It costs an enormous amount of money to run for national office--particularly the presidency. Why must so much money be spent to win elected office in this country, when it costs a fraction of the amount in western European democracies? This article helps explain why.
Why do U.S. elections cost so much?
Money is definitely a factor, however small, in determining the outcome of the presidential elections. One of the reasons that third parties never win is because they simply don't have the funds to advertise and get their names out in this vast country. Ross Perot was a millionaire, and he ended up getting many votes compared to the other third party candidates. However, I don't think that money should play such a huge role in the presidential race. The quality of the candidate matters more than the quantity of money spent. Advertisements do seem to have a psychological effect on the public, which is why campaigning is such a big deal in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteDeshna Majmudar, Period 3
Money is crucial to the American political system and therefore it would be crucial to those candidates running for a spot in the political system. The basic fact is that money is needed to run a successful campaign; if a candidate does not have enough money to get all the advertisement and publicity that his opponent is getting then his campaign will suffer. This scenario happens way too often in America both to third party candidates and candidates in the two major political parties. Money does play a crucial role but I also believe that candidates should be judged on the quality of their beliefs and ideology; not how much money they can put out for "better" advertizing.
ReplyDeleteChelsea Straight Period 3
I find the amount of money necessary to conduct an effective campaign in this country to be absolutely ridiculous. The cost of a campaign in this country may be astronomical, but in many ways it does seem unavoidable. According to the article, just the length of the American presidential campaign requires continuous funneling of dollars in order to keep the campaign going. I think this could actually be a good thing because it weeds out the candidates who are lukewarm about their run for the presidency, thus leaving the candidates who are serious about this position. Although this may be true, it also leaves out the candidates who would do a great job, but do not have the means to run for the presidency. Basically, overspending on campaigns in this country only seems to be getting worse and may becoming a tradition.
ReplyDeleteSarah Alaniz
period 3
Whenever a general election comes, the elected candidates spend millions and millions of dollars to get their point across to win the vote of Americans. This is why most third party's nominees do not win because they do not have that much money to advertise themselves out to the general pubic. But it isn't fair because they aren't able to sell out their ideas of party platform to the public due to their lack of money in the campaigning. The more an elected candidate spends the more they are likely to get chosen due to the advertisements, flyers, etc. Like Obama spent around $750 million, while Mccain spent waaaaaayy less than that. Money is a hugefactor in this campaigns now a days to determine the chosen one of the presidential election.
ReplyDeleteMichelle
Period 3
We can all agree that the United States is much larger than Europe. Attracting attention is therefore much more difficult when it comes to campaigning. Candidates stateside must raise enough money to support enough advertisements to get all future advertisements moving throughout the country, and they must emphasize their presence in swing states. Furthermore, the system in Europe - Britain, as was the author's main contrast - calls for nominations through parliamentary parties and not through primaries and caucuses as is the case in America. European candidates, then, don't need to raise too much money for advertising as European (or British) citizens are much more loyal to their parties, and, as we already know, vote much more often than the American people (not Britain).
ReplyDeleteThough, I do admire the amount of respect British parliament upholds in their house....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhpXhxP-WU
Sam Yassa per. 3
Thanks, Sam, for the link! I've seen the British Parliament in action before, and it's quite different than "debates" in our Congress.
DeleteIn order for a candidate to reach out to the public, he or she must have the resources to do so. Clearly, money plays a huge role. American voters have become less aligned to a specific party and voter turnout is low. Many candidates rely on name recognition and bombard the media with advertisements. These have to be pertinent to the region, as the U.S. is a large nation with a lot of varying opinions. Money must be spent for the candidate to travel and reach out. Nevertheless, the extremely wealthy, unions and corporations should not be able to influence the outcome because they have more money. This this also limits third parties from ever gaining much influence because they usually lack the funding of the two major parties. In the past 10 years, the candidate who gained the most money won, further emphasizing the importance of money in a campaign.
ReplyDeleteFernando Gomez
Per. 2
Until I took AP Government, I never realized how expensive presidential campaigns were & after reading this article.. I am amazed. I mean, President Obama's re-election campaign was 1 billion dollars. You can do a lot with that money! It is fact that these candidates are known through elections with the help of advertisements, but I think the prices they pay for them is just too high. I believe that the money that they have should be spent on more important issues. For example, they should use the money to help others in need to actually SHOW the citizens that they can make change & for the better too. Advertisements are just made up of lines that have been rehearsed and acts to allure citizens into voting for a specific person. It can also mislead people because let's face it, not all Presidents live up to their words. Nevertheless, money will continue playing a huge role in presidential campaigns whether it is helpful or not. We just have to pay attention to important factors of electing candidates such as their true motives.
ReplyDelete-Kathy Hu
Period 2
Obama's projected campaign is projected to cost $1 billion, but it hasn't happened yet.
DeleteLucas
I think that money is should play a part in American Politics but not to the extent at which it is now. I know that it is necessary to have a candidates name heard across this big country but the amount is crazy, like Obama spending 1 billion to get re-elected.It seems kind of unfair to third party candidates who want to be president but do not have the money to even campaign. It such a large amount compared to Europeans and there campaign dollar amount. It is understandable that their country is smaller but the American price tag is so ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Barragan
Period: 3
My opinion: Should not the money used from campaigns be used towards the money deficit of the country? From the article, it states that "President Barack Obama's campaign is to be $1 billion for his re-election campaign. Obama's campaign raised nearly $750 million for the 2008 election." Moreover, the "Republican presidential candidate John McCain raised $239 million from donors and received $84 million collected from public funds." Is this from all the rich people and organizations not paying their taxes?
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question of why so much money must be spent to win elected office in this country, it relates mostly to the size of the U.S. compared to that of Europe and the cost of promoting campaign ads. Europe has time frames for their parliamentary campaigns and is limited to a certain amount of money they can spend on campaigns; however, America is much more liberal.
The price of television ads are costly; yet, it is the most effective way of presidential candidates to deliver their message to billions of viewers. All the money is used to influence voters and get their votes. As long as it is not the candidates money, but rather money from organizations and individual donations, why should the candidates care how much it costs--so long as the campaign ad works and gets them votes?
--Michelle Young, Period 2
America seems to spend more money during the running for elected offices than western European democracies for a few reasons. The democracies in Western Europe are nowhere near the size of America’s and therefore require a shorter period of time running for office. When European democracies are in the midst of their run for elected offices, they must abide by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; which too results in lower spending costs. Although these reasons are significant, it seems as though America holds a crucial factor in elections that is not seen in Europe. This factor is the necessity of American candidates to develop a character so ideal that they will attract the attention of the American people and win their votes. The excessive amount of money that is being spent in campaigns is being funneled to their advertisements and cross-country tours. When presenting themselves in these stages of their campaign, the campaigners depict themselves as the reliable, compassionate, assertive figure that American’s cannot help but want in office. Not only do they portray themselves as the ideal choice, they also indirectly depict their opponents as incapable and unappealing. If potential American politicians did not find it a necessity to focus this costly limelight on generating a flawless version of themselves instead of simply accentuating their political strengths and goals-like they should be doing-, the cost of campaigns may be able to decrease.
ReplyDeleteBrianna Banks
Period 3
Im really not sure even after reading this arcticle if there should be a limit to how much money u can give and recieve. On one hand, if several corporations and business and even individuals are pooring out money to a candidate, then this could just be there way of saying that they want that candidate in office and there just trying to ensure it. On the other hand, a person might be able to dominante the election if given too much money, and then the candidate that was given waves of money might of just been picked because he could do more stuff than other candidates, and not for the fact that he actually seems like he could be an elite president. So even after the article, im still on the fence of whether or not there should be a limit to how much money a candidate can accept.
ReplyDeleteQuinton Goodman
P.3
I always knew that presidential elections were pretty expensive. Although, I never knew they were as expensive as this article explains and by what we have learned in class. It's understandable that campaigning takes up a lot of money but it shouldn't take up as much as it does. All the money spent on campaign commercials can be limited down and be spent on bigger issues. The candidates have to make themselves known to the public but I don't think it should take that much money to put yourself out there. Obama spending $1 billion for re-election is ridiculous to me. Especially, since he's being "re-elected".
ReplyDeleteRimsha Younas- 2
I knew that candidates had to spend to money on campaigning but I never knew how much. Our country is deep enough in a recession and has enough debt that candidates shouldn't have to spend as much money as they are. Maybe our candidates should spend less money on TV advertisements and more TIME on giving speeches and addressing the issues rather than bashing their opponents.
ReplyDeleteYasmine Andrawis
period 2
Money is definitely neccesary to fund a campaign but i don't believe the candidates needhow much this article states. The money couldbe put to better uses. Sure the money helps with ad campaigns and getting their name out, but if the the candidate was very appealing to the people, and the people listened to him and supported him, the candidate would not need to put out ads for his cmapaign, people would simply know of it. The money we give the candidates for their campaigning should be used to help out the economy or foreig naffairs and debts.
ReplyDeletekimhao
p2
Money is crucial to the presidential campaign, there is no doubt about it. The more money a candidate can get, the more people he can reach through television, internet, and other ads. As more people become dependent on electronics, the more candidates will need the money to fund such ads. Money has such a large role that the smaller parties have to chance of getting their name known to the public because they lack the funds to do so. Though money is necessary, it should be limited to ensure fair play. Most of the time, the candidate with the most money will win because they advertised better. If a limit was set, the candidates might have a fair chance to compete and the people themselves would have more of a say instead of money.
ReplyDelete~Madison Pickham, period 3
I had no idea how much money it took candidates to spend for elections and campaigning till I took this class and read this article. Obama is expected to raise about 1 billion dollars this upcoming election and I think that is absolutely crazy. It leaves me in shock to know that-that much money will be raised just for a re-election campaign.. Although it may be extreme, I do think that a good amount of money is needed to successfully run for elections. Candidates need to get their name out there for themselves across this vast country to get people’s votes and millions of dollars enables them to do exactly so. Candidates that spend their money for television ads and other public ads are sure to get people’s attention, therefore showing the people an option that they might pursue when it comes to the presidential elections. Campaigning is huge in America and it comes with big money. Money will always be a massive and important component in American elections.
ReplyDeleteMariam Kamal p.2
Most people agree that money should not influence a presidential election as much as it does. However, as a society, we cannot help it. The only reason why presidential campaigns spend so much money on campaigns is because it works. It works because we are subconsciously swayed by the ads. If we weren't influenced by television, then presidential campaigns would not spend any money on the media. I grew up learning that money means power.The same thing applies to presidential campaigns. The companies or individuals that donates the most money, will have the most influence on a presidential campaign. Although I believe that money should not play a role in presidential elections, I also believe that America should NOT limit how much money anyone or any interest groups can give to a presidential campaign. For example, society does not limit how much someone can give to a religious group. In the same manner as presidential campaigns, the religious groups uses that donation to spread their views. My radical solution to eliminate the role of money in presidential elections is to remove the American people from the election process and only have the electoral college. After all, the founding fathers never intended for the popular vote to determine presidency.
ReplyDelete~Nathan Shen
Period 3
In a country as big as ours, it is easy to see why candidates need to spend so much money in a presidential election in order to familiarize themselves with as many voters as possible. Previous elections show that fundraising is crucial to a candidate's campaign and often pays off in the end. Although I do not feel that such an enormous amount of money should be spent on presidential elections, I do believe it is necessary in our democracy in order to become president.
DeleteKarina Jonas
Period 3
I think money should play a part in American politics, but there should be a limit. Even though the money is used for campaigning and getting the candidate’s name heard across the country, it should be limited. I believe that Obama spending 1 billion is just very excessive. That money could be put to better use.
ReplyDeleteYostina Halaka
Period 3
I had no idea that it cost so much money to run a campaign, however it deffinatly makes sense thinking about all the costs of advertising and appearences. It bothers me a little that so much money is spent. I feel that considering we are in such a great recession fundraising should or could be done for issues concerning the economy. I do understand the effect of advertising, before i knew anything about politics or elections (six weeks ago)I got most of what i learned from commercials or television slots.
ReplyDelete-liz period 3
Interesting. Your post reminds me that there are millions of Americans out there who rely on these ads to help them make decisions at the polls.
DeleteSome of the reasoning why so much money is spent in Presidential elections is solid such as the fact that you have to travel and the United States is a big country. Those things are valid costs. Ad wars on the other hand are stupid and costly. The purpose of them is to start a fire within a person who is borderline through underhanded psychological tactics such as the priming the availability heuristic and pure repetition of the information while providing no substance to it. It is a sham and provides nothing of worth to an election. To funnel money from small donations is one thing but once you get checks in the thousands and tens of thousands or even millions because you are alienating a majority of people because you don't need them for money you just need the few and the rich. The rest of the people can be manipulated by the money a candidate receives from the rich. As we look into the past we see that money is becoming more and more important to an election and that makes me sad. We lose out on so many people who are worth so much and can make so much of a difference who don't even stand a chance because they simply do not have the money to do it.
ReplyDeleteI've always wondered if the exorbitant cost of campaigns in this country actually "weeds out" good candidates. If a candidate is good, won't he/she be able to raise money in large sums?
DeleteNot necessarily. People who would tend to get money are probably charismatic or extroverted. Are we willing to say that no one who is an introvert or non-charismatic is not fit to be president? Our country denies those who are silent and thinkers for those who are loud and act first. Is that the only path that is correct?
DeleteNilan
Since the United States is, in fact, such a large country with quite a number of citizens, it is understandable why the role of money plays such an important part in the presidential campaign. Candidates need to spend quite an amount of money in order to campaign successfully and get their names out into the public in order to gain followers and supporters. The more money one candidate has, the more support he is likely to gain from internet, television, newspaper, magazines, etc. I agree with Nathan when he said that in a sense money = power. Perot, a mere third party candidate, got quite an amount of votes because he was able to campaign on television well (because he was able to afford all of that). However, if a limit was set it wouldn't give an unfair advantage to any one candidate because all would be able to base their campaigns on pleasing and winning over the people rather than spending significant amounts of money to make themselves more well known.
ReplyDeleteSahil Dhaliwal
Per. 3
Spending limits would certainly level the playing field, but they will not be possible because currently, spending limits are unconstitutional.
DeleteI must say that a ridiculous amount of money is poured into campaigns. I agree that, while money is a form of free speech, the amount of money given by wealthy individuals and businesses should be limited to a degree. I agree with Obama and how he said that things like Superpacs are going to give more power to the wealthy businesses than to the people and the candidate they support. So while money may play a role, I do think that role could be minimized to a degree.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Harper
Per. 3
It's understandable to spend money to get your name out there for the general election. It goes to far, however, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to a billion for it. But it's only acceptable to spend that much because of how the American people are and how we need to see the candidates in the media and get us to vote for them. The US is a much bigger place than European democracies and so must use a lot more resources to get their name out there.
ReplyDeleteBraxton Matthews P3
Its crazy finding out how much money is spent on campaigns! You'd think these people would want to save their money for something better. But obviously if spending a lot of money gets citizens attentions then candidates are going to have to do what is necessary so that their in the spot light and they get what they want. I suppose that it would b better if the government limited the amount of money that candidates can spend so that there all on an evel lever playing field; that way people see the candidates for what they are and not how their money talks.
ReplyDeleteVanessa r.
Per 3
I find the amount of money spent on election completely ludicrous. With that being said, I do understand why candidates have to spend so much, as the article said, "Bigger Country=Bigger Money." Candidates in America also spend a large quantity of time in the campaigning process, so it is only natural that the money adds up. However, I believe that there should be some sort of regulations on the money. This day in age, there is no way that they can be as low as the ceilings in Britain. But, some type of adjustment to the budgets would serve the country well. Actually, any form of budgeting would probably help the crazy amount of money spent. Possibly spending 1 BILLION dollars? There is just no way that should be allowed, even necessary. Don't get me wrong, spending large quantities of money is essentially mandatory this day in age to run a competitive race, especially considering the size of the country, but we need to put some sort of budget/ceiling now because election spending will only continue to increase from here.
ReplyDeleteCarolina Guzman
Period 2
I, too, find it alarming that the cost of mounting a successful presidential campaign has more than quadrupled in just four election cycles.
DeleteIn an age where television and the internet plays a huge role in our lives, it is not surprising that candidates must raise so much money. Candidates want to get votes, and the only way they get can find an effective way to reach all people is to advertise constantly in the voters' daily lives. In the US, unfortunately, the golden rule always applies. The people with the gold make the rules!
ReplyDeleteMatthew Nasrallah
Period 2
Money has always been a problem. Our country's so expansive, it makes sense that candidates have gone to such extreme means to get their views across to people. And I believe it does make an importance difference to how we vote. By seeing whose endorsements and money candidates are receiving, as well as how much omey they are actually spending, people may be more inclined to vote for a certain candidate. There shouldn't be anyimits to the amount of money spent, it's an important decision for our country that a lot of people get hyped about, so if they earn the money and are backed by that many people to support them, they must have something good going on.
ReplyDeleteHaley Shepherd. period 2
I know our country is big, but it hasn't gotten much bigger (population-wise) since 1996, when both candidates only spent around $45 million to reach the SAME voters that Obama will spend $1 billion to reach this year.
ReplyDeleteSomething's changed, and I don't know what it is. Perhaps it's just easier to raise more money today than fifteen years ago. Perhaps people are more willing to open their wallets than they were in 1996. But the costs are spiraling out of control.
And remember, if Obama spends $1 billion this year, that is only counting the money that he has personally raised; it doesn't/won't count the hundreds of millions more that Super PACs will be spending on his behalf. If you add up all of this money for both parties, you're talking billions of dollars for us to choose a President; that's bigger than the GDP of other countries.
When I read this article, only one thought immediately came to mind---Well dang, that's a hell of a lot of money. I never truly realized just how much money is spent on advertising candidates in our elections. Not only that, but that with each passing election, more and more money is being spent on TV commercials, internet ads, and slapping the candidate's face on your bus, newspaper and possibly your cereal box. Elections cost so much, with Obama's costing a staggering $1 billion. Maybe this can be viewed as apathy, but those advertisements do very little to sway my possible vote. The commercials always seem fake and forced so to me it's like the candidates are just flushing those dollars away. Then again, that's probably the minority opinion. And while I do think that there should be equal footing between the candidates, the real world doesn't work that way. So, the candidates should use the resources they have or receive. I just hope whoever wins doesn't end up causing an even bigger crater in the country's debt or else that face on the bus is going to end up as target practice.
ReplyDeleteUrsula Garcia
Period 2
When you look at the differences between the European nations and America the two biggest factors that stand out to me are the size of our country and the length of our campaigns. Since our country is so large the candidates must have some form of advertisement in each state. Britain doesnt have to worry about this because it is not divided by states that you the electoral college system. If they did then they would also spend much more on advertising. Also the length of our campaigns are so much larger due to the fact that we have two elections: the primaries and the general. This makes candidates campaign early just to get their name out so people can know who they are before the primary. This takes tremendous amounts of money due to the fact that each state has a primary or caucus. Therefore, our country is forced to spend a huge amount of money just because of the way it is set up.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Pd. 3
The more money spent on a campaign the more inclined to victory the candidate is. Shoot, if I was running and I had the opportunity to get my face on every cereal box in America, by every means possible I would make it happen. Also, government should not regulate the campaign money. If Obama can raise 2 billion dollars, hey go ahead. As long as he isn't illegally spending taxpayer dollars to fund it and is instead using sponsors and other organizations that's okay with me. Money works wonders. The underdog may never have a chance without proper funding.
ReplyDeleteMichael Tomey
Period 2
First of all, I can't believe that Obama is pledging to spend one billion dollars in this campaign. How intimidating it must be for the republican candidate! After reading the article, I understand that money does play a dominant role in elections (more than I imagined). Whether it should or should not be such a large factor in campaigns is simply beside the point. We've seen especially with third-parties that it is impossible to win without money. It is impossible to win or even participate in running in an election without being rich. However, is the money being spent productively? Personally, I believe that the commercials on TV are unnecessary. Sure, it gets your name out to the public, but the ads are usually nothing but disproving the other candidate's statements. In black and white and slow music, they most of the time just bash the other candidate. The article commented on how much of Obama's money went to commercials and ads on TV. However, I believe that the money should be more directed towards putting your "face on a cereal boxes", or other unusual places- territories the candidates wouldn't usually enter. All in all, I believe that the money should be used more effectively since they are already throwing so much of it into this thing.
ReplyDeleteKelsi Holton
Period 3
People always compare the U.S. to other democracies in the world but that's hardly fair. Of course it's going to seem like we spend an obscene amount on elections compared to European countires that are smaller than some of our statesand even have a different election process. That being said, although I knew that campaigns were expensive, I do think we can trim the fat in a few areas. Namely, smear campaigns. I'm all for a candidate promoting themself in a good, humble way. But then to go and spend probably three times that on degrading ads targeted to the opposition, it not only looks bad for the opposition but also that they had to stoop that low to get votes. Also, nominees probably don't need to travel with such big entourages as they do. Yes they need security and maybe one or two advisors but it's almost like they're traveling with a small country in tow.
ReplyDeleteAlex Santrach
Per. 2
Money is a definite variable when it comes to campaigning. Without the sufficient funds, canidates are usually not as promoted as others, through advertisements etc. To make things fair I think spending limits, if it were possible, should be enforced in order to allow a fair chance. Because in the end it should be the speeches that win people over and the things canidates offer, not how much
ReplyDeletemoney that is being spent on their campaign.
Morgan Tenchavez
Period 3
I think that U.S.'s democracy is unique and shouldn't be compared to other countries. Candidates do spend a lot of money on campaigns, but they only do it to win the swings states so they can win and become president. If I were running for president i would definitely do that. Money of course does play a BIG role in campaigns. I honestly think that the money could be spent on more important things rather than MAINLY t.v. ads because, like Kelsi said all they do is bash the other candidates.
ReplyDeleteB. Henry
period 3
It is clear that money will always be a factor in America's campaigns, but the level it has reached in our society is outrageous. The fact that Obama is planning on spending $1 billion is mind boggling. I feel that presidential campaigns should not be allowed to spend anything near the numbers candidates are pulling out now. If anything, each candidate should have a limit on what they spend, and how they choose to spend this money is up to them. This in itself would be a good indicator on which candidate it better for office since they understand keeping spending to a minimum. Our country has been in a major recession and here are these candidates promising to mend so many suffering Americans as they spend millions and millions of dollars. I understand the nation is much larger than European ones, but it is our system that causes for such incredible spending. It is absolutely necessary for candidates to promote themselves, but the system needs to be improved so that one does not need to be a millionaire or have to raise such huge amounts of money to lead the country.
ReplyDelete-Claire Freeman
Period 3
The costliness of US elections is detrimental to democracy. It gives money more power over other forms of political expression and action, which favors the more privileged sectors of the electorate and society at large. Campaign activity and finance regulations such as those used in the United Kingdom and other European nations would be very helpful in the States (although it would certainly require a constitutional amendment). This could bring down the time needed to campaign and the cost of campaigns, which would weaken the influence of especially wealthy donors and corporate PACs over elections, and politics in general. I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in 2010, as well as Buckley v. Valeo, as I do not count campaign finance regulations as limits on free speech.
ReplyDeleteMaliq Nixon
Period 3
It's easy to say that the money necessary to campaign for presidency is absurd, and that change needs to happen, but there really is not much to be done. We can't just tell candidates you can't spend money on ads, where the majority of their money goes, and ads aren't going to cheaper either. When comparing our campaign expenses to European countries, ours are obviously going to be much greater, due to the fact that we're so much larger than European countries. For example, the US is about 8 times the size of France, which is the second largest European country. I don't believe in strict money restrictions when it comes to campaigning. I feel that whoever supports a candidate should have the right to fund a candidate since it is their money. I know this can have a negative effect, and can lead to dirty politics, but how are you going to cut off fundraising from candidates. Like stated earlier, ads aren't free, and never will be. Campaigning costs a lot, therefore the candidate must spend a lot. That is not going to change much.
ReplyDeleteCody Wallace
Period 3
This article really opened my eyes to just how much candidates spend on elections. I can agree with the article's explanation as to why our democratic ideology causes us to spend more than European nations. The fact that our elections are based and put most pressure on the candidates themselves to get elected or be deemed electable is the very reason to why we spend so much money. As we discussed in class, I can see why public funds gives the people more power or influence over the candidates but I also feel that the majority of their money should come from an outside source or their own pockets. I do not feel that our taxpayers money should be used to help candidates throw extravagant campaigns.
ReplyDeleteChristine Noche
Per. 2
I agree that it most definitly costs a lot of money to run in a presidential campaign, but it does not neccesarily men that the one who spends the most money is going to win. In the most recent COTUS election Meg Whitman spent record highs in campaign spending in California but lost to former governor Jerry Brown. The obvious answer from this would be that generating the most cash for your campaign does not mean you have good electability. At the end of the day it is the voters who decide, not the money behind the campaign.
ReplyDeleteJoey Aliano
Period 2
No matter how ridiculous it sounds, Money plays a major role in American politics, especially presidential elections. It is incredible how presidential candidate's campaigns are spending millions of dollars JUST to get their name out among U.S. and its territories. Granted that it's understandable to want to be publisized and in turn have more chances of receiving popular vote, it's basically risen to an even larger standard of expenses, especially with President Obama placing $1 billion on the table. That particular feat in itself proves that he's either insane (no offense) or he REALLY wants to be re-elected. As much as many people dislike the idea of millions of dollars spent on presidential elections, it seems to be the most basic action that each presidential candidate must do to have higher chances of winning mainly becuase the increase in familiarity would help some if not most voters to use that recognition to pick the said candidate.
ReplyDelete~Bryan Quiambao
Period 3
I never realized just how much candidates spend on an election; now I know. I know ads cost a lot and for candidates to get their names and views out to millions, especially across a country as big as America, they are going to need to spend quite a bit of money. But just because one candidate has more money and ads than another, does that make them the best possible candidate? If a candidate has their name and face plastered everywhere for voters to see, mostly likely voters will vote for that candidate because of name recognition. I do think there should be some sort of limit on the amount a candidate can spend on an election because Obama's $1 billion is just outrageous.
ReplyDeleteHayley AW
Per. 3
The people of the United States are more involved in the process of choosing candidates for office rather than the people of Europe. This idea put with the fact that America is large also adds to the matter that candidates spend a lot more money campaigning here than in Europe. As for a limit on money, I don't think it is necessary. If the money is constitutionally raised, I see no reason to hinder the candidate's ability to spend it in order to raise awareness and popularity. If a ceiling is placed, the candidates will then be playing the "who can do more with less money" game. All it does is cause more stratification for the candidates to decide where, when, and who to spread the word to. If Obama wants to spend $1 Billion, let him do it. High risk high reward. If he wins, that money was put to use to make him one of the most powerful men on Earth. If not, $1 Billion just went down the drain for Mr. Former President.
ReplyDeleteKasim Manekia
Period 2
Well since we Republicans are extremely rich and are greedily keeping all the money from the poor, we should have no problem buying off and winning the election. ...Right?
ReplyDeleteLucas Richichi
p2
Honestly, it is incredible how much money these candidates put into elections. Especially if they win a primary and have to campaign again for the general election. I know each candidate has supporters and gets money from those people, but how much of their own money is being used for their campaign? In regards to money being apart of the political system...the person who has the most money usually can campaign and be presented the most, this could mean they would win the election...but what if the person with the most money wasn't the right "fit" for America, and a better candidate with less money who would be a better president losses as a result of not raising enough money. I think that's what will happen with this upcoming election. Maybe Obama isn't what America needs anymore but will win based on his 1 Billion dollar campaign.
ReplyDeleteAlfred Pina
Per 3
I believe money does have a place in campaigns to an extent but there should definitely be a set limit. The race for president shouldn’t be a pissing contest where we have candidates trying to outdo each other on the money front and only looking at their balances rather than the issues at hand and how they’ll assist the country. I personally believe there should be a set amount allotted that each candidate can spend just so one candidate can’t theoretically buy their way into office, plus if each candidate was allotted the same amount of funds they could spend I think it’d be a good testament to which candidate could do the most with their money and spend it where it counts.
ReplyDeleteJack M. Per 3
Money is and always has been a defining factor in the presidential race. Large volumes are necessary in order to finance a successful campaign. The European democracies are fundamentally different than ours. Their candidates require less capital to campaign, solely due to the size of the country. In our country, the one who can acquire the most money is quite frequently the victor. Personally, I do not believe that we should place any limits on the volume of money any candidate can receive. After all, is not a dollar donated a vote in and of itself?
ReplyDelete-Spencer Thompson
Period 2
Money talks, this is specially true for the American elections. This article has shown me just how much candidates spend in order to get your vote. The presidential campaign has strayed too far from what politics should be, the candidate's concern for the American people, to a candidate's focus on raising money. Now money is definitely not a deciding factor in elections but it sure is a big one. The great size of America makes it necessary for anyone, not just political candidates to voice their opinion across the nation. It is not the money to blame but the system the self. The candidate's pressure to get the most votes in the most states takes the focus off of swaying the public opinion from the candidate's political platform to the candidate's image and how good they look on the tv. The average American has little to no saw in what goes on financially because of how much the elections cost. This leaves the average American citizens sitting out on a political race that should focus on them the most.
ReplyDeleteRicardo Campos
Period 3
Money plays a huge role in our elections. I don't think there's really a way to divert from that path. Money is inevitable. Of course, money's role may seem to have overstepped its boundaries just a little bit, but there's not much we can do about it. I'm not saying that I agree with the huge role that money plays in our elections, but that money is needed to run successful campaigns; it's a fundamental part of our system.
ReplyDeleteLinda Lee P3
As much as we all agree that this much amount of money simply spent on advertising and campaigning is ridiculous, we have to accept the fact that the US is an extensive country with millions of different minded people and candidates must present themselves accordingly to all. Although I wish these millions of dollars could be spent elsewhere on situations much more crucial, it is inevitable. I do like, however, the fact that Europe has its 'Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000'. If there was a law to control everyone's advertisement spending, it might be fair. However, is it constitutional?
ReplyDeleteTiffany Hsu, P.2
DeleteMoney is crucial when it comes to running for president in this country. If you don't have sufficient funds you couldn't even become a nominee to begin with. Perhaps most important is airtime on television, when the news isn't enough you have to get your face out there with some good ads. Airtime is really expensive. The article makes it clear that one reason we spend tons of more money to campaign here in the US is simply because our country is enormous when compared to any European democracy. As a result we also have to reach a much wider public requiring more campaigning in different areas of our huge country, more than would ever be necessary in their smaller territories.
ReplyDeleteFacundo Sirri
Period 2
At first glance, many people are shocked by and scorn the amount spent on campaigns, especially if Obama says things like promising to spend one billion dollars on his. I don't think money wins someone an election. I think campaigning and fundraising is a good indicator of who America likes. To me, whoever has raised the most money seems to have the most support. Since government reforms have put limits on the sum of donations, just one person cannot donate an extremely large amount of money. Heavy advertising can be costly but I feel that they are somewhat worthwhile if they get the message to vote out. The elections cost so much due to the extensive campaigning candidates must perform in each state and then on a national level if they make it. I feel that the amount spent is nonsensical, however, there does not seem to be a simple fix for this. Drastic change is an option but seems impossible.
ReplyDelete-Kimi Kim, Period 3.
"Money makes the world go 'round"...or at least it works that way in America. Money is a huge driving factor in nearly everything we do. Even in something as simple as going to the park took someone HUGE amounts of money to preserve the land and keep it looking nice. So its no surprise that the people who want to run this country want to spend insane amounts of money just to tell us their name. Obama's proposal of 1billion dollars for his campaign fund is absolutely preposterous (Britain caps out at around $37,000). If he really wanted to earn votes, why doesn't he pocket that money until reelection with the hopes of raising that money to alleviate some of the national debt? Campaigning is not exactly a practical use of our money.
ReplyDelete--Lauren Griffin
p. 2
I don't believe that their should be a limit on how much a candidate can spend on a campaign just based on my ideology. However, morally it does irk me a bit, especially if it ends up being obvious that a candidate wins because he spent more money. I'm not really sure how it came to be this way that so much money is required. I just feel bad for all of those potential candidates who won't run or couldn't run because of the huge expense it is. Like I brought out in my last blog though, the one about the third parties, I think change is on the way.
ReplyDeleteIvana Bosch
Per 3
Money plays a major role in Presidential elections. To somebody who might not care much about politics, a candidate being advertised over and over again will probably grab their attention, causing a person to vote for them. Negative ads also play a role in the campaigning for presidency, because like the positive attention from a normal advertisement, a negative ad could create negative effects for those who don't really know the candidate well. It does concern me how much money is really being put into the elections, because in a way it's like the candidates are somewhat buying our votes with positive ads and their face plastered on billboards all over the country. Although America is MUCH larger than Europe, I do think we spend far too much on campaigns.
ReplyDeleteMarisa Sanchez
Period 3
Money, in my opinion, has a great effect on elections, and it shouldn't. Of course it takes money to campaign, but at this point in time, only the people with the most money in our country are eligible for running. There should be a cap on the amount of money one can spend while campaigning so the elections reroute to a system based on the quality of the nominee, not the amount of money he has.
ReplyDeleteTaySully p.2
The amount spent on campaigning is just ridiculous. We are suppose to be in a recession and our country is fourteen trillion dollars in debt. So the candidates are trying to raise money for themselves? If I were a donor, I wouldn't give anybody anything considering the time we are in.
ReplyDelete- jaylin Stevenson
Per. 2
The question is how much effect money actually has on elections. A study should be done on how television ads affect the outcome of moderate voters. Although candidates should have the right to invest as much money as they want into an election, these ads may have more influence than we think. If it turn out that this is the case, maybe some smaller regulations should be put in place to limit a candidate's investment relative to that of a poorer candidate.
ReplyDeleteKendall Mayfield
Period 2
Just as is the rule with life in general, I believe that more money can bring more recognition and opportunities. With candidates like Obama amassing $275 million in 2008 while candidates made do with less than $50 million a decade ago, we can tell that we're on our way towards a neverending cycle. With the competition intensifying, the presidential candidates will only try to gain more money to distance themselves from the rest of the candidates and achieve more recognition with the eventual goal of receiving more votes. Unfortunately, unless the government intervenes, this trend seems unlikely to stop just because of the power that money has in elections and the competitive nature of these candidates--it almost reminds me of the declining college acceptance rates! As time passes, students (candidates) work harder, building more impressive resumes (or gaining more money) and hiking down acceptance rates (or hiking up the "price" of running for president), and it'll only get worse.
ReplyDeleteI think it can be agreed upon that funding for a presidential campaign in the U.S. is far more costly in comparison to Europe simply because of the size. The U.S. is much larger therefore campaigning becomes more expensive in order to assure a candidate can reach all states in order to gain popularity in votes. It is ridiculous that campaigning has continuously become more costly, because at this rate the race will no longer derive of who can run America the best, but rather who can buy the peoples' vote more. Furthermore, candidates who can raise more for their campaign single out third parties who are not as able to fund their campaigns. A reasonable limit should definitely be set on campaigning this way it evens out the field for all candidates, and not become the primary source of political information come election time.
ReplyDelete-Pattie B. Per. 2
ABSENT!
ReplyDeletewell i would say that i'm not too surprised that each candidate is or has been spending tons & tons of money for campaigning. but what shocked me the most was that Obama was planning on spending a billion dollars! i don't think we realize how much that truly is. after all, just a short 12 years ago Bush had only spent 95.5 million, which is no where close to what Obama has in mind. i think there should be something we can do about this, because at this rate, who knows what 20 years from now is going to be like, because if we keep this trend, we may reach 50 billion or so before you know it, & by that time, would there e any real competition at all? or will our government be biased on who can raise the most money, to spend it persuading the voters, & telling them everything, exactly the way they want to hear it?
priscilla mewborne
p.3
The best person for the job is not always the one with the most money. Campaigns should not be driven by how much money each a candidate can throw at tv viewers. This is however how campaigns are in this age. I do not blame the politicians though. I blame the constituents who are not invested enough in their elections to seek out the facts and are easily swayed are the cause of all this financial warfare. If pouring money into tv ads focused on mudslinging wasn't an effective way to win a campaign, people would stop paying for them, but as it stands, you can win an election that way.
ReplyDelete