Zenya Udwadia Money Problems Among US

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6925824440690771351

In the federal election system of the United States campaign finances is a pending issue that affects us all. People with the most money will win the most campaigns. People that have money to spend on campaigns are those who determine the issues that are addressed versus those who do not have money to donate. The reason for this is that those running in elections can't expect to get money from those they do not intend on paying back in some way. Also, if the candidate plans on running for office again those who donated the first time won't donate again if they do not feel the candidate attempted to help them or can help them the following time. Therefore, those with money to donate control the election, as well as the candidates that already are well off and contribute heavily to their own campaign. This issue is still prevelant but the McCain-Feingold Bill, passed in 2002, helped to solve part of the problem by eliminating soft money, the ability of people to donate as much money as they wanted to a party that could then be given to a candidate. A $2000 limit became the new amount individuals were allowed to give per election cycle with a built in increase for inflation. Also, corporations and businesses are not allowed to donate money. Money must come from individuals, 527 groups (groups that don't work directly with a candidates campaign), or PACs (private groups that make up Political Action Committies). Because of PACs, those who win office are impaired in making policies that benefit the nation as a whole. PACs also hold more power than the average citizen because specific issues hold PACs together that the politican is more apt to "hear" than individuals, and PACs can give up to $5000 to a candidate per election cycle and up to $15,000 to a political party. 527 groups are allowed to donate $2,300 per election to a candidate and $28,500 to a political party. Yet another problem with money in federal elections is that incumbents have less access to money and PACs give money based upon the candidate they think will win and therefore are buying access to the government. Independent expenditures in campaigns are seen as a loophole in the limits on money given to the candidate but in reality they are not. If a person wants to premote a candidate by presenting factual items to the media they should be allowed. And if a candidate is truly a good one not much factual information can be said against them.

There is an endless amount of money that can be raised by each candidate. With that being said an endless amount of money can be spent. That is a huge problem and an open door for corruption. Having a limited amount of money each candidate can use is just as much against the 1st Amendment (supporting freedom of speech) as limiting how much each group or individual can donate to a candidate. Each election period, candidates raise more and more money meaning they spend more and more. Where does this money go? Are prices of media and advertisement really going up to the extent of how much more money is being raised? Does this huge amount of extra money really allow candidates to get their stance out? Well, the money is gone almost simultaneously as it has been aquired and goes directly to media such as television, radio, billboards, travel, hotels, etc. And television airing prices have risen but not a drastic amount. Also campaigning over the internet is very easy and should in fact lessen the overall cost since its mass media that is cheaper than air time on television and e-mails are free. From the 2004 to the 2008 presidential election the average earnings went from $330,000 to $550,000. So, the amount of money that goes into campaigning is not necessary and would not restrict the candidates' freedom of speech. In the chart above is a recent example of where campaign money goes. It is very surprising how much goes to fundraising and shows that they system needs help.