Read this article about the influence of millionaires and billionaires on campaigning and answer the following questions. Write in complete sentences and be sure your passage makes sense if you read it without knowing the questions. One word answers will not earn you points.
Must there be an explicit deal made between candidate and donors in order for it to be considered corruption? Why or why not? What will happen to a candidate if they do not do what these big donors want them to do when they get into office? Why do they have so much influence? Which of the alternate methods of campaign funding offered in the article do you most agree with? Why? Do you think there should be a limit on campaign funding? Should citizens get a say in how campaigns are funded? Why or why not?
11 comments:
There does have to be an explicit deal for it to be considered corruption. In a Supreme Court case that was ruled on last year, corruption was redefined as "a contribution to a particular candidate in exchange for his agreeing to do a particular act within his official duties." The money that is given to the candidate is given to him/her with the intention they will perform a certain act.
I don't think much could be done. The contributor could publicly come out and say what has happened, but the candidate would most likely deny it. They wouldn't want to admit that they had been bribed with money. The candidate may get a bad reputation and chance a reelection, but I don't think much could actually be done unless they choose to give the money back once the campaign is over and they are already in office.
Money equals power. When big donors give big money contributions, candidates want to keep them happy so that the money will continue to flow into their campaign.
I agree with Richard Painter's alternative of public financing. If the people are the ones voting for the candidate, then they should be the ones helping their candidate get to the presidency. I agree with his statement that on Election Day, the voters shouldn't be voting on the big donors final two picks. The voters should help the candidates get to the final two.
I don't think there should necessarily be a limit. If that's how people want to spend their money, they should be allowed to spend it how they want. Citizens should get a say in how the campaigns are funded because they are the ones that vote for the candidate, which is the reason for the campaign to begin with.
No I don't think there has to be an explicit deal made in order for this situation to be considered corruption. I think that if someone uses their money in order to maintain or control who is in power, then it is corruption. Anyone who doesn't rightfully gain what they want through the normal voting process by giving a lot of money is corrupt. I also think it is unfair. Zephyr Teachout said "Someone is corrupt when they're in public office just for their own interests," which is basically what these donors are paying these candidates to do. They are paying the candidates to do their dirty work. I think if the candidates don't follow through with what they want, not only will the donors have wasted a lot of money, but they will also stop funding that candidate. They have so much influence because they have enough money to influence. I feel like situations like these are the reason why they are always implementing policies that favor the upper and middle class. They implement restrictions and regulations on certain things because they are trying to keep their big donors happy. I agree with the $200 tax credits for campaigns. I think this will give everyone an equal chance at giving some input in the campaign. I do think there should be a limit on campaign spending/donations because if one person donated a lot of money, they are going to have more influence on the way that candidate acts than 100 other people's small donations. It isn't fair. I think Lawrence Lessig said it best: "We are talking about equal rights as citizens, equal right to participate in the political process,". It wouldn't be equal if one person has more influence over others. I do think people should have some say so in how much money is spent on campaigns because they are the ones voting. However, I think there should be some type of supervision over what the people choose.
In order for a donation to a candidate by a donor to be considered corrupt an explicit deal must be made between the two. We cannot accuse a candidate of being corrupt simply because donations have been made to their campaign, but if their platforms are manipulated with the intention of getting more donations from a donor that manipulation can be equated to corruption. Donations to a campaign, in the most elementary sense, show that an individual or group believes in the platform of the candidate. This can easily turn corrupt if the group or individual uses their money as a bribe, persuading the candidate to make change their goals in exchange for more donations.
The idea behind donating to a campaign is to support the candidate with hope that they will implement the policies which the donor believes in. There is not a legal obligation for the candidate to carry out the policies which each donor supports. A consequence of the candidate not carrying out their platform policies is they will have extremely low approval ratings and most likely not be reelected.
I agree with Richard Painter’s view to fix the election corruption. The $200 tax credit gives people the opportunity to donate to campaigns and the option of who to donate to. A large argument against financial contributions to campaigns is that it counteracts equal rights in voting, but if everyone has this opportunity for a $200 tax credit the equal rights argument is a moot point.
I believe that aggregate limits on campaign donations are an appropriate measure. When people such as the Koch family pledge $900 million to a campaign it is extremely hard for any other candidate to match that amount. Such substantial sums of money diminish the value of what an average household can donate to virtually nothing. These large donations make it so large corporations can control the majority of the elections rather than the people.
Our country was founded on the idea of fairness in the government; for the government to be run by the majority not simply a wealthy parliament. If several businesses or families are able to pick who is up for election and what their policies will be, our political system is then relapsed to power by few rather than many. I believe money should be used as a tool for gaining strength in an election, but there must be some moderation in order to maintain a democracy.
There does not need to be specific, individual instances of corruption, but corruption as seen by Zephyr Teachout and Lawrence Lessig is a "system problem". I agree with Lessig in his belief that the corruption stems from alienating the rights of the wealthy versus the average person who's vote may not be as accurately accounted for when someone cheats the system with big money. Corruption is a combination of people striving for individual success and a system being cheated by evading the fairness of the rules.
Most likely the person in office will lose credibility and any further funding as well as active campaigns against them or in favor of the opponent will be supported by the donor is the recipient does not comply to the agreed terms. People who try to gain a political position must pay large amounts of money for things such as campaign managers, advertisements, and anything they need while traveling like hosting supporters or flying across the country. Running for office is very expensive and fairly impossible without the financial support of wealthy donors.
I side with Trevor Burrus' belief that corruption cannot be fixed "with new campaign finance rules". He sees that if more limitations were placed on campaigns, they would become less for the people and more affected by the government. He "wants to see congressional offices with more aides who would get better pay...while they develop their own expertise". By doing this, in essence, the issues that the American people really want to see addressed will come into the picture and not be as affected by large companies who send out their own lobbyists to focus on their own issues.
Campaigns should not be limited and if they are, then they should not be set at an unreasonably low amount. The support that a candidate receives is their right and how they choose to present themselves. It is up to the voters and the media to judge what support certain people receive and if that is a quality they wish to see in a leader. We are still a democracy and if a campaigner wishes to appeal to a certain audience of higher or lower income, that is up to them.
The way a candidate spends the money they make as long as it is within legal limits, is the business of the public, but how they spend it is not a choice of the public. It would not be fair to involve the public on who the money comes from because if a candidate wishes to receive support from the NRA, for example, that is their choice, but if the public had a say in that spending, they may not support that. By adding an extra step allowing the public to dictate the campaign spending of a candidate, it defeats the purpose of an election in some aspects because the public has already designed/chosen how they want to see the candidate.
I do not believe that there has to be an explicit deal made between candidates and their donors for it to be considered corruption because whether a donation or endorsement is made in the public eye or “under the table”, the money and the person that donated the money become big influences in the politician’s campaign. Teachout understands that according to a majority of American people who are not as well versed in law and in politics, that mingling money and politics is a “corruption of the system” even though “there’s very little evidence of quid pro quo”.
If candidates do not do what the big donors want them to do when they get into office, the donors can expose the candidates for corruption, scandal, fraud, anything that will ruin their reputation and destroy their political legitimacy. I would not necessarily say that the donor’s have so much influence, it is more that that the numerous amounts of money that they possess and can dispose of how they want is the big influencer. Knowing where the money is coming from and not having to use as much of their own personal money or having to come up with a way to raise the money is one less thing that the politicians have to worry about.
The alternate campaign funding method that I agree with the most is using PACs and superPACs. It is the most uniform and formal way of giving donations to a campaign without any “explicit deals” or any strings attached. I do believe that there should be a limit on campaign funding because a corrupt candidate could get voted in because of the amount of money he spent on campaigning, while a more qualified and wholesome politician could get shut out because of his lack of funding. It should not be about how much money you spent on the campaign, it should be about what you did with what you had.
I do believe that citizens should get a say in how campaigns are funded because these are the same constituencies that these politicians have to look out for and the same constituencies that have a (limited) say in the legislation that the politicans fight for in Congress. To eliminate the speculation or accusations of there being a “corruption of the system”, leave it to the people. If nothing changes, things get worse, etc., the people have nobody to blame but the people.
I think there has to be an explicit deal made in order for it to be considered corruption. During the McCutchen vs FEC ruling made last year, Chief Justice, John Roberts defines corruption as a "Contribution to a particular candidate in exchange for his agreeing to do a particular act within his official duties. This means that the candidate will agree on what the contributor wants and not what the candidate needs to do for the citizens.
To be honest there are some things that could be done. If the contributor has money, chances are the contributor can manipulate the media, causing rumors and scandals for the candidate, giving the candidate a bad reputation.
The reason why contributors have such big influence is because candidates need money for ads, and one of the best ways to get this kind of money can be from donations. But one of the ways donors will contribute so much money is if they tell the candidate what they want the candidate to do for them.
the alternate method of campaigning I most agree with is the 200$ tax credits campaign which could be used as a political contribution from the people. But the thing is, it is their choice on who they want to donate the money to. This would also give voters influence before election.
I don't think there should be a limit on campaign funding because candidates need the money in order to influence voters.
I think citizens should get a say in how campaigns are funded because one, it is their right to have freedom of speech, and two, because they are the ones who chooses the candidates. Plus I think they can find a way to weed out any form of corruption.
I don't think there has to be an explicit deal made for something to be considered corrupt for something to be corrupt it deals more with the official duties that are being made than who is participating in them. What could possible happen if the candidates don't follow through with the big donors plans would be that they will lose their support , and along with that support goes their money they out into it.This has so much influence because of the fact that money equals power the more money you have the more you can do with it to reach your policy goals. the alternative method of campaign funding I agree with would be Richard Painter's public financing of campaigns since the people are the ones voting they should also have a say in choosing the people that are going to spend the money as stated in the article , which seems like the most fair alternative. I do not think there should be a limit on funding , if you have the money to do so you should have the right to spend however much you want to. I feel that citizens should get a say , because they are the ones voting at the end .
I do not think that there should be a deal in order for the situation to be considered corruption. it is obvious its corruption if someone uses their money to gain power over the person who is in charge.
There is nothing that could be done. They have already gained office, that was their main goal. But the contributor could make sure that the public knows what type of fraud that person is. So most probably they wont get re-elected.
I agree with Richard Painter because it should be the common people that pick the president since it matters most to us. We shouldn't vote from the last two but from the beginning.
No there should be no limit to the amount they can spend. Its their money they can use it the best way possible to get their campaign running strong.
Since its our vote that really counts, I feel that the people should really have a say so.
There does not have to be an explicit deal for it to be considered corruption. The candidate can still play the parties without an explicit deal between the two of them. Money is not always the easiest way to corrupt someone. If the donors do not get what they want, then they have a chance to humiliate the candidate at any time. They can use that against them to get what they want and the candidate always has a target on their back. Plus it's not good to make promises you can't keep, especially in politics. I think they have so much influence because money seems to be the key to success. It is their way to help them campaign and get the messages they want out without having to do much work. I agree with Lessig in that "that's precisely the equality which has been destroyed by the way we've allowed campaigns to be funded." Lessig also created the superPacs and those are efficent in campaigns, so we don't have crazy amounts of money to throw around. I think their should be a limit because without one, so much money will go to waste and their will be no plan behind it. They should think wisely with the money that they are allowed so they won't have to make any unnecessary promises or worry about anything in the long run.
Yes the deal must be that if the donors are funding the candidates elections and donating millions of dollars then the candidate must do them a favor if/when they win.There has to be an incentive for the huge donations given for it to be considered corruption.
It is physically against the law, so the candidate can possibly get in trouble for doing this once they get into office. The donors will bash the candidate to the public and other supporters such as other huge donors and then the candidate will have no source of income for their campaign. This is such a huge influence because the candidates don’t want to get in trouble during their time in office.
I agree mostly with the idea of $200 of tax payers money coming out in support of who they want to win the election. This is an alternative that would allow for every citizen to contribute more than just a voice but financially to their candidates campaign.
I don’t think that there should be a limit on campaign funding because people make their own money and should be able to spend it however they like, this is most like the idea of the first amendment.
Citizens should have a say because it could possibly be their tax dollars and they should want their money to go to the candidate of their choice. But still there should not be a cap on campaign spending.
Post a Comment