Should we enact a campaign finance reform and ban soft money contributions Campaign finance is among the top governmental and social issues of today’s society. The truth is that today’s campaigns are being financed by members of supported political parties that can afford to send their candidate to the top. These contributions are known as soft money contributions. Soft money can be defined as, unlimited union and corporate donations to political parties that allow special interest power brokers to have their way in Washington. Ultimately, These contributions are taking away pure democracy that is given to today’s citizens. I, particularly, am interested in this issue because I would like to see the potential that our leaders have by running a successful campaign without large amounts of soft money contributions.
It is important that candidates take our democratic system seriously and not toy around with our involvement in today’s governmental system. Soft money contributions amounted to $487 million in the last election cycle, up from $271 million in 1996 and $86 million in 1992, according to the Federal Election Commission. One particular side to this issue is that people feel that enacting this reform would, ultimately, diffuse the simple act of giving and revealing the act of financial support to those who needs these contributions. Some critics say that without such donations, parties will be unable to help lesser-known candidates mount effective challenges to entrenched incumbents. They also believe that voter registration turnouts would substantially decrease. (Dallas Morning News).
The Essay on Soft Money Campaign Reform Issue
... figures lend themselves to a frightening trend in campaign politics. Soft money contribution levels are on an unprecedented spike in recent ... $1 billion from 1996, with soft money totals nearly doubling from $256 million to $457 million (The Nation, 29 Jan 2001). ... of today's powerhouse campaigns. "This election cycle is the first in history of the current regulatory scheme where the money spent ...
” What we are doing is destroying the party system in America. The political parties would be neutered, and third party groups would run the show,” Rep. Martin Frost. There is an overwhelming amount of politicians that feel that banning soft money contributions would deplete our campaign system. If money weren’t th issue wouldn’t enacting this reform enable equal opportunity for all candidates and citizens The other side of this issue would conclude that these contributions are uncalled for and, in fact, lead democracy to a dark and profound pity. The problem stands that contributors persuade candidates to address issues to their conformity.
There is evidence that large amounts of soft money given to both parties by various industries have received exponential tax breaks. What kind of message are we sending out here We have contributors making issue deals with candidates along with receiving tax breaks in which, to say the least, is illegal. Until we abolish soft money contributions, we will never have a government that works as hard for us as it does for the special interests. Remember that this country belongs to us.
Banning soft money will end the common practice of buying access to high government officials and will make our voice more important to our leaders. John McCain announces, “imagine the promises we could keep and the good we could do if politicians stopped treating the federal treasury as a duty free shop for soft money donors.” The truth is, elections are no longer as democratic as they used to be. Our two cents doesn’t amount to much anymore. The soft money contributors are the people that are being heard. I strongly believe that a reform is definitely in need. As long as candidates are satisfying contributors, they will receive finances for their campaigns.
The Essay on Can Money Make A Man Happy?
“Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it,” is a quote that inventor and statesmen Benjamin Franklin said. Like many quotes and opinions there is always two sides to it. Some believe money can never buy happiness but others believe that money is a key necessity in life to be happy. I personally believe that money can buy happiness depending on how you use it for reasons like generally making ...
This is rightfully unjust. I don’t know about you, but I would like to play a role in the decision making of our candidates, rather than unions and corporations who, essentially, can afford to alter our democratic system. If we choose to reject this concept, then we choose to remove ourselves from every constitutional right that is given to us. Once again separation is enacted as corporations and labor unions spill their money out to campaigns, knowing that their money will, essentially, win the heart’s of the candidates. This is a great move in favor of incumbents. It, ultimately, keeps the other party out of their race.
This measure would actually strengthen the parties by ending their reliance on wealthy donors. The only option for change is to consider the individuals to fund for their own campaigns. Doing so would enable every one of us to be heard on given issues. Money should not be the root for decision making.
Why should money have anything to do with the way candidate’s address certain issues Instead, we could abolish soft money contributions and allow citizens to become more involved in issue response. Perhaps eliminating soft money contributions would enable more emphasis more air play on televisions, internet sources and local radio stations. I would bet that there are plenty of “presidential worthy” candidates that simply don’t have the funds to successfully run an intriguing and captivating campaign. Eliminating the soft money contributions would provide equal opportunity for all candidates to run similar campaigns. Bibliography web >.
