You can't separate money from elections. It should come as no surprise that the candidate who raises the most money almost always wins the election. But is this the way it should be? Read below to see how money influences election, and let us know if something should be done about it.
Will money buy the White House?
i don't think this is the way it should be om money influencing elections , its basically the winner may not have to be qualified, but can raise the most money. candidates and their supporters, the PAC are giving hundreds of millions of dollar into the U.S house and senate to strengthen their point of views, and to protect their special interest. although it said in the article,"money may not be the only reason,but if history is any indication, whichever candidate raises more of it will likely be our next president", this is just corrupting influence of all this money,
ReplyDeletelukas
napitupulu
period:2
Money does influence elections A LOT. Though that article was biased to supporting Romney. i believe that money plays a major part in winning an election. Without money the elections would be longer and they wouldn't be able to get their word out into the world without it. Yes, it is wrong to use tax payers dollars to spend it on elections. but that makes sure the President pays back the citizens of the U.S. by helping them the best he can. Money is needed in elections to win. Period.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Roney
Period 5
Money influences elections. If one were to attempt to contradict this, they would be insane and ignorant to what is going on in our political system. The more money a candidate raises, the more he or she can campaign, the more he or she can get their name out there, and the more he or she can get their name into the minds of voters. I believe that the main impact money has on elections is that the candidate who is able to raise the most money is the candidate that wins the most votes of the citizens who are unstable with their political beliefs and can be easily convinced to believe some of the fallacious arguments that candidates present in their media ads, and in their non-debate speeches that aim to make them seem like the better candidate for the "better good of America". Although there are people out there that feel as though money should not be a deciding factor in crowning of the new American president, but it is simply impossible to remove it as a factor without coming off as tyrannical. Denying candidates from accepting any donations at all is not only constitutional, but it would also result in a country that knows nothing about both of the candidates, as they would have little way to publicize their ideas. I think that the system at hand of controlling the funds and donations with the candidates that America has established is the best this country will get without causing millions to complain and without the national government being accurately named tyrannical.
ReplyDeleteBrock Nelson
Period Dos
In my opinion, something should be done to ensure that the winner in presidential elections is choosen based only on "character traits"(as described in Chapter 8 of the textbook) rather than having money aid the candidates in the election. Just the fact that money helps candidates win an election makes me feel like we live in a world run by the wealthy. Say, for example, a man from a normal middle class family decides to run for president, his opponent being Romney. The average middle class man wouldn't stand a chance because in our world, money has a bigger voice than the people. However, if reguations were placed on the amount of money that a candidate could spend (the federal governement can create a set amount that each candidate can use as they please, as long as they don't exceed the set amount) then perhaps money's role in elections would decrease.
ReplyDeletePyper Brown
p.5
Money is essential to campaign. It is a sad fact that without money, a candidate has little chance of winning, since he would have to be dependent on the public to contribute money. However, FECA can continue to regulate campaign contributions. If this was not in place, campaigning would be out of control. Right now, campaigns strategies are to use as much money as possible and we know that this does not guarantee that candidate the winner. There needs to be strict laws so that money is not spent excessively yet not so strict that the public is now left with candidates with money already in their pockets, meaning they don't need public aid and this may look bad if the public thinks the candidate is of high standards.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Farelas
Period 5
The influence of money is great within elections. The thing is money is essential in order for a candidate to win. I now is seems kind of corrupt but with is need for both the candidates and the people. The more money that a candidate can raise the more he or she can campaign for. With this it gives the people a more understanding of the candidates and gives the people an idea of who to vote for. Usually the candidate that earns more money gets more votes because they are so popular. The media tends to magnify the person that has the most money and kind of hinders the one that has less. Now with money it can be regulated just like what the FECA is doing. Manly everything evolves around money you cant do anything with out it. To me it does not really matter that they use money it just matters how they use it.
ReplyDeleteVictor Vera
Per. 2
I believe that the way we have presidential elections now is not ethically correct. The candidate who raises the most money shouldn't be the one who gets elected. Just because they raise the most money, it doesn't mean that they are the one who's best qualified for the job; it only means that they have wealthier sponsors/supporters. The government should put a limit on how much both candidates can spend; so the voters can focus more on the candidates' political views and beliefs and what they have planned for us.
ReplyDeleteThere should also be a limit on how much PACs can give to a candidate. Because if a PAC donates $1 mil., just like what the article said, then the candidate would focus some of his attention to what the PAC wants, instead of trying to appeal to what the voters want. So I believe that there needs to be more government regulation when it comes to Presidential Elections because we'd rather have a candidate who's best qualified to run our country, rather than the wealthier but unprepared candidate.
Jonel Celestino
Per. 2
Although many factors influence elections, money is definitely a prominent one. The more money a candidate raises, the more he or she can campaign, the more he or she can publicize their name, the more he or she can get influence their name to voters.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the main impact money has on elections is that the candidate who is able to raise the most money is the candidate that wins the most support from their citizens because of,for example,the private donors supporting the candidate and his/her policies. Therefore earning more money can display more of a concurred public opinion because of the proof that citizens want the candidate they donated to, to win.
The media tends to pinpoint on the person with the most money and delay the one that has less. I believe money should be regulated –FECA’s job- but I believe it is fine that money is a prominent control in the elections. In my opinion, the use of more or less money is important because I believe money is essential in order for a candidate to win. The more money that a candidate can raise the more he or she can campaign for therefore giving the people a more understanding of the candidates and information on who to vote for.
Natasha Wasim
Period 5
Money has always been a part of the election system and will continue to be as long as there is money. It helps candidates to make their names a part of each and every household and advertise why they should be president and why their challenger should not be (mainly why not). Although there has been some outside influence into elections because of who is donating to which candidate, it is the FEC's role to make sure that there is at least somewhat of an even playing field when it comes to finances, like the limiting of funds that can be given by a person or group to a candidate. The idea that becoming president is based on how much money you have is not completely true. This was perfectly demonstrated by Howard Dean who was supposed to be a major candidate for president and had the finances himself to do so, but his lack of a "presidential" character cost him that spot. Now I am not saying that money is completely useless in a presidential election, but what I am saying is that what is the point in having that much money if no one wants you to be president because of a lack of knowledge, experience, character, etc. Why get a horse with gold horseshoes for a race if it can't even run?
ReplyDeleteYoussef Aref
Period 3
While it seems nicer to have a candidate win solely on their personal traits and ambitions to govern the country, money is just an essential part of the election and it does and will continue to influence election politics. Because of its deeply-ingrained position in election politics, it would be hard to get rid of it completely. The good news is that campaign finance reform is not foreign to us as we have done it before to regulate. While a clear-cut solution is hard to find, it is comforting to know that reform would be desired from many people.
ReplyDeleteDavid Calvillo
Per. 3
Money will always be an essential part of elections whether we try to change it or not. There is nothing wrong if the one that raises the most money will most likely win the election because a lot of that money comes from individual donors. In my opinion, if a canidate is raising more money than the other then people really want the former to win; so it really depends on the people and who they want to win. Also, FECA regulates on the money received by the running canidates so this is not a big issue.
ReplyDeleteAlejandra Sanchez
Period 5
Good Evening:
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear news about the grotesque amounts of money spent by both candidates, I am utterly appalled. While I may support President Obama, I am disgusted by the the mere thought that he has pledged to spend up to a billion dollars; this is sheer irresponsibility that the American government lets this happen. We are currently in a financial crisis, yet this election has resulted in record breaking spending,a true shame.
As outraged as I am, I can not be naive. Campaigning is not free, winning primaries is not free, and getting time on public media is most certainly not free. A candidates needs enormous funds to fuel such a complex machine. It is a terrible realty that "money makes the world go round", alas we must keep moving forward.
Finally, there is little hope in a radical upheaval of this system. It is quite obvious that neither party will accept campaign fiance reforms easily. For example, the reason why both candidates rejected federal campaign grants was to avoid spending limits. It is quite simple, neither party wishes to be at a financial disadvantage to the opposing party. Under these circumstances it seems highly unlikely that change will come, money will continue to be a key factor in deciding elections; however we, as a people can take solace in the fact that money is not the main influence in elections.
Signed: An Enlightened Mind
Diego Carvajal
Period 3
Money, like everyone else on this blog said, is essential to campaigning. I do see how this can be problematic, with politicians’ best interest being raising more money in order to stay competitive in a political race, so they will tailor their promises to the private interest groups to get their money. And then once in office, they will have to make policies that favor the private interest groups that gave them the money, rather than policies that will help the overall public. This is the very essence of political corruption. However, with that being said, I do not think that we should change the system because I cannot see any fair changes that would not restrict the personal liberties of a candidate. Candidates need money to reach audiences across the nation to urge them to vote for them. If we restrict the money that candidates can use, then we would be restricting a candidate’s right to spread their ideologies to as many people as they want. The same way we cannot restrict how much money a person makes, we cannot restrict how much money a candidate can raise and spend.
ReplyDeleteSuraj Patel
P.3
I believe that no matter what as long as money is around it will be required in presidential elections. However I believe that money in these presidential elections have been taken way to much to the extremes where it's lead to super packs and the candidates not taking the federal taxes money just so they don't have to be limited. Statistically yes the more money then the other person more likely you are to win but I believe the FEC needs to regulate stricter so it's not all about money. and some of those other characteristics like charisma and social skills can be more important.
ReplyDeleteDavid Rosas per.3
Presently with our mass media and large population, if a candidate wishes to be elected president, money is essential. I don't believe this factor will change anytime soon, based on how our society is run. It's obvious that the most wealthy men are recognized and associated with power as opposed to those without money. Nevertheless, I disagree that this is the way it should be. I believe the person who will best serve the people of their party should be elected, but presently this feat is not easily defined or acchomiplished.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the best way to please everyone in one's party? There isn't a way, and this is why candiates feel the need to spend so much money to secure the election because they are attempting to make up for what they lack in overall representation of their party.
Michael Vandie
Period 3
Although I hate to say it, money is necessary for the election of a presidential candidate. The general election should not be based upon this, but this cycle has appeared throughout history nonetheless. I believe that being an effective speaker, having great character, and even better policies is the way to be elected. Or at least it should be. The two major parties should receive equal funding, making the presidential race much more fair and simply based on which candidate gives the people what they want. Although this is what would be fair, it will never happen. Money has, and always will, dominate the results of a presidential election. Whoever raises the most has a higher chance of being elected than those who do not. This cannot be fixed because people are so used to the system that they will always reject a change, even if it is better in the long term. The truth is (in the matter of presidential elections), money does buy happiness. Or in this case, money buys the privilege of serving as our President of the United State for a four year term.
ReplyDeleteJustin Avery
Period 5
I agree that money is a powerful influence among elections and who wins. Money is the easiest way to be recognized and become familiar. That is why I believe the most money should be used in the primaries and not in the general election. Candidates in the primaries need money to reach the general election, especially if they are unknown or not known well enough to the people. However, I think more limits need to be set on money and how it is used in the general election. It is sad that candidates refuse to accept money from the government because of spending limits. Why is so much money needed when two main candidates are so well known and they get much media attention just from the news? Restrictions should be in place for commercials, especially negative ads. If candidates are going to spend so much money on campaigning, then it should be beneficial to that candidate, not detrimental to the other because it only makes Americans lose more trust with the separation of the government.
ReplyDeleteGabrielle Rodriguez
p.3
Money has always been part of elections and always will. The point of having the most money in the election is to help get a canidates message out more. This helps the peope know what the canidate stands for and to know his views. The amount of spending will continue to grow when it comes to elections, and canidates will not take the federal campaign grants. It limits their spending and nither canidate will do. The role of money will help win an election, but that doesnt always mean that the canidate with the most money will win. The way to fix the problem comes down to the voters. They need to wake up and look more into a canidates background and really research who the canidate is and to gain more knowledge of what the canidate stands for, Even then I think that asks for alot.
ReplyDeleteMichael Becerra
Period 3
Our current way is not the way it should be. Money is essential to elections to advertise and make the candidate known. Because of this system, an ethically moral candidate who may not have as much money as the other candidates would not stand a chance at winning the election. It's kind of messed up how money is one of the largest factors that determines who wins the presidency. Money is primarily the determining factor, but is it necessary to use all that money? Realistically, that money can be put to use for other important matters to improve the country. I know money will never cease to be an important part of elections, but there should be restrictions put on how much to spend. These restrictions would force voters to focus on who these candidates actually are, instead of on all the advertising.
ReplyDeleteEmeline Lee
Period 5
As the author has stated, money is indeed the indicator of who is to win an election historically. Although it is virtually impossible to change this fact, I agree with others who have said that there should be equal limits placed on the amount of money a candidate can use for his campaign. As it is, candidates reject federal campaign grants because they are given limits, but if both candidates’ expenses were to be limited to the same amount, it becomes fair game – no one candidate is held at a disadvantage than the other. I think this approach would produce truer results in the election, and would put the public’s focus on the candidate himself, rather than his means of campaigning. It is unfortunate to see politicians pledging millions upon millions of dollars just to secure their place in office when that money can be spent on actual issues that still face America. This, paired with the fact that because some candidates seek funds from private donors and companies, they then become obligated to meet their demands when in office, is enough to explain the rising distrust in elected officials. So while it remains accurate that one can buy his way into the White House, money should not be the sole reason as to why one holds his place in office.
ReplyDeleteTrina Ho
Period 3
I think it is sad that money plays such a huge part of campaigns. That makes it impossible for anyone that is not wealthy to run, even though the majority of our country is not wealthy. Also, the candidate receives money from private interests groups and may try to make policies that please these groups rather than the general public. Although this situation is unfortunate I do not think it is right to regulate the amount of money a campaign can use. The candidates should be allowed to use any advantages they have, even if that is more money.
ReplyDeleteMegan Elder
Period 5
An effort should be made to more stringently regulate campaign financing, to create a more fair system. As it exists currently, the campaign financing system is not strict enough against candidates who have donors that make a larger amount of money. One solution could be to put a cap on the amount total that can be donated to a candidate, then both candidates could campaign with an even amount of money, making their chances even. I think this is a greater problem in House and Senate elections, and the newer regulations already make the playing field slightly more level for presidential candidates. A greater focus should be put on House and Senate elections, so the people understand how fundraising manipulates those elections to a higher degree, and motivates them to pursue more regulation.
ReplyDeleteChris Cole
Period 5
Hmmm! It seems to be true, the candidate who raises the most money almost always win the election. However, that is not how it should be, but it seems to happen that way most of the time. Winning an election should be based on the candidate’s beliefs and how they can connect with the people, not how much money they can raise. The way our political system is designed money is essential to the campaign and therefore is a necessary evil is in the process of electing candidates. In fundraising, as is in every situation where money is involved there is greed. Politics feed on greedy attitudes of every single member in each party, faction, and even the candidates for the presidency. The Presidential candidates seem to spend more time on raising campaign donations than they do addressing the issues that concern the voters. In fact, the candidates really do not need to raise an excessive amount of money, just enough to fund their campaign. The whole thing is that the candidate who raises the most money almost always wins the election should NOT be the case. The candidate who has the best ideas should win because of the change they can bring.
ReplyDeleteRyan Weiner
Period 2
I don't think one can buy their way into the white house by gathering up more money than there opponent for their campaigns. The all might flawed electoral college gets that pleasure. However because the electoral college derives it's results from the will of the people there is a way this money plays in. The states that are already strongly loyal to parties don't count into this (California, Texas, etc.), but for states that can go either way, that money goes into campaigning for them. Speeches, local campaigning, and most importantly commercials are payed for with this money. These things play to win votes for them that's obvious but their is two underlying factors that scare me. The voters who have no idea about the politics of these nominees can be swayed to one side because of a flashy speech that touches no issues or a commercial that is extremely biased to lure in voters, this isn't a big reason since most uneducated voters don't vote anyway, but it can still swing people and it is worrisome. The second is the possibility of these donors of the money pulling the strings of the nominee. Looking at the donations to Romney and Obama you'll notice that almost 100% of Romney's big donors are banks. It isn't to say that Romney is going to make it easier for banks if he wins and in turn harder for us. So to some it all up I think that donations should be more regulated and that voter's be more educated about their votes.
ReplyDelete-Tyler Barragan
per.5
I think every American that is up-to-date with the political election process can agree that more money used and raised in an election is what defines the winner. This unethical assumption is not a healthy way for ur nation to go about electing our president. Different forms of communication to the public such as television, signs, fundraisers and more can only be beneficial if enough money is put towards that. However, this is not how our elections revolve. More importantly, the swing states are more healvily publicized to by the candidates because of their strong contribution to the election. In our history, it has shown that in all but 2 elections, the candidate that raises the most money is assured to win. With such a long history of this occuring, it will be hard to stop it. Money is one of the biggest contributions to an election either congressional or presidential. Hopefully one day this issue will be leveled out to make the playing field balanced.
ReplyDeleteTarissa Mellin
P. 3
Although we like to think that a candidate wins an election based on his personality and leadership, but we have to take into account that he probably raised the most money for his campagin. In todays times it is important more than ever to expand your voice to the widest audience, which in this case happens to be airtime on t.v. To do this, you need money in the form of contributions. It is simply a fact that we are going to have to get used to. However, most of the major contributions come from corporations, such as Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. Or more recently from Super PACS which give large sums of money to a candidate and is usually exchanged with political favors when he reaches office, which is NOT ok by any means. These Super PACS need to be dealt with and money for candidates should only come for private donations that adhere to the campaign finance laws put in place. If this were to happen we would see a much cleaner system of campaign financing.
ReplyDeleteEthan Temkin
P.3
It is already understood that money can put you in a position to win the presidential election, but the amount of money necessary is way more than one person may have percieved. Although limits exist pertaining to donors and PAC's, these nominees are able to collect a huge amount of money over time and spend most of this money so that they can win over the seat in the white house. I believe there is no way in our time period today to have an election where money isn't spent in large sums like the way it is today. It is citizens of the United States that are donating this money,making a personal decision in which they know the purpose of their donation. Unless nominees go around the laws pertaining to Election funding, then the nominee who attains and spends the most money will have a higher chance of winning the election. This chance is given by the voters, who are willing to donate this money.
ReplyDeleteTarek Gouda
P.3
In regards to money, presidential elections definitely parallel to society. America inevitably recognizes, and sometimes favors, the wealthiest competitor. It seems to me that money almost enables survival of the fittest-especially in political matters. It shouldn't be a surprise that history shows the winning candidate being the wealthiest, because this is not a coincidence. This article inspires a lot of "presidential elections SHOULD..." and "money SHOULD (not)..." but ultimately, I believe that money will continue to prevail as a huge aspect in political campaigns and elections, regardless of whether or not the common person deems it as ethical or unethical. Furthermore, this isn't Europe where the party pays for the campaign. Ultimately, American candidates are responsible for their campaign and will spend as they please in order to appear as the better nominee.
ReplyDeleteLacey Bourassa
Period 2
When running as a presidential candidate, I do believe that money is an essential tool to have. Money is what pays for TV ads and debates. It also pays for the traveling the candidate must do to make speeches in front of all the people they can. This being said, if one candidate slightly outspends another, I do not think it will sway the vote too much. A lot has to do with who is involved in which party. Most people vote for whoever is affiliated with their personal party. Both candidates of the major parties are shown on TV and people know of them. Maybe this is why third parties never win the election. They do no raise, nor spend near as much as the major parties do. No matter who spends what, the democratic states still vote democratic and the republican states still vote republican. What is said on these TV ads and debates is what gets the voters to vote for a certain person.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Simonds
Period 3
After reading this article, and understanding the vast amounts of money that are put into elections, most people would say that this is an appalling situation. But who is it appalling to? The two major parties? The candidates? Certainly not, if Obama is deliberately trying to spend more than $1 billion, and both candidates are refusing to accept the presidential public financing so that they can spend however much they want. Therefore, it is the citizens, and the voters who are most appalled at this situation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, citizens are the ones who vote for their president. If it is up to anyone to change this system, then citizens should make more informed decisions of whom they want their president to be. It's true that candidates with more money can campaign more and get their name out, but we can be more actively involved in the presidential process than being brainwashed by the media to spout the same name back on the ballot that we've been hearing for months. We can see that money is a big part of elections, but we don't have to do what the money tells us to. Regulating campaign finance is difficult, as candidates will always try to find loopholes. What if there was a way to get unbiased information on the two candidates to the public? Then perhaps this would reduce the effect of money on influencing voters' decisions.
Samantha Wang
Period 3
It is interesting to see that the candidate with the most amount of money is usually the winner of the election--yet, was it unexpected? Honestly, I feel that truly determining who the winner will be is to see how many zeros and commas are in his spendings for the election. Pertaining back to history and international affairs, one can easily see that politics is a rich man's game. Yes, it is corruption being played at its finest--but there is no way to talk about politics and not at least mention money. As one commenter suggested, money shouldn't be the only reason that puts you into the White House. Another commenter suggested that if money is all that is leading the candidate, then it is nearly impossible to have a non-wealthy man be another candidate--which is basically a majority of the United States. These points truly reflect the cracks in the system: how money is essential to the presidency and how under-represented the rest of America is.I feel that if money was truly never involved, perhaps some true colors would be revealed and some issues would be prevented before they even reveal themselves.
ReplyDelete-Sarah P.
Period 3
While the candidate who wins the election SHOULD be the person who will do the most for out country, money will always be a top factor in who wins. It pays for TV Ads, debates, travel, and whoever can get their word out to more people will more than likely have a greater advantage over an opponent who does not spend as much promoting his or herself. Money will continue to be one of the most important factors in the campaign process; candidates are willing to spend the money to make themselves look favorable. While I agree with Diego, and believe that the amount of money spent in an election is ridiculous, in the end it does benefit the winning party.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Page, Per. 5
It is definitely true that the more money a candidate has the more likely they will be to win; yet if they raise that money and they have the most money due to the fact that they raised it shouldn't it mean that overall the American people support him the most? Therefore the person with the most money should win the election. On the other hand the amount of money spent is ridiculous and there should be a limit on that, it could give wealthy candidates an unfair advantage
ReplyDeleteSorry it's Walter Niederer period 5
DeleteI do not doubt that money plays a key role in our elections; however, i do think that it should be more regulated and controlled. The fact that the victor of these elections are usually the one who raises and spends the most money leads me to believe that campaign finances should be more controlled. A candidate should not win just because he/she spends the most money, they should be elected based off their plans to make our country stronger and based off their ability to be an effective representative by doing whats best for our nation. Also, i think that with the generous dontaions of some, comes a more favorable outlook towards these donors.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, dontaing money to a candidate may be one way for the people to participate in government, i belive that it is also a bit unethical.
I do not think money should define who wins the elections and i do think the government should take a few steps to regulate it just a tad more.
Danielle Quijada
Period 2
Money is important in elections, but not as important as public opinion. Money can not buy opinion nowadays (If you were a Roman General with lots of cash, you can buy the public opinion back in the late Republican days of Rome). Money can buy advertisements to influence public opinion, but of course it depends on the quality of the commercials. As the article stated, usually the candidate with the most money wins. But there has been time where presidents such as Reagan and Clinton, being also mentioned in the article, of winning without spending a large amount of money. But there are candidates who can spend a lot of money and make quality commercials to make people side with them as well. So the question of getting elected is not a matter of who has more money, it is rather who spends their money best. Whoever spends their money in the best fashion will most likely win unless people are as hard as Theodosian walls when they choose their candidate. But of course if you ram enough commercials into someone's head, they might vote for you. But there are some many other reasons that money is so important that it can make your head spin. So the candidate who spends their money in the wisest matter is most likely to win.
ReplyDeleteJoshua West
Period 2
Before I even comment on this article, I want to say that I think the amount of money spend on campaigning is nothing short of insane. 800 million+ is a boatload-and-a-half of money, and to me is just another testament of our government's extremely overboard spending. Now on to the article , it makes sense to me that the candidate who spends the most on campaigns wins considering they get more time in commercials, on the radio, and having their name spread through the public in general. However, I really don't think this encourages the president to reflect public opinion as well as if, for example, each candidate was allotted the same amount of money to be spend as the other. This would allow for a reduction in the massive spending on campaigns and would also encourage the undecided public to look more at policy of each candidate rather than who's name they see more often.
ReplyDeleteMichael Worland
Period 5
I definitely think that they way money is involved in elections should be reformed. As I said in class, it is unfair to "deny" (although it's not technically that) someone a fair chance in the race for president just because they do not have the proper funds. What I am saying is that some poor person in the United States might have all the answers to our economical and social problems, yet due to his financial state, it makes it harder for him to become a candidate let alone the president. The finances put into the election should be more controlled into balancing it among the people running. Just because you have the deepest pockets does not mean you should be guaranteed presidency. Donations should still be allowed, but regulated. In that case, money should not be removed entirely from elections, but have more regulation and control over where and how it's being used.
ReplyDeleteAlex Padden
Per. 3
Money is an essential to winning an election. Having more money leads to a larger way of publicizing the candidate. And ultimately because of history has contributed highly to the outcome of an election. The donations that are given cant not be turned down. Its another way for people to show their support for their candidate. However, I do believe that there should some regulation for it. Maybe have a maximum amount of money that can be generated for an election. After meeting the standards, they should be turn down or maybe accepted and given to public projects such as the poor or some other organization. If people are willing to help their candidate win, why arent they willing to help their own people? Overall, I just believe that money should not influence who will win in an election.
ReplyDeleteej aquino
period 2
I agree that money plays an important role in campaigning but I think it should be reformed. The candidate who usually wins elections is the one who raised the most money, when I think it should be the one who most of the people agree with that candidates future plans. I don’t think that much money is actually needed for campaigning, it can be used for several other things that can improve the U.S. The use of money for campaigning should be reformed and I think it should have a limit in how much each candidate can spend when campaigning.
ReplyDeleteAlison Castaneda
P.5
In America, with money comes power, and that is exactly why these candidates need so much of it.They need the power to be able to influence voters. Being a good leader with widely accepted morals can only go so far, if a candidate has no means of letting the country know who he is. Especially in such a close election, both Romney and Obama have good reason to want to spend millions, maybe even a billion. People will never stop wanting to give money to candidates, and to deny them would be unconstitutional. Some may say that it is unfair for the candidate with the less money to lose but the reality is, candidates NEED the money to get themselves out there to be able to persuade people. There is no other way to go about it. Having said this, there will be a great multitude of spending, and maybe even more in the future, for both candidates, to try to win election.
ReplyDeleteAndrea Chua
Period 2
Firstly, Wow that article was repetitive
ReplyDeleteSecond, I do not think that this is the way that out political system should run. Ronald Reagan is an example of this, he raised substantially less than Jimmy Carter but won because of his personality, political name, and yes unpopularity of Carter as well. I don't think that this should be the way the political system should work, you shouldn't be able to buy your way into the White house, just like you shouldn't be able to by your way into a school. Do both happen? Yes. Should they? What do you think? I think we should have an election system with a set amount of dollars that the candidates may spend, and all, even third parties, should get the same amount. Furthermore I think we should also keep the government's "free political money" with the $250 limit etc. to entice the candidates to inspire the voters to rally to their cause. And lets face it, Obama's pledge to spend $1 billion on a single election is just plain stupid, and incredibly stupid during a recession. For that much money why not just put a hit on Romney and anyone else that tries to run against you.
Ryan Sidhu
Period: 3
I think we can all agree money is a major part in elections, candidates with the most money are able to influence voters through tv, debates, and can easily spread their veiws. The more money a candidate has or raises, the more publicity the candidate gets resulting in more votes. When a candidate receives so many donations, that means that he or she has a lot of support from americans and should win the election. However, this could lead to some corruption, if a PAC gives to much money to a candidate and tries to influence the candidate to do things to benefit the PAC. This is where the government should regulate how much a PAC can donate.
ReplyDeleteMia Redmond
per 2
money is definitely the most important factor when running for president. if you don't have millions? forget it. if you have the best ideas and reforms in the world but don't have tons of money? forget that one too. don't you think our president should be decided because of his reforms, his character, his persona? because even if someone has all of the above but doesn't have money, we will never even know their name. money is everything in this society. and my guess is that it always will be.
ReplyDeletekymberly conrad
period 3
The influence money has on elections is unbalanced and unfair. Stronger regulation of the sources of campaign donations and the amount would be ideal, but the odds of that happening are unknown. The statistics show that money curves an election in the majority of cases, and that should provide enough evidence for the regulation of campaign donations. One possible solution would be for the candidates to fundraise independently, but this would be unfair for the candidate with the lesser amount of personal wealth. If stronger regulations were in place, the campaign would be less of a race of who can gain more money, and more of what it is supposed to be-a presidential race. Also, the money spent by PACS could be allocated to more useful places with more regulation.
ReplyDeleteArya C.
Period 3
I have to admit that I don't think its right that the candidate who raises the most money tends to be the person that wins, but without the money they wouldn't be able to publicize themselves effectively and it would leave a lot of Americans in the dark about political affairs. Sure in a perfect world we would want someone with the best ideas and intentions for the country and the people to be in charge, whether or not they have money, but without that cash we will never know who that person is unless they have the money to show themselves. So the best thing we can do as Americans is choose the best rich guy to be in charge since it would be too hard to find just the best person for the job becuase they probably aren't loaded. Even though money seems to be to big of a contributing factor in winning elections, there's no other real choice that makes sense and is actually possible, so in the end it's the best we can do and it's not that bad.
ReplyDeleteVictor Perez
period 3
I quickly read through the majority of the posts before mine and failed to see anyone that shared my opinion. Yes, the person who raises the most money typically wins the presidency (or in the case of the House, wins 97% of the time)-but let's look at the presidency for now. Having the most money does not necessarily mean that a candidate is being "bought out" by some shady special interests. What it does mean is that they were able to drum up more support than their opponent; and what is a presidential candidate without support? Money is almost a secondary aspect of the race. It comes along with support. Certainly, money helps to foster more support, but without those in favor of the candidate, that money wouldn't exist in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the current amount being spent in elections is ludicrous. There should be some limit on the expenditures. Money that could have been donated to nonprofit organizations is being "wasted" on elections. If both parties had equal limits, then they would have an equal chance of beating the other through monetary means. The rest would come through the strength of their ideals.
Jess Renteria
Period 2
It is undeniable that money has and always will play an integral role in our country's elections, both presidential and congressional. However, the amount of money spent and the rate at which campaign spending is increasing is alarming to say the least. As others have mentioned, it is impossible to take money out of the campaign process entirely, as money is the means by which candidates are able to get their messages out to the American public. However, our system needs to be fixed so that the election results are not skewed in favor of the candidate who has the ability to raise the most funds. Super PACs and other special interest groups are currently given too much control over what is aired in the media, as the article demonstrates by emphasizing the significance of "interest ads". The worst part about this current system is that it is extremely difficult for government to regulate how much the Super PACs donate to candidates because they are not obligated to disclose their donors' identities. There has to be a better way to regulate campaign donor activity, as the FECA did in the early 1970s. I believe that attempts to reform campaign spending with public funding and the FEC were effective at the time, but now new legislation must be passed in order to make our elections more fair and lessen the overbearing role that money plays in them. While it may be difficult to regulate how much candidates can spend on their campaigns, it is far from impossible. It is necessary to pass reforms in order to preserve our democratic system of elections and not allow it to be dominated by special interest groups, wealthy individuals and powerful corporations.
ReplyDeleteSarah Gissinger
Period 2
Money plays a major role in the campaign of politicians but it doesn't make it wrong. Those who are able to raise the most money can also be seen as the best leaders because they're able to convince individuals to part with their hard earned money and place both it and their confidence in one person. So money does play a part in the election in that it gives the candidates more spending power, and raises their ability to campaign and reach more people. As for the question what to do with it, there is nothing to do because there is no problem.
ReplyDeleteKeane Lao
Period 2
Yes they do need the money to be able to campaign and get there ideas out but just because they have a lot of money doesn't mean that they'll have the best ideas and will be likeable. The money isn't going to force people to go out and vote for them. It's just going to let people know who they are and what their plans are.
ReplyDeleteLesley Ramirez per.3
I believe that money is an important factor in deciding who our next president will be. Historically the candidate who raises more money has turned out to become our president completely overlooking whether he is qualified or not. Regulations and laws should be placed to control the amount of money a candidate is allowed to spend because most of the money raised comes from millionaires looking for a candidate who will best protect that minority.
ReplyDeleteValente Rodriguez
Per. 3
ReplyDeleteIt is kind of sick how much of an importance money is to presidential campaigns. Basing an election off the amount of money one has doesn’t allow the non wealthy have a chance to even run. I think the stress on money in an election is out of proportion to where they don’t even take the taxes only because they do not want to be restricted to how much money they can use. I think it is right to regulate the amount of money used in campaigns. Some of the runners are at a higher advantage than others.
Priya Patel
Period 3
I don't think money should be an influencing factor in the race but it really is. Not because it makes people realize anything, but if they are spending more then people see more of the candidate. I do not think the candidates should have a limit of what they can spend. if they can get enough people to donate their own money that is on them. Yes that does bring third parties down even more, but for running for anything it is survival of the fittest. Money in a race is not bad and I think it's just the candidates trying to put their name out into the nation.
ReplyDeleteLily Berzunza
Period 2
No matter what money will always present a huge role in elections. However it should not be that the person spending the most money wins. The money only ensures that a candidate's message gets to the public but does not give a guartuntee any votes to the candidate except for maybe the few individual doners who give quite a huge amount of money to the candidate. I believe that money should not have a direct correlation to who wins the presidency.
ReplyDeleteMadeline Williams
Period 2
Money is a major part of how candidates get their name out to the people. They can spread their campaign through commercials, and can influence people to agree with their views. But i personally believe that candidates use too much money for their campaign. Shouldn't we go back to our roots and vote for whoever has the best political interest for the people, rather than his/her presidential campaign. We shouldn't take away all their spending, but regulate it more so we can spend less.
ReplyDeleteJustin Fonbuena
Period 5
Will the money buy the White House? I don't think this is absolutely right. Most likely, the candidate who got the most fund raise would win the election. But right now, some of the information showed that the laws are not that tight anymore. Some funds from non profit organizations and super PACs are not clear on where the money comes from. That means some of these funds can not be recognized by people. Based on this information, the candidate who got the most fund raise won't be the one who will one hundred percent to win the election. Still, the person who gets more money will have more percentage to win; but it doesn't show how many people support him by the amount of money raised, because you don't know the reasons in details which cause the system became complicate nowadays.
ReplyDeleteApple Huo
Per 5th
In an ideal world, candidates would be able to spread their ideology with ease as citizens would want to know the stances of their future commander-in-chief and candidates would only be concerned about the true issues of this country. As this isn't an ideal world, candidates must cater to those with the money to allow them to have the means to reach the voters. It seems easy to say that reform isn't necessary when we don't see the full effects of this expansive increase in campaign spending. But for those living in swing states such as Florida, I'm sure they wouldn't think the same. Although I do not think that there will ever be a return to the restricted spending amounts seen in pre-2000 elections, there should be some kind of regulation on how much is allowed. Times change, so the type of regulation on campaign fundraising needs to change. THe presidential public funding program has become outdated and quite possibly needs to redone. It is irrational to spend millions of dollars, essentially a billion dollars between the two candidates to, in the end, have one become president and the other return to life as it was before campaign season. Unless this is checked now, it will only get worse in upcoming elections and soar to unprecedented heights. Spending money isn't necessarily a bad thing, but on the scale that is the norm today, it is simply too much for the American people.
ReplyDeleteMichael Hidayat
Period 2
Unfortunately money is a big deciding factor in presidential elections. This should not be the case, I think that both candidates should have equal amounts of money, this way the candidate who wins is chosen because of their character traits and policies and not just because they had more money than the other person. Just because one person has more money than the other does not mean that they are the best person for the job.
ReplyDeleteAmber Barajas
Period 5
With the currency system that we obtain in the United States today, money plays a major role in almost every aspect of society. Money will always be a huge role in elections, and they will simply not function properly without them, it is needed. I do not believe that money will buy the whit house because we have been a large part in elections for a very long time, and has not changed much since, being that the more money you spend does not guarantee you winning the election.i believe that it is more of what the people want from the candidate, and the amount of money spent on the election will only help the candidate to be noticed by the voters and important donor.
ReplyDeleteLayla Thompson
period 2
It is said, and accurately so, in the article that the candidate that raises the most money will most likely win. Though this is true, I have to point out that though these two concepts correlate, it is important to look at the cause of said correlation. Could it be that the candidate with the most raised funds received those funds because he was more likeable or had policies that favored groups with greater influence? If so, does that mean our government leadership greatly favors the wealthy? Those concepts aside, it is important to point out the astronomical amount of money being spent, no matter why it is being donated. It is difficult to find a solution because there are so many loopholes in the present system. Say a limit is put on candidate spending, that still leaves room for super PACs to flood the airways with strong messages, as long as they evade using direct "vote for..." sayings. So, it seems to me that the system we have in place at the present time is the lesser of two evils until a time comes where money is no longer used in politics, which is nearly impossible.
ReplyDeleteSymonne Singleton
Period 2
I second Jess! ~ I personally think that the amount of money each side collects shows the amount of support backed by the public for the specific candidate. Although the amount that's raised enormous, it's necessary for the message of the candidate to spread and get known. For the voters of the public voting off of what the media portrays of each candidate are most likely not the ones that donated the money, we can safely assume that the money donated from private companies to our neighbors is for the support of the candidates. If we were to put a limit on the money it would strain the candidates heavily.
ReplyDeleteJason Kim
Period 5
There is no doubt that money plays a huge role in elections. It contributes to so many factors, but the biggest is for getting messages on air, online, and doing so in person at rallies. I don't think that money will necessarily buy the white house because elections have been going on like this for years and nothing has majorly changed other than the fact that the amount each candidate receives seems to be higher every year. Also, just because you have more money than your running mate, doesn't mean that you will win the election. Don't get me wrong, money like I said is a huge part of campaigning, but in the end it's the people's vote that you count on, not the amount of money you get donated to yourself.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Ruben
Per. 5
I definitely think that campaign financing should be reformed in order for each candidate to have a more fair chance at advertising. I don't think money necessarily buys you the presidency because money is an result of public support. However, some people tend get away with donating more money due to their greater financial benefits, and that's what I believe reformation should effect.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Larrabee
Period 5
I like to think that history does repeat itself; if this is true, then the winner of this coming election will be determined by whoever has the most money. I am not a huge fan of the idea that our future commander in chief will be determined by how much capital they receive, however, I do see how it is necessary in getting ahead of all other candidates and insuring victory. If a candidate is capable of raising a good sum of money for their campaign, whose to say that they are not a good financial overseer. If they are good with handling money, then perhaps this is the ideal candidate for the presidency or any other office. Despite this, money is not the only characteristic that we should look for in a presidential candidate. We the people need to look to see if this candidate is the ideal person we need who will represent the will of the people and look out for the best interests of the nation as a whole. So if money is truly the determining factor in the election of our representatives, then things should change.
ReplyDelete-Adrian Nieto
Period 5
Hello, everyone!
ReplyDeleteMy belief that money can buy the presidency is affirmed after reading this article. It doesn't come as a surprise that the two main candidates exhaustively need to raise 20 million dollars a week to keep up in the race.
The sad aspect of all of this is that, despite our country being in unprecedented debt, while our resources are insufficient to support public schools to the right extent, the candidates find it more important to campaign with such large amounts of money than to put it to a good cause. Although this is a slight tangent, it is something I feel strongly about. If one candidate contributed that money to schools, and/or other organizations that combat hunger, etc. it would be a great type of propaganda as well, effectively hitting two birds with one stone.
At this point in the game, many individuals are set in stone on who they will vote for come November 6. No thirty-second fallacious (Ad Hominem) advertisement is about to change that, so the candidates might as well invest in something that might.
Concerned,
Nabila E. Hussain
Period 3
9/30/12
I don't think that money is the only thing that allows candidates to win presidential elections. It plays a huge role because a candidate would be able to promote more advertisements, etc. But, just because you have the most money doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to win, as demonstrated by Bill Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's victories. As the article states, you need other attributes such as exceptional campaign skills, a solid election team, charisma, name recognition, etc. Granted, you still need a decent amount of money in order to possibly win a presidential election, but you don't need the most money. Also, in some cases, having the most money might simply be a symptom of a candidate's campaign rather than the sole cause of their victory. For example, a candidate could have the most money by collecting the most donations as a result of being the most popular among the people due to the certain attributes discussed earlier. Therefore, they wouldn't be winning just because they had the most money, they would just of happened to collect the most donations from being the most popular.
ReplyDeleteCandice Murray
Period 3
I believe that the way it is set up is perfect. The way presidential elections are set up is the way that our country is set up. The people with the most money are the victourious ones in our society so yes it seems right to be able to buy your way into the white house. There is no way to reform this because if you do then there will be too many candidates advertised thererfore causing to many non majority winners.
ReplyDeleteMATEU VILAKAZI
PERIOD 2
9/30/12
Unfortunately money is a huge part of life today and, as they say, “money talks.” With this said, money is highly influential and a crucial part of politics and elections and it would be impossible to eliminate money from the campaigning process. Money is what gets your name out there, gets your face on billboards and posters, and gets you to the different debate venues and most importantly money is what can make or break your win. It’s evident that the more money spent on your campaign the more likely you are to win. Sure there are a few surprise cases in which this isn’t true but as a rule of thumb the person with the biggest bucks win. Although I’d like to say the man most knowledgeable and well fitted for the job wins, it’s hard to believe that. Because maybe the best man for the job doesn’t have enough money or enough big money donators to advertise and get his views as well known as candidates. I think it would be a good idea for the government to put a realistic cap on how much one can spend in order to level the playing field.
ReplyDelete~Shasta Bernier
Period 5
I think that money does play a big role in being elected. Like you said in class raising the most money doesn't guarantee winning but it sure helps. Usually the candidate who raises the most usually wins maybe because how much they raised directly relates to how much support they have received. Also the more money a candidate has the more they can get their name out there to voters and try to persuade them to vote for them. I think this is a huge problem because it may keep certain candidates from running simply because they can't afford it. Money can be an election changer at that is not acceptable.
ReplyDeleteCarly Rowan
Period 2
Money helps with the ads but i don see it buying an election. The pacs can raise alot of money but that just goes to ads as well. It could be the deciding factor in a close election but money alone wont win the presidency. Even with the donations for presidential campaigning they wont focus on your ideas. You vote for them because they believe in most of the same policies as you. Plus you need character, name recognition, and you have to know what your talking about.
ReplyDeleteP.2 miguel gonzalez
Money definitely plays a huge part in campaigning. And our candidates do get a lot of their money from donors, which may or may not be a reflection of how their people will vote. It's been like this for years, and even though one may have more money than the other runner, it all depends on how the people vote in the end. I personally think it is the person's choice on how much they spend on their campaign. If they feel they need to be on the hunt to get more donors and such so be it. If they really want to win they will try their best and do anything they can to get people on their side, and that's mainly what their campaign is for.
ReplyDeleteVictoria Mariscal
Period 5
Although money doesn't guarantee a candidate to win an election, it's upsetting for me to see how much money is used for campaigning. In my opinion, candidates should be doing their best with government funding and using donations from super PACs and other foundations for charities and bettering our nations. In addition, when candidates win and have very wealthy contributors who gave big amounts of money multiple times, it gives way to corruption. Politicians might start to make decisions which will help those wealthy donors slightly more than normal citizens. Candidate campaign money definitely needs to be regulated more than it has been.
ReplyDeleteKristen Canones
per. 5
It seems as if money is taking over politics. Candidates spend so much money on smear campaigns and media attention that the true politics gets lost in commotion. If a candidate is capable of raising millions of dollars a week then clearly they will be able to out spend smaller opponents. That is not to say that the smaller opponents do not still have a valid point that should be heard. If candidates were all given the same amount of money to work with they wold be able to show who has the best money management skills to make it to the end. This would also assure that the little guy would not be crushed just because they did not have as many rich friends or a Super Pac backing them up. If our nation is based on equality than why do we let the rich trample on the poor's voice? A race should be conducted with an even start, not with certain people ahead before it has begun. People should be elected on their platform and beliefs not on the amount of commercials they can produce.
ReplyDeleteRyan Lundstrom
Per.5
It is undeniable that money influences the primary and general elections. I personally think election requires lots of expenditure of money. However, it is not fair someone got elected just because he or she had the most money. That is just preposterous. Therefore i believe there should be more regulation in regard to money on elections. Frankly, there are so many unnecessary commercials that cost ridiculously a lot. Nominees should compete against each others with political power and leadership not money they can spend.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Kim
Period3
Although money should not be a large part in deciding who is the best president for our country, there is nothing we can really do to completely remove it from the equation. It seems that the only way candidates can effectively reach out to people is to bombard them with recurring commercials and long trips to towns and cities. All of this is necessary to show their "working man" personality and express their likeability. The weight of a candidate's wallet will always be a part of his campaign because it is needed for him to get noticed, and there isn't any alternative in our high priced world.
ReplyDeleteKathleen Punsalan
period 5
It is true that money is essential part in the election, but we also need some reformation. The candidates spending more money than others could mean that that candidate raised the money higher than others and shows he got the ability to convince people to support him. But in the other hand it could be a problem if candidates are elected by how much money they spend on their campaigns. It could cause disparity between the candidate who spend less and the most, which is unfair for the one who spend less on their campaigns. There should be a limited amount of money which candidate ccould spend for the election.
ReplyDeleteYoon Rha
Per. 5
I think we can all agree that money plays a huge role in presidential elections. I personally think that isn't right because it shouldn't matter who's richer or poorer. But I feel like there is no way to change it because candidates need money to get what they want to say out there. Candidates need "exceptional campaign skills, a solid election team, charisma, [and] name recognition" and some of these things require money. They need to get their beliefs out there so they need money to visit cities and have commercials and show people that they are "presidential material." Sadly, for now, there really isn't an alternative that doesn't require millions of dollars.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Alcantara
period 5
I think it make sense for money to play a prominent role in presidential campaigns. It is only right for candidates to have some type of foundation for set them up for success and get their name/message out. Will money buy the White House? I don't necessarily think so, because it depends on where these funds are placed and how they are used to connect with the masses. It may play a major role, but it's definitely possible to win an election with less money raised as compared to your opposing candidate.
ReplyDeleteNoah Cole
P.2
Money is forever going to be a factor in how we choose our politicians, there is no doubt about it. I like the fact that we have some regulations to try to keep money as minimal as possible when it comes to swaying an election, but there can certainly be more done. As for the funding for campaigns coming out of the taxpayers' pockets is ridiculous. It should be purely based on voluntary donations, not mandatory taxes. In the end (and I may be overly optimistic here), I believe that people elect who they think is the best candidate, not by who they see the most of in the media.
ReplyDelete-Aaron Kim
Money plays a big role in presidential elections. The more money you have the more you can advertise your face, name, and campaign. It would be nice to go back to electing someone on their political standings but not for awhile.There should be a limit on how much is given by the government but not how much is donated. The candidate worked for these people to donate so the should be able to spend it on campaigning, but the massive amounts given to a candidate should be regulated a lot less. The white house is not necessarily for sale but money does have a big impact.
ReplyDeleteShontay Kelly
DeleteP.2
It is clearly seen that money does have a huge impact on the outcome of a presidential election. Money is very important to a candidates survivability in the race to the white house. Without money to get their face out or to even present their ideals, there is no where to go but down. This idea simplified doesn't seem much of a problem; however, the way presidential candidates raise this money is quite sketchy. You have super PAC's and other interest groups who are looking to sway the presidents policies and you have the average person who donates to the cause of the candidate. There is no sure fire way to stop anyone from influencing politics with money without taking away free speech. The only thing we can do as of now is create more restrictions on how candidates can receive money influence groups. We can conclude that not only is the White House for sale to the highest bidding candidate, but it also is for sale to those who wish to push their ideals into office and have enough influence (money) to do so.
ReplyDeleteTristan Cady
P.5
Honestly it's not surprising to heat that the candidate who spends the most money is most likely to win. But I feel that they have to do that. Our society today want's our information fast and we only listen to what catches our attention. Therefore candidates have to run these big flashy ads and campaigns because they have to capture and keep the attention of citizens. So that means spending millions on constant campaign ads
ReplyDeleteStephanie Okolo
Per. 5
Although money has always played a huge part in campaigns, it should not be the biggest factor on whether a candidate should win or not. Candidates do over spend on the campaigns and it is just a waste of money. If the money was toned down and the campaigns were more of how the candidate is and what kind of person he is and what he stands for then that would be the right way to have a presidential campaign. The ridiculous amount of money spent on a huge amount of ads is not a necessary factor in campaigns. Money should not control whether or not a candidate wins. People should be chosen for who they are not for how much they have.
ReplyDeleteSebastian Alvarez
Period 2
Yes, something should be done about this over excess use of money. The money used in these elections can go in many better places but instead we are in a recession while giving these candidates all this money just to throw it back in our faces through ads and other media ways. I think the candidates should not be looked at by how many ads or such things they can host because of money but actually as an individual. I think that the candidates should have a set limit so among all the candidates there is a fair line to play at. The rest of the millions spent should be put somewhere else like into our economy which it should be not in ads everywhere some people look. Yes, by setting limits this is going against freedom of speech but as candidates for the President, a role model of the U.S., you would think they would try and show the US that they want to save money and help the US in the long run, not spend every million they gain in ads. The money is being used for something, true but is it truly worth all the money spent. If each candidate were just each given a set amount they would all have fair playing ground and we would not need to make so many restictions, ect for PACS and such.
ReplyDeleteRaeAnna Ha'ole
Period 2
It isn't surprising that often the candidate that makes the most wins the election. Those who spend the most can afford more resources to get their name out there, and thus with more advertising, it garners even more support and donations. This years election has raised so much money because the election is so close that no candidate wants to get behind on fundraising.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is PACs that donate large amounts of money, the other day, I received and email from Obama saying that this election year has seen the most grassroots donations in American politics. This shows that it's not only big business contributing immensely. Though I also think that both people and businesses see it almost as an investment. They believe the money they give will help the candidates funds, help them win the election, and thus help the voter because it is that candidate they believe will make a difference in their life.
Chelsea Moreno
Period 2
I don't really believe that anything can be done about the influence of money in elections, (other than regulations that are already on place). Money is the engine that keeps the campaigning process going. Without money a candidate is almost bound to fail. Money is what supports the campaigns, the trips, the election teams, anything and everything campaign related. Nothing can be done about it, and frankly, nothing really should be.
ReplyDeleteGabe Copeland
Per. 5
Money is without a doubt involved in campaigns and elections, this is an undeniable fact. Many will argue too that it's necessary, it allows them to fund this and that, and it brings them attention; and although I understand that wealth in government has been a continuing cycle, I do not think it needs to be this way. The only reasons why it's necessary to be wealthy in order to truly and honestly succeed in politics/elections today (or at least the higher level/higher standing ones) is because we've made it that way. We have created this whole sort of wealthy, upper class stigma around elections, and in turn we have made it a socially accepted norm. I understand that in the past it made sense for the wealthier to have high positions in government because they, unlike the general public were actually educated on the subject matter and problems at hand. I also understand that it may, to some degree still be like that. Yes, not all of the general public is as educated as they could or should be about our national problems and policies, but some are. Having money be a pretty much guaranteed necessity to even start a political career or take part in a campaign is unsettling. It's the whole feelings and idea that someone of a wealthier social and economic standing won't understand what the average American wants or needs or the daily struggles that they have to go through, and thus will not be able to formulate policies and such that will properly benefit them. It would be more comforting to have more of a "Man/Woman of the people" in office, who better understands..the people. It would also make the average American feel more inclined to participate in politics or vote, or, I don't know, I think it would just make them feel more connected and confident in the people that are making overall decisions that will effect their lives.
ReplyDeleteCandace Benson
Period 5
Money does influence elections .Money is used in advertising so that people know the candidates and what their message is. Money is also used to make negative political advertisements in order to denigrate the opposing candidate which could cause him to lose votes. As elections play such an important role in our society I believe that the process of electing people to public office, such as the president of the country, should be fair. When huge sums of money are given to political candidates it can result in an unfair advantage for the candidate who has more money. In order to correct the problem campaign financing laws need to be passed. These laws should limit the amount of money that a candidate can receive for the purpose of running for office. A numerical ceiling should be set for each political office. While money alone cannot win the White House, it certainly plays a large role.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Wilson
Period 2
Money plays a huge role in the presidential campaign. But I believe it is not the right thing to do, or if done, candidates can only raise to a certain amount. The system in place now allows for one candidate to raise as much money as he wants from PACs, donors, and other sources which allows for an advantage. One candidate who might not be qualified to be the better president, may still win because he was able to get his name out more and have a bigger influence on the people through more advertisement. I don't think it's the right thing to do. We need to find a solution that induces equality, so one candidate wins the race fairly, rather then who has gathered the most money.
ReplyDeleteOmar Kaayal
Period 2
Money plays a huge role in the campaigns of our government officials, and generally whoever raises more money wins, or at least has a leg up in the race. This is because the money is given to them by supporters of their ideals, and if someone raises more money, it usually means they have more supporters. I feel that there should be a spending cap on campaign funds, because the amount of money that candidates spend is absolutely ridiculous. That money could be used for something much more beneficial than getting a candidates name out there, especially since information is so easy to access now. Politicians may have needed all of this money in the past to go places, woo people, and gain support, but now they can use so much less, and more people will hear about them. If campaigns had a spending cap, they would have to find a way to muster up more support through their ideals, not their wallets.
ReplyDeleteTommy Mildon
Period 3
Money has played such a large part in campaigns for so long, that it is unlikely that there will ever be a time in which it isn’t crucial. The system should continue to be regulated and more limits should be placed on how much a candidate can spend. I understand that advertising can get expensive but hundreds of millions of dollars is a little much. We’ve made changes/regulations before to campaign funding and we should just continue to do so in hopes that one day it is not such a determining factor.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Preston
Per. 5
Unfortunately money plays a huge part in elections. Money supports the campaign. Without it the election would not continue and that particular candidate would have no shot at winning. Just because a candidate has more money should not be the true reason to vote for him/her. They have to stop finding loop holes in the system so we can level the playing field for all the candidates. Even though the higher amount of money means you are more likely to win we should not let that influence our decision and solely choose the right candidate suitable for the title as president. Celeste Gallardo per. 3
ReplyDeleteWhether we like to believe it or not, money holds a key roll in most - if not all - aspects of American Life. So, therefore, it shouldn't be a shock that elections focus around money as well. Indeed, it isn't fair that, with previous instances as an example, the candidate who raises the most wins the race, but what can honestly be done? Even if we were to demand to see where all Candidate money is coming from won't change the fact that it's still flowing in.
ReplyDeleteMy question is this: If the high class Americans can band together and contribute masses amounts of money towards whom they want in Office, why can't they do so year around? Our country is struggling beneath a deficit that has been increasing over the years, with little hope for an end in sight. Instead of the candidates raising all this money just to get their face on a billboard and their slogan on a bus bench, why not have to contribute so much of their donations and place it into something beneficial for the people?
If these candidates really want to make a difference and get the peoples votes, they should give back a little of the masses that they take in.
Kathryn Uribe
Period 5
Today it seems as if the candidate who has the most money wins and this is honestly not a healthy way to chose the leader that will be running our country. Instead of focusing on money so much we need to focus on who is best qualifies for the job. The government needs to maybe start putting a limit on how much a candidate spends that way it will be even and the voters can vote depending on how knowledgeable the candidates are rather than how much money they can receive from donors.
ReplyDelete-BreAnna Marquez p.2
The article was common sense. I feel the only way to control money being spent is to make a law limiting money but I'm sure that won't fly so we are stuck with this issue until it blows up
ReplyDeleteAnaiss
I do believe that money definitely influences the tide of an election. It's an unfair way to find our leader because showing your wealth doesn't prove that you're a fit leader. It just means that you campaign better, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can lead a nation. In my opinion, everyone should have a cap space for campaigning. Everyone has the same cap space. That'll show who the best is.
ReplyDeleteJerom Berdijo
Period 3
It is true money does play a huge role in elections. Yes, it may be unfair that one president can campaign more because he is given more money through donations and pacs. But im for both about the money problem,in my opinion money doesnt make a president better than the other. I think if a person is truly going to pick a president it should be based on what they believe and who they think would be a better president. The people "giving" the money to the president directly or not is just express their beliefs and who is better. Although, it also mentioned in the reading the a president not only wins because of having money but by how they present them selves,talk, what they believe in, and more. And if you think about, the only way they can really prove this to the public is campaigns. Which could be unfair if one candidate can earn more money and be able to campaign more and show what they got than the other.
ReplyDeleteGianna Garcia
Period 3
Absent
Although money is vital when campaigning and is important to have it should not influence who the winner should be. money shouldnt influence the winner because it should be based on the qualities the winner has and what the candidate brings to the table. If candidates tend to win depending on how much money they have than their is no point for debates and trying to figure out who has the best solutions to serve our country and people.Although I understand that money is vital when it comes to campaigning because the candidate has to get himself sponsored but it should not determine who will be the winner.
ReplyDeleteErica Medina
period 3
Absent
Money is very essential to campaigns. It's just like a professional team in a sport. The team with the most money is able to get the best players and is able to win more, which isn't fair but it happens. So just like with these elections the candidate that earns the most has more to spend and more money to advertise. Money should have no say on who wins. Just because you raise a lot or have more doesn't make you the better candidate.
ReplyDeletePaul Garcia
Per.3
Mr. C
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the article I thought that money was very essential for campaigns but the fact that the winner is more likely to be President is not only based on the amount of money but normally who ever has the most money should also have the most supporters. This was not the cause in the last election Obama did not earn as much money but was still the victor, this happened because most of his supporters are people who live on welfare and can not afford to give as much money. There are also many other cases in the past that ended the same.
I apologize for the tardiness of this assignment and hope you can forgive my short comings.
Weston Hutchings
Per.5
It is unfair to say that the candidate with the most money has the most supporters. That argument would be logical if every person in this country had the same amount of money, or allocated the same amount as everyone else. But since we do not live in that world, that argument cannot be made. Money does have a large effect on campaigns, but as was evidenced by the Obama campaign, it is not the ultimate decider in who wins the presidency.
ReplyDelete