According to Opensecrets, super pacs are independent expenditure-only committees that raise money from donors outside of a campaign in order to advocate for or against any specific political candidate. Since super pacs are organized and run by millionaires and billionaires, they raise very large amounts of money that can be used to drastically attack or help candidates. If the government continues to place no restrictions on campaign spending amounts then the rise of super pacs may be avoided and there will be more transparency in a candidate’s campaign than without. If money didn’t have an influence on politics then the government would be less influenced by millionaires and wealthy corporations, therefore citizens of lower classes would have more say in the government. Although, restrictions on spending money could lead to secret transactions with foreign countries.
Do you feel insignificant during elections? Do you worry that there is too much money in politics? Do you believe that campaigns are corrupt? All these common worries become real issues in 2010 with Citizens United v. FEC: a Supreme Court ruling that will forever be significant to elections. The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unrestricted campaign spending by corporations, but most importantly the case led to the formation of groups called super PACs: corporations or labor unions that have the ability to use its general treasury and unlimited donations to influence elections.
Income Inequality Income Inequality or “wage gap” is a big topic for freedom fighters and liberals for the simple fact that it isn’t equal for everyone. Because the wage gap is so prominent it's one of the biggest “facts” that discrimination is still apart of everyday American society. The wage gap from these radical interest groups think the economy is get a dollar take a dollar instead of a free flow economy. This misguided idea of the economy is absolutely not true and isn’t at the fault of the Government, but the people. One of the arguments used is that we could regulate and tax the 1% income because that would be “fair” but these numbers show how harmful that way of thinking is.
I believe that, yes it would have an adverse effect on a presidential election because the more debates a democratic party or republican party has means that the public and other party members have time to learn about the candidates and the issues that candidate supports. For example if a person like Donald trump which is on the republican party goes outside to a lot of debates and shows he’s not afraid he could outshine his competition in debates and even win more votes over the democratic party that has its main runner Hillary Clinton at a disadvantage with less debate time. Yes debates influence candidate selection during elations because the person decided who to vote for knows the side they want, and they know what that candidate thinks
Bush, the Democrats considered several issues to tackle for the election season. With the bipartisan support from previous bills and the success that Massachusetts was achieving from their legislation, the Democrats chose to campaign on a national issue of health care reform. During the 2008 Democratic primary, the two top nominees were Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They both campaigned on an insurance plan to cover all Americans. They did have a difference in their plans: Hillary chose a plan that would require all American to acquire insurance coverage as an individual mandate.
This did cause struggles in the beginning, but eventually paid off in the future by creating more equal politics. When these major events occurred in the Gilded Age, it caused periods of success, failure, and sometimes overall no change. Some outcomes of these new ideas being formed caused corruption, but led to the government and politics becoming much stronger and more organized. Most of the ideas published wanted to increase wealth and rivalries between businesses. Even though the Gilded Age benefited with the reforms created and fell with it’s poor use of money, it helped create the way we run our government
To be clear, the two numbers do not necessarily indicate causation, and there could be several other factors attributed. However, what cannot be debated is the same Pew Research Center study found a majority (Both, Democrats and Republicans) believe money has a greater influence on politics today, and the high cost of presidential campaigns discourages good candidates. (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015). The sentiment of voters is clear, big money has permeated campaigns to an unacceptable degree. To illustrate, Super PACs made $65 million in expenditures in 2010, $608 million in 2012, and $339 for the 2014 mid-term elections (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015).
The article Partisan politics 'enfeeble public administration’ contains different views and complications about electorates and how a less than perfect election system, coupled with the extreme ideological opinions of voters, increases the probability of the most popular candidate being elected. The field of Public administration is mainly concerned with the structure of government programs and the conduct of officials. The article is significant to the course because Public Administrators are charged with overseeing public policy; which is directly influenced by politics. Public administration is equivalent to election administration. Actions and choices made by public administrators affect the lives of everyone in America (Milakovich & Gordon,
(“Understanding the Presidential Election”) Candidates tend to spend a large portion of their time in these types of states to try and convert independents and members of the opposite party to vote for them. Some people argue that this swing state idea defeats the electoral college principle of evening out the power among the states, since the swing states get special attention. The other main issue is that the Electoral College often does not align with the popular vote. This argues against the evening out of power since, it matters more that a candidate collects more states than more people’s votes (“Understanding the Presidential Election”). In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton secured the
The Koch Brothers are trying to buy America. They not only funnel money through their phony Americans for Prosperity, they funnel money into all kinds of organizations to do the same thing that they are doing. I honestly do not believe America is for sale. But as soon as these two power-drunk billionaires are called out, they say, “It’s free speech, what’s wrong?” Most actual Americans trace their free speech to the Constitution — not a bank account that has lots and lots of zero’s at the end. A prominent pollster once said, “When does the pursuit of victory exact to a higher price?