candidates use that money for expensive luxury's while campaigning, that is when this system begins to falter. This money should be appreciated, not abused. I think HOW the money is spent should be a factor that is seen to hold more weight in an election rather then the AMOUNT of money spent.
I think that the current methods of raising money are good and bad. I don't think that is it the best thing because the candidate that raises the most money, or has the most money wins in most cases. The money that the candidates raise help them in running for a spot in politics. They can use the money for tv commercials, internet advertising, newspaper ads, etc.. WIth money the candidate is sure to get his/her name out in the public and can help them get elected.
I believe that the current ways that Political candidates raise money for elections is positive for the country. Candidates raise money mostly by donations from citizens and large corporations. The Candidate that raises the most usually wins the election because the Candidate can use the money to advertise them self on tv, the internet, radio,etc. this is good because it helps the country get to know who's running and lets them determine who they think would be better in charge. Also all the left over money must be used to help the country one way or another. so the fundraising helps inform the public of one persons views and polices and help raise money for the country that will be recycled after the election.
I believe that the current methods of fundraising are both good and bad for our democracy. Fundraising for campaigns is definitely beneficial because it helps get the candidates word out to the voters. On the other hand, the candidates who don't raise as much money don't have the advantage of getting their opinion and ideas out which is unfair. Throughout the years, the winner in elections has mostly been people who raise the most money. I think that this money makes them the "popular" vote which is unfair to the other candidates who could possibly have better ideas and views. For these reasons, I think the current fundraising methods are bad for our democracy. Money is a factor that is taken into account too much by candidates and voters. This in turn makes the elections unbalanced and predictable.
Fundraising by candidates is a big part of an election and based on the past president elections, the candidate that raises the most money usually comes out to be the winner. In a way this is not good for our democracy because the person who raises the most money means that they are the most popular candidate because of the ads on television and the radio but they might not have the right qualities to be the best leader. I do not think that is good for our democracy because the election is now based almost only on money. It gives an unfair advantage to unknown candidates that could do good things for our country and every candidate should have a fair chance in the election.
I feel that the current methods of fundraising and financing elections have both negative and positive effects on our democracy. one positive effect is that fundraising gives people an idea of who is running and where they stand on issues. This is done through tv, newspaper, internet, mail, phone, and other ways. It helps to give people an idea of which candidate they will vote for. A negative effect of fundraising is that many candidates abuse the money they have received as donations to try and bring down their opponents campaign rather than build theirs up. This has been a problem with fundraising throughout history. I feel that funraising has positive and negative effects on our democracy.
I believe that the current fundraising and financial elections are bad because it doesn't necessarily mean they're the best candidate for the job. In the past, previous elections show the person with the most money raised is the person who wins and gets the seat in office. If the candidate can raise a billion dollars, doesn't mean they are the best for the job. The person who gets their name out to the public the most should win the election because they did their best to win. If the person with the most money wins, they should tell the public what they will do with it so we know where it's going.
I dont think its bad that they fundraised and used all the money because how are they supposed to travel and go to places where they are trying to get the people's votes so they can get elected. They cant do all that without making money from the people who are supporting them in every way. Sometimes they spend way too much money on the little things like a short commercial telling us about the person who is running for are presidential chair, they can advertise but they don't need to spend millions on advertising and invest all these resources on things more productive for their voters . Even though elections are about winning the people's votes.
If you have not submitted by this time I am not accepting it as late. You will have used your one exemption.
I believe that fundraising plays an astronomical role in the success or failure of a campaign. More advertising means more opportunity to reach more voters. The fundraising process in itself is also a form of advertisement. People vote for candidates they feel connected with and they have the illusion that they "know." This can only be established if they see the candidate repeatedly. It is important to get a name and face out in the media for people to recognize on election day. Funds is probably the second largest factor in a campaign, beat out only by a candidates political party.
Post a Comment