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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)