Preview

Candidates Should Be Allowed To Get Paid To Fund Their Campaigns

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
743 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Candidates Should Be Allowed To Get Paid To Fund Their Campaigns
Although some people believe that using their own money to help their campaign is fair, it isn't. Many people oppose people using their hard earned money to win an election because isn’t fair for the other candidate. It gives the candidate an unfair advantage against the other runner. Political candidates should be not be allowed to use their own funds to fund their campaigns. In order to combat self funding many candidates use other methods. It can seem that it would be unfair to let a wealthy person use a big chunk of their finances so many candidates find ways of gaining funds. There are two ways that a person can help their own campaign. It is using a PACs and Superpacs. PACs are a way of fight the boost other rivals get at the beginning of a campaign. A PAC …show more content…
He appears in many shows mocking him because he is self funded, and unknowingly are supporting him with free advertisements about being self funded.
Another reason they should not allow self funding is that it gives them a big advantage.
When candidates use personal funding they are giving themselves an unfair edge over their non self funded opponent. It gives their opponent more chances to make ads and get more of their word out there. The non self funded candidate cannot keep up with their spending, as they depend mostly on the donations given by their supporters, and lose many supporters. Many self funders don't get the same loyalty as someone who isn't self funded, because they just try to win with their money and not with popular vote. They also can go flood the media or any social outlet with their ads or ideals. They can essentially buy their way into office instead of gaining the people’s favor, with ad spamming.
As presented by the evidence, self funded candidates should not be allowed, to be self funded. It gives them an unfair advantage in many ways such as, advertising and the cost of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    With large, unlimited amounts of money being spent through Super PACs, corruption is inevitable. Corruption is able to spread…

    • 772 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    As one can see, campaign finance reform has been around for a while, not that many people were really aware of it until the Citizens United v. FEC case of 2010. Citizens United was founded in 1988 by a Washington political consultant, Floyd Brown who received major funding from the Koch brothers, industrialist who own the secondly largest privately owned company in the US (Mayer, 2010). They gained fame by suing the Federal Election Commission (FEC), leading to a notorious Supreme Court case which eliminated some restrictions on how corporations can spend money in elections. Back in 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was the main United States federal law that regulates political fundraising and spending. Its original focus was…

    • 280 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    In Congress: The Electoral Connection, David Mayhew looks into the activities that members of the United States Congress engage in, particularly those activities that are related to re-election. In his analysis, Mayhew identifies three basic activities that are pervasive throughout the United States Congress, those being advertising, credit claiming, and position taking. These three activities, altogether, are taken into high consideration by a politician that is seeking to be re-elected. When it comes to examining the behaviors of politicians running for re-election, Mayhew’s analysis is plausible, since his observations can be applied across the political spectrum any period of time.…

    • 1098 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The BCRA regulated nonfederal money (soft money) in campaigns.Citizen United, according to Oyez.org , argued that section 201 violated the First Amendment when apply to the movie and is advertisement sections 201 and 203 are unconstitutional(“Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee”).The United States District Court denied Citizens United the injunction. the Supreme Court took up the case. The Supreme Court ruled (5-4)among the conservative ideologies, that coporations and labor unions have First Amendment rights as private individuals. In recent years money .In 2016, Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, campaigned for the Democratic Presidential nomination against Hillary Clinton. He touted that he took the small donor’s donations and not big corporations unlike Hillary Clinton’s campaign who has received money for her campaign from Big Banks like Bank of…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hardball Project

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The third quote is, “Don't give it all at once. Give five thousand at the start and indicate they can come back for more if they need it. Halfway through the campaign, they'll be back. This time give them another five thousand and indicate that is all you intend to contribute. About a week before the election, they'll be so desperate for money that someone will suggest that maybe you can be induced to come to the rescue…” It was said by James Hagerty in response to Reuss wanting to give FDR fifteen thousand dollars up front for his campaign. This is an example of the political maxim what have ya done for me lately? By giving his money out when…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    reflected in the movie. Because of the high cost of campaigns, fundraising plays a very…

    • 872 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Most people that follow national news, or at least presidential elections know about Charles Koch’s role in American politics. The common belief, as stated before, is that Charles Koch is trying to buy America one politician at a time (Dickinson). Senator Harry Reid has publicly said that he also believes the Koch brothers are trying to buy America, he has also called Koch “un-American as anyone I can imagine” (Blake). A lobbyist is a person, one with a corporate identity, who persuades government officials to enact legislation that would benefit their corporation; although this definition sounds extremely alarming, anybody who petitions the government or voices their opinion personally to any government official is considered a lobbyist (“What’s a Lobbyist?”). Still, Charles Koch is not a regular citizen, instead he is a an intimidating political figure due to his power from his vasts amounts of inherited money. Others argue that the media focuses too much on the amount of money Charles spends on political campaigns and not enough on other expenses he makes, like the $66.7 million he has donated to cancer research along with his brother (Dodds). Nobody is saying that donating to cancer research is a bad thing, Koch should focus his money on things that matter and can really change lives like illnesses but this does not give him a right to change elections. Others like to point out that sometimes money doesn’t make a difference at all, like for the 2012 presidential election. Americans for Prosperity donated $36.7 million to the presidential election, 95% being against Obama, yet still Mitt Romney lost (Gilson). This could be explained by it being Obama’s reelection, unless a president was detrimental to the country, most of the time a president is reelected for his second term; this could’ve played out very…

    • 1913 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Campaign finance reform is the issue of our lifetime. While we may point to climate change, gun control, economic inequality, the underlying problem is the influence of money in politics. Our representatives are focused on winning elections, instead of addressing constituent concerns. They have to specifically focus on spending the majority of their working time calling donors, and raising money for their campaigns, that this puts their real job on hold. Time spent calling people and asking for donations is estimated to be around ⅓ to ½ of their work day. Just this fact itself proves that the insane influence of money in politics is detrimental to democracy and disallows politicians to focus on what really matters: the voices…

    • 296 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    difficult for recruitment and retention. They also function on a limited budget determined by the…

    • 325 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    If you look at our current candidates for the presidential elections for 2016, people like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have millions of dollars donated to them so they can campaign for certain laws and goals. With the money received from supporters, these candidates are able to continue their campaign for presidency while other people like Rick Perry had to drop out because he had no more funds. To me, whoever has the most money and support from businesses are more likely to get government positions. Furthermore, if you look at the controversial candidate Donald Trump, I only think he has a high stand in the presidential race because he was already a powerful and rich businessman prior to his declaration in joining. Trump is a billionaire and his status in the business world as well as his connections propels him to have a better chance to become one of the finalists in the race, at least that is what I believe. If businesses did not play a factor in elections, campaigns would be much more modest and Trump would most likely not be in a favorable light to…

    • 1025 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Political party funding has been a source of controversy over recent years. Political parties could be funded through membership subscriptions,donations from individuals and companies,and through state funding. Over recent years there has been a lot of contention over the funds political parties receive from private donors such has Lord Ashcroft,the Conservative parties biggest donor and the Lib dem's acceptance of a £2.4 million from the company of a known fraudster,cases such has this has prompted debates for political parties to be funded by the state,Moreover the the funds from members subscriptions has become monetary irrelevant to rely upon. The means of funding used by political parties in the UK has various issues which either is not competent enough to support the parties financially or cannot do so without steering a lot of controversies which has resulted to stronger arguments supporting funding of political parties by the state.…

    • 1475 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Besides, as there is not limits for private financial support of political campaigns many businessmen invest huge amounts of money in…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    MONEY AND POLITICS: THE CASE OF PARTY NOMINATIONS IN KENYA. INTRODUCTION The impact of money on politics is unquestionable. The availability or otherwise of money has enormous influence on the conduct and nature of general elections in all democracies whether consolidated or transitional. It is now common knowledge that elections have become very costly not only to the governments that have to manage them, but also to the political parties and individual candidates. The high costs of elections have direct bearing on two ingredients of electoral democracy, namely, popular participation and fair contestation. Indeed, it has been argued that the large sums of money spent in elections have had tragic effects on democracy including deterring citizens from political participation.1 There is also the danger that as elections become more expensive and campaign spending increases considerably, effective participation will be absent from the election campaigns. This is likely to lead to the poor losing confidence in the efficacy of their contribution to the democratic process.2 Another effect is that when elections become expensive, fund raising becomes the preoccupation of politicians thereby distracting them from public policy making and their role as trustees of public interest. The role of money in politics is a major concern, for any nation that adheres to democratic tenets. This raises concern because wealth creates unequal opportunity for participation.3 The source of funding itself is also a vexing issue, given that corporate funding of the political process generally increases non-participation in self-governance; it can be said to have the perverse effect of minimising democracy and promoting the inevitable elite plutocracy. However although it is evident that the cost of elections is high there is lack of comprehensive data showing, on the one hand, what the political parties and their candidates spent in any given election, and on the other hand, what state…

    • 28491 Words
    • 114 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    “It's exciting; I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes.”…

    • 823 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Correption

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages

    · Election time is a time when corruption is at its peak level. Big industrialist fund politicians to meet high cost of election and ultimately to seek personal favour. Bribery to politicians buys influence, and bribery by politicians buys votes. In order to get elected, politicians bribe poor illiterate people, who are slogging for two times’ meal.…

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays