After what would be considered the closet race in presidential history, the US Supreme Court needs to find a way to get the public more involved. Senator John McCain and Russ Feingold are pushing towards a campaign finance reform. Republic John McCain is saying that we must put a stop on “soft” money, and increase “hard” money. The amount “soft” money that are politicians are getting has increased from $105. 1 million to $392. 9 million since 1994.
This reform will stop this money from going in to our political system, so that it will not only be corporations and wealthy individuals that donate money to the campaign. Of course the Republicans and the Democrats can not come up with a decision that they will both agree with. This bill is going threw the senate as we speak, and both Republican Fred Thompson, senator from Tennessee, and Senator Dianne Feinstien, a democrat from California, are going to give there proposed edition of the reform. After the 2000 election both parties agree that we need to have something done, and right now they are trying to pass the Campaign finance reform bill that will put a stop on the “soft” money, and would increase the amount of “hard” money. Republican senator Fred Thompson said that increasing the cap on “hard” money would be the solution to this problem. He would raise “hard” money an individual can give from $1, 000 to $2, 500 for each election.
The Essay on Upper Class People Money Hard
All over the world, people are classified into three categories. These three classifications include: lower class, middle class, and the upper class. Low income people are those with the least money, whereas the upper classes are the rich. The lower class seems to have closer family ties. Many use their family to make up for things they can't have. A majority of these families are larger in size. ...
He would also increase the amount individuals can give to candidates every two years from $50, 000 to $100, 000. The interest groups or political action committees would be able to donate $7, 500 and increase from $5, 000. Most republicans agree with this decision because it is a proven fact that republican raise more “hard” money than Democrats, almost 2-1. That is why it is going to be that much harder to get the Democrats to go along with this proposal. So with this raise on hard money senator Fred Thompson i hoping to lure both the republicans and the Democrats to agree.
Senator Dianne Feingold a Democrat from California has a different proposal. She says that we should only increase the “hard” money individuals can contribute from $1, 000 to $2, 000 per election. She would also lift the total limit from $50, 000 to $65, 000 every two years. This will be hard to pass because the republicans will not see it as enough “hard” money. Senator Tom Daschle, senates Democratic leader, said “We are not prepared to go beyond the limits that Senator Feinstein set out in her legislation.” Senator John Mcaine is a little unsure of how the vote will end up because they need the Democrats vote, yet he knows that they are afraid since republicans have historically made 2-1 ration of “hard” money. Democrats need to feel comfortable that the republicans are not going to make that much more “hard” money than the Democrats do.
If the Democrats were sure that the Republicans would not make that much more in “hard” money this campaign finance reform would be at an agreement. Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold, who is a democrat, is pushing with John Mcaine to revise the US campaign finance laws. Democrats are afraid that by doing this they will not be able to hold up a stable campaign. So there are only a few days left before they must come up with a decision. Senator Fred Thomson said “I think we have a better chance of losing fewer Democrats than we gain Republicans.” So what is that they have to do to gain the Republicans vote If the republicans make more “hard” money, and they are planning on raising the amount of “hard” money, why would the Republicans not be for that I think that the Democrats are going to be willing to raise the amount “hard” money like senator Fred Thomson proposed, and that is why the Republicans are not going to agree with the amount that the Democrats are proposing.
The Term Paper on Presidential Election 2000 Democrats Republicans
In 2004, the election has been the "biggest" news of the year. In 2000, the presidential election was marred by turmoil and scandal over the Florida punch card votes and alleged racial discrimination acts against minorities at the polls. The article, "Poll: U. S. Voters Skeptical of Elections" revisits the horror of the 2000 election and examines the current position of voters, Republicans, and ...
If they do not agree with these terms and the Republicans are not going to be flexible, then there is absolutely no way that this will pass. I feel that if the Democrats were sure that they would be able to raise as much “hard” money as the Republicans then this would have no trouble going threw. So if both the Republicans and the Democrats are for and against the proposal, it is almost impossible to be able to predict how this will end up. When we look at everything that has been in the newspaper the last couple of weeks we see that this proposal has a good chance. We read different articles in different papers and see that it is not only the Republicans that follow John Mccain for this but there are Democrats for it as well.
Do all politicians agree that it is all right to have a company give you money for your campaign to vote there way when you are elected Absolutely not, and that’s why we are having this discussion today. Politicians are trying to stop that from happening so that the average American will be able to say there peace and the candidate running will be able to run for what they believe in, instead of what they got paid to believe in. So if I am asked if I am for or against the proposal, I am for it. I agree that we should put a stop to “soft” money, and that both the Republicans and Democrats have the right idea by raising the amount of “hard” money to help persuade the senate as a whole, to agree.
And of course that is where we get to the trouble, when they try to decide how much to raise the “hard” money. All I can say is that if this passes or if it does not we are at least heading in the right direction. And because both parties are for and against the proposal it is almost impossible to predict how this will end up.
