Research and Describe Politics In U.S: Campaign Finance (Essay Sample)

Campaign Finance
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Campaign Finance
The role of money in politics cannot be underestimated. Campaign spending is constitutionally acceptable as it is significant in informing and marshaling citizens (Tom, 2016). However, the purpose that money serves in politics has to be balanced to what is needed, to enable the government to serve all its citizens equally to establish a common good. In a democratic world, common good and justice implies equal access to government allocation of services and other essentials. The implication is that a good government can only exist when social class, resources, money, and power are not unduly favored at the cost of the general public. Overall, despite the pros that money may have in American politics, using large sums of money in politics and campaign has numerous cons and greatly threatens and sabotages democracy.
The first con associated with using large amounts of money in politics is that it can potentially prompt politicians to favor the special interests of the rich while putting the interests of the ordinary citizens at stake (Tom, 2016). When ideas, so vital for an ideal democracy, are manipulated and controlled by fancies of a few individuals, then the country risks losing its grip on democracy and fairness, by ignoring the wisdom and the voice of its ordinary citizens. In this sense, big money in politics corrupts our democracy. Though proponents of big money in politics claim it is advantageous, arguing that donors support political candidates who share their political beliefs, this claim may not be factual in the long-run. When large amount of money are let to flow in campaigns and politics, there will be a shift in the representation of interests (Tom, 2016). Rather than representing the interests of the ordinary people who take part in voting them in, politicians who spend huge sums of money in campaigns will tend to represent the interests of the wealthy individuals who fund such campaigns. In this case, the much needed democracy will no longer be serving the people it is meant to serve. Rather, it would be serving about 1 percent of the country’s population, consisting of those who “buy” elections.
The second con brought about by the use of big money in politics is that it filters out moderate candidates. Money givers and party activists tend to dominate political campaigns as they hold great views (Tom, 2016). As a result, the unfortunate but partisan candidates are rejected since they lack the big advantage. Supporters of big money in politics contend that big money in politics has the advantage of funding political parties and their campaign activities and hence is a vital way for individuals to participate in politics. However, these wealthy candidates source money from financially successful professionals and entrepreneurs who often hold somewhat conservative views on economic regulation, taxes, and public welfare spending. Consequently, the financially fortunate candidates who hold view that are not widely acceptable to the citizens get elected or nominated. This therefore sabotages democracy. Therefore, using big money in politics is a threat to democracy since it leads to inequitable involvement in politics. Wealthy citizens tend to have a greater influence by working in campaigns, contacting officials, and facilitating the voting process (Tom, 2016). Such people do not get involved in politics by contributing to campaigns. Rather, they tend to be very active in other aspects too. Such involvements hence underscore their prominence to the candidates.
The third con of using big money in politics is that big money has the potential to alter the outcome of elections. Advocates of big money in politics argue that that money is often not meant for bribing citizens or altering the outcomes of elections. However, the major concern with big money in politics is not corruption or bribery. Also, the problem is not having the elections won by the greatest spender. After all, we all know that however much a politician spends; the public will not support the politician if he or she does not otherwise support that candidate. According to Tom (2016), this was evident in the case of Jeb Bush, a Republican presidential candidate who failed despite using large amounts of money in his campaign. Rather, the major issue of concern is that individuals who donate and spends such large amounts of money possess extremely powerful influence over the candidate to be elected. In addition, they have considerable influence on the policies to be pursued than any other person. In view of Tom (2016), Bush had many chances to present his case for election and also to be perceived serious, merely because of the many affluent individuals who surrounded him, but not because many voters supported him. Therefore, regardless of limited public funding, large contributors have the power to command substantial influence over a party or a candidate. Moreover, money spent on turnout, media, and those spent in organizing elections can increase vote totals, providing a considerable advantage to candidates aligned to money givers (Tom, 2016). Besides, large amount of money can buy access to officials. For example, when the major contributors contact electoral officials, they are likely to be given attention. In such a case, their economic power enables them afford a hearing. In the process, such individuals might provide some critical information, help, or expertise. Some can go to an extent of drafting bills. Undoubtedly, such processes increase the influence of the wealthy on policy matters, thereby altering public agenda to only comprehensively cover the concerns of the wealthy.
Fourthly, the use of big money in politics is disadvantageous because it increases the likelihood of the candidate in question to be deemed more able and serious. Much as proponents of big money in politics argue that big money gives the donors access to present a case, research findings have indicated that the rich have a higher likelihood of having their needs and preferences passed into law compared to everyone else (Tom, 2016). Similarly, the views of extremely rich individuals appear to be somewhat different from those of ordinary citizens. Overall, the major problem with the affluent manipulating and influencing the elections is that the ordinary citizens allow those with robust economic power to change it into political power. Such an act is purely and squarely anti-democratic. In view of Tom (2016), people who donate huge amounts of money to political candidates or political groups do so since they trust the candidates supported by these groups. According to recent research findings, donors support political candidates who share their political beliefs (Tom, 2016). Much as these claims may be factual in the short term, majority of donors support political candidates for purposes of seeking an economic gain in the long run. They aim at having an influence in the policy making process so that they can manipulate laws to favor their demands. From their obsession with politics, we are likely to think that these private organizations that fund political parties, can boost those parties that have policies which suit their business interests. More often, such interests are always in parallel with the other members of the community, thereby amounting to biases (Tom, 2016). Indeed, conflicting with some parties or policies is part and parcel of being democratic. However, the unrestricted flow of large amounts of money can imply that the rich minority has the power to influence and manipulate the process of making policies at the cost of the public go...