With the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye.
There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.
After President Nixon and the Watergate controversy in 1971, the United States began to put limits on how much a candidate could receive and spend within a campaign. In order to enforce fairness between candidates, Congress created the Federal Election Committee (FEC), making the government the superior source of funds for Presidential elections. The FEC restricts the amount of money an individual can donate to a candidate and the amount that can be indirectly contributed.
Some would object to these limits because they feel that government money could be better spent on other issues rather then on the campaign and supporters should provide funding for their favorable candidates. Government spending on presidential elections has gone up rapidly as media exposure and touring have become increasingly popular among Presidential hopefuls. However since our government is based on majority rule, minorities with these beliefs are often overpowered. Most people would agree that restrictions by the FEC keep the Presidential election moral and a large amount of support from one group of people would be undemocratic and rebel against the federal system.
Rather than government providing millions of dollars for the campaign and putting harsh restricts on individual donations, I believe that the limits should not be put on the American people but on the candidates themselves. Spending on the campaign has gotten out of control within the last decade. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spend on mobile...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document