Thursday, December 1, 2011
Daniel Smith's Blog
We all know the basic goal of any election regardless of size is simple: to win. How does a candidate running for the state legislature, Congress, or the Presidency win an election? With money, and it helps to have a lot of it. A candidate can be the most literate, out-going, friendly, and competent person for office, but without financing they cannot win an election. All of aforementioned factors play a role in securing financing, which is important because those with the most money usually win elections. The planes, trains, automobiles, television ads, dinners, billboards, mailings, staffers, and headquarters that those running for office utilize are all ultimately run by one fuel, money (the environmentalists should be happy, after all money is green).
Presidential candidates raise (and spend) a tremendous amount of money every election cycle, but where do they get their money? Everyone contributes to campaigns; John Smith down the street might give 50 dollars and the Teamsters Union might give over two million. John Smith gives money to a campaign based on his values, that the candidate would be a good President because he and John share the same beliefs and morals. The Teamsters Union gives to a campaign based upon its pocketbook. In the 2008 election the Teamsters Union PAC gave $2,248,950 to the Democratic Party. Why? The Democrats had an agenda where the unions could prosper better than under a conservative president. By the way, unions used to bring reform during the 1800s and early 1900s, but now unions are a thorn in the side of laissez-faire economics and capitalism. Any business is better off not being unionized, because if unions do take hold profits will decrease, production will decrease, and strikes are sure to ensue.
In the 2012 Presidential election to date, all of the candidates have raised a combined total of $179,301,500. The PACs that support the candidates have raised $405,895,921. The combined total of all the money raised is $585,197,421, a little over half a billion dollars. Five hundred million dollars, that’s a lot of money if you ask me. Five hundred million dollars is even more money when you look at how the average household income is only $49,445.
So in the race to become President, candidates and their contributors will spend over TEN THOUSAND times more than most families make in a year. Strange right? Since the economy is such a big deal in America right now, how is it that this much money can be overlooked? How should the candidates handle their money? Should the government place a spending cap on how much candidates can spend on campaigning? Should there be a ceiling on how much individuals can contribute to a campaign? These are all tricky questions since they can infringe on a person’s First Amendment rights and more laws only add to the government’s already too large scope of power. The big issue doesn’t lie in excessive government control of campaign money management; the government certainly shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near massive amounts of money, we’re learning that lesson the hard way right now. But the bigger issue should be about information, how well the American people are informed about campaign expenditures. If all Americans had the level of political awareness that most AP Government students do, they certainly wouldn’t contribute such extravagant amounts of money that they are now. I mean, talk about extravagance, Barack Obama had so much money in the 2008 Presidential Election he just decided to buy a thirty minute time slot on NBC, CBS, ABC, Univision (a Spanish channel), AND Black Entertainment Television. And just think, since the November 9th Emergency Alert System test, the federal government can now take control of all the air waves. Scary right? Having to listen to Obama on ALL the radio and television stations. Sure contributing money to the Republican or Socialist parties is important to party survival, but should we really be putting five hundred million dollars worth into the process to elect our president? (Did I say Socialist Party? I meant to say Democrat Party, they’re just so easily confused).
I believe that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act are just another way for the government to control the elections. It is not up to the government to control how much money is being contributed to campaigns, but it is up to the people and corporations. One upside to FECA was that it created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which requires candidates to disclose their campaign expenditures. The electorate and those contributing to campaigns have a right to know how much money is being spent and where the money is going.
Whether it’s a good or bad, people and corporations can only give limited amounts of money to elections. These limits haven’t seemed to hurt the candidates though, because they are raking in more money than ever. Although the government can regulate money, it can’t regulate time. So say you can only give less than one hundred dollars out of pocket to a candidate, but you can still volunteer and show some external efficacy. Don’t just sit back and watch MSNBC, go out to vote and show some real support for who you want to be President. If you’re watching MSNBC though, it’s probably a good idea that you stop watching anyways, that stuff kills brain cells, and chances are if you’re watching it, you don’t have that many anyways.
| Rank | Organization | Total '89-'12 | Dem % | Repub % |
| |
| 1 | $57,214,592 | 99% | 0% |  | ||
| 2 | $47,744,462 | 44% | 55% |  | ||
| 3 | $46,366,658 | 94% | 1% | | ||
| 4 | $40,825,526 | 47% | 49% |  | ||
| 5 | $37,757,242 | 76% | 2% | |||
| 6 | $37,147,829 | 82% | 5% | |||
| 7 | $36,121,737 | 60% | 39% | | ||
| 8 | $35,021,554 | 88% | 8% | |||
| 9 | $34,445,872 | 97% | 2% | | ||
| 10 | $32,096,950 | 88% | 7% | |||
| 11 | $31,883,116 | 90% | 0% | |||
| 12 | $31,401,292 | 89% | 6% | |||
| 13 | $31,079,258 | 86% | 9% | |||
| 14 | $30,287,648 | 94% | 0% | | ||
| 15 | $29,084,282 | 49% | 49% |
Notice how most of the PACs above lean to the left? Also notice how most of them are unions? Don’t forget Goldman Sachs, which received 12.9 BILLION in a government bailout. Just look at the chart and its plain to see why the country is in such a mess.
The above chart shows the top ten PAC donors since 1989. An interesting feature is the tilt column, which shows how the PAC leans politically. It’s quite obvious that the majority of the PACs are leaning to the left. Most corporations like AT&T, Citigroup, and etcetera give a generally equal amount to both sides to not appear biased. But good old Goldman Sachs gives most of its contributions to the liberals, and isn’t a coincidence that Goldman Sachs also got a 12.9 billion dollar bailout in 2007? Actually, it isn’t too coincidental considering in the year 2007 the Democrats did control Congress, they wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Sources:
AP Gov Notes
Zenya udwadia
Http://blythewoodapgov.bloodspot.com/2011/11/zenya-udwadia-money-problems-among-us.html
Http://blythewoodapgov.bloodspot.com/2011/11/zenya-udwadia-money-problems-among-us 28.html
Http://blythewoodapgov.bloodspot.com/2011/11/zenya-udwadia-money-problems-among-us 28.html
Wayne Washington II - The Act of Voting
In America, we have many ways to vote. We've constantly tried to reform voting to make it more efficient, whether we passed or failed is up to whoever is evaluating it. In the past there was a lot of corruption and voter fraud. The current ways of voting aren't as corrupt, but still, there are plenty of problems.
Location is a major problem that needs to be dealt with during the voting process. People in rural parts of the country have to travel many of miles just to cast a vote. The people already feel like their vote doesn't count. So, making a potential voter have a road trip to cast a vote isn't going to help the turnout rates.
In states such as Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, in order to register to vote, you have to get a voter photo identification card. The ID card is strictly required in those states and will likely decrease voter turnout because a lot of Americans in rural parts of the country will have transportation problems. Past surveys show that rural Americans don't want to have to get a photo id card that will make the voting process even more of a hassle/effort for hard working Americans.
State Requirements for Voter ID
Table 1. State Requirements for Voter Identification | |||
States that Request or Require Photo ID | States that Require ID (Photo Not Required) | ||
Strict Photo ID | Photo ID | ||
This will be forcing the potential people/voters to contact the required place to get a photo developed. This is really in some way or format, restricting voter turnout by doing exactly that. For example, if you live in the woods, far south of any major cities and you're old/ a senior citizen, and you already have travel issues/problems and you're not computer/cell phone savvy you're going to have a major issue/problem with having to get a photo ID to vote, because those will be the only way to get one.
I recommend that the states go back to the original way of voting. This allowed anybody to vote even without a picture ID. They only had to be registered. That process makes it less difficult and not as inconvenient for the American people who already struggle with transportation and or technology. I believe we could keep the photo Identification requirement only if the states asking it to be done/passed carry out the means of transportation and/or service towards those Americans in their states that don't have the photo identification needed for voting.
Voting usually takes place only in major parts of towns and/or major cities within states. This also leads to the current decrease in voter turnout because as I've been stating, Americans in rural parts of the country will have a hard time with transportation. I feel that in order to help stop this issue voting should be held on farms and smaller towns. Basically, there should be more places/opportunities to vote in different and smaller areas.
According to the Washington city paper website, Americans have been voting with electronic ballots more than they have been voting with paper ballots. Americans feel that the electronic ballot/optical ballot is more convenient, quicker to deal with and more efficient and up to date, then having to fill out a piece of paper. Although they are aware of some of the downsides electronic ballots bring with them/produce, they still seem to prefer the electronic ballot than the old fashion/out-of-date paper ballots.
It seems that only the person who published the article on the website I'm using to get this information and a few others, including me, know most of the other problems associated with electronic ballots. Although electronic ballots are/maybe more convenient, they can still be corrupted and or untrustworthy. The corrupted and untrustworthy part comes into play when you think about whether or not the electronic ballot is/has been hacked and/or moderated by an outside force or serious threat.
Hacking and/or moderating are quickly becoming one of the world’s most serious threats to electronic systems. This may be because hacking and moderating are becoming easier to do/create by the average citizen. I assume this is because there are tutorials and lessons you can take on hacking and moderating on the Internet. A popular source for this information is the Internet sensation website, YouTube.
So, with electronic ballots and the hacking and/or moderating situation, someone can see who you voted for, and change whatever name the voter put on the ballot/machine to another candidates name who wasn't originally put on the ballot/machine. This will make it seem as if the voter voted for another candidate at the same position you wanted the original candidate to be elected to. This is/can be a serious threat to the country and would change whoever truly should be president; in my/this theoretical situation. Also, this is what I inquired from my cited website, about the electronic ballot being vulnerable to hacking.
I recommend that the government enforces a law that requires electronic ballots to have the best up-to-date/latest protection against all virus threats in society. I believe that this can be accomplished through 24 hour check up on the electronic ballot machines by experienced anti-hacking and/or phishing experts. I feel that this shouldn't only take place during election times but all throughout the year. This way if someone is stupid enough to hack a highly protected government object, they can be tracked down and put to justice and/or the damage that was done to the ballot machine can be reversed/fixed.
The act of voting in the American society is/can be a very dangerous but necessary process. Turnout rates are lower then they use to be, but as I stated earlier I believe it's because of location and I discussed what I feel the solution should be. Voter registration is becoming less complicated and more convenient but also more threatening at the same time. I stated how I believe there should be a 24 hour watch from experienced professionals. I discussed how people tend to vote in our society and whether it's secure and/or legit. I hope I was able to help you readers in some way.
The act of voting in the American society is/can be a very dangerous but necessary process. Turnout rates are lower then they use to be, but as I stated earlier I believe it's because of location and I discussed what I feel the solution should be. Voter registration is becoming less complicated and more convenient but also more threatening at the same time. I stated how I believe there should be a 24 hour watch from experienced professionals. I discussed how people tend to vote in our society and whether it's secure and/or legit. I hope I was able to help you readers in some way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)