After years of attempting to restrict the amount of money that influences elections, we may be in the midst of a new era in which campaign contribution limits are eroded or stripped in favor of free speech. Here is the latest in a series of recent campaign finance cases. Where do you stand?
Donation limits help keep politics honest
I agree with the author of this article because one's wealth or lack thereof should not have an influence on the policies and legislation enacted in this country, whose goal is to serve the best interest of the people. There exists no reasonable justification as to why an individual would donate such an excessive quantity of money to a single candidate besides to influence the policy-making decisions of the candidate, which leads to a situation extremely conducive to bribery and corruption. The US should implement restrictions on how much any individual can donate in order to protect the integrity of our country's lawmakers and government officials. Edwin p. 3
ReplyDeleteI believe that without a donation limit, corruption will persist among federal officeholders and in government decisions. The author mentioned that only about 4 out of 1,000 Americans donated $200 or more in 2012; however, those who are passionate about a cause and/or a candidate are the ones who will donate excessively. Although these passionate donors are few in numbers, if there is not a limit to the amount of contributions they are allowed to make, it will create an unfair advantage to the political system. For example, the wealthiest Americans tend to be Republicans more than Democrats. Hypothetically speaking, because they will financially support Republican candidates and Republican-based government decisions, our nation could potentially be shaped by solely Republican views. Money plays a vital role in campaigning. The more money a party has, the more efficient their influence can be reached to the public such as better and frequently displayed advertisements on media. The Supreme Court should not side with McCutcheon to prevent future political misconduct.
ReplyDeleteTabitha Kim, period 3
I agree with when she Tabi said , even with a donation limit there will still be corruption but, i also agree with Edwin that no one should use their wealth to give themselves an advantage over someone who is just as passionate about a certain policy but cannot afford to donate a large sum of money. If we limit the donation amount i feel that politicians will pass laws because it is the right thing to do instead of being bribed to influence the law in someone else's favor.
ReplyDeletenatali alvarado P2.
It’s important to limit individual contributions so that each donator has an equal influence in supporting a candidate. When our nation did not have regulations against contributions, political machines were dominating politics. At the founding of our republic, no laws or regulatory bodies oversaw political donations or contributions and it was left up to individual candidates and political parties to choose how to raise money and spend it. It took over a century for the first campaign finance regulations to pass on the federal level. Eventually, laws governing political campaigns passed in our country because of public outrage over the corruption that is created when money is allowed to buy power. This relates to individuals because if their contributions were unlimited, the wealthy would dominate. In addition, there potentially could be another “spoils system” in our nation, where the wealthy that do contribute the most to an election winning president will receive a favor in return, such as political appointments or state-funded positions of power. Also, this law is not restraining since our system allows unlimited contributions through a political party, so individuals can strongly support their ideals with an unlimited amount through the party’s funds. Overall, it’s necessary to limit individual contributions to control probable bribery as well as give citizens a fair measure of supporting a candidate.
ReplyDelete-Shania P.2
I believe the government needs to step in and make regulations on how much money one person can donate to a candidate. Why is it necessary to donate more money to a candidate then some people who live in America even make?? I think money will be able to corrupt society. Making regulations to help stop this can be very vital. Although, money does help get the word out I also do think it can be propaganda towards other opponents and make people sway to one side and we will only see views from one perspective like Tabi mentioned. P.3 Sierra Hernandez
ReplyDeleteI personally do not agree with Shaun McCutcheon's proposal. It would be nice to donate just a little bit of money to candidates and politics just to gain their support, but $123,000 is just way over the top. Donating more money to politicians and candidates overall corrupts many important elections, because a candidate can easily "spend his way to victory" as long as he has money. I have no problem with people who want to give as much money to these candidates if that is their personal wish or desire, but that does not mean that everyone is required to do so.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, limits will prevent corruption and create a publicized government. If these limits did not exist at all, donors could easily give millions of dollars into a particular political party and keep it hidden from the public. As a result, one political party already has an unfair advantage over the other.
Siddharth Sai P.3
I agree with the author that completely getting rid of donation limits will open the door for more corruption in this country. I believe that our government shouldn't be mainly influenced by the wealthy, and that is what would inevitably occur if donation limits were done away with. I think that the author was being a little too extreme when she stated that eliminating donation limits would "bring us pretty close to the definition of oligarchy"; while I see where her view is coming from, I don't think that the effects of eliminating donation limits would be that extreme because the wealthy would only be influencing the government indirectly. However, I believe that the current limits for how much money an individual can donate to a candidate should be kept in place in order to avoid increasing the role of money in affecting politics.
ReplyDeleteJulia Spaczai p.3
To me, no matter what the price limit is, there will always be some form of corruption happening. Whether the aggregate contribution limit is $123,000 or $2 million corruption will still be a problem, just differ in severity. I feel in order to keep it fair, there should be a limit to how much someone can contribute. Too much and someone will run away with the advantage. I don't know how much the limit should be, but it should be enough were it gives someone who doesn't have a lot of money a fair chance to compete.
ReplyDeleteTyler Clausen Period 2
Keep in mind that contribution LIMITS are still in place. What would be struck down is the TOTAL amount any individual can give. A wealthy person would still be limited to giving only $2700 per candidate per election, but he wouldn't have to stop once he reached a TOTAL of $123,000. This limit would be reached once he gave $2700 to 46 candidates.
ReplyDeleteThis aggregate limit, to me, makes no sense. Whether he gives $2700 to 10 candidates or 100 candidates, his influence on any ONE candidate is severely restricted. It seems way too artificial to me. Government can only restrict my ability to donate money if they can prove that my donation comes with strings attached (I'm paraphrasing the Buckley case from the 1970's; aka PRECEDENT). This is an artificial limit on my speech because it cannot be linked to corruption.
Now, if I could give $1 million to a single candidate, then the candidate would feel obligated to return the favor; I am all for individual contribution limits.
Honestly, no one person in particular should feel the need to donate more than 123,000, I feel that that is a generous amount already and only few Americans would ever actually reach this limit. The only people who would feel the need to donate more is so that they could harness some power over the elections and the policy that those who win create by playing a huge role in their victory by spending huge amounts of money. America does not need more excuses to justify why they should make it easier for people with money to influence the elections. As the article said there is much corruption already especially with the use of Super PACs that have unlimited raising and spending that they can use on independent expenditures, that we should not continue to promote an uneven playing field by allowing money to play a bigger factor in government by being limitless. McCutcheon is not alleviating the previous ways of corruption while promoting new ways to be corrupt.
ReplyDeleteNonye Ikeanyi
Per. 3
Here is another link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/02/winners-and-losers-from-the-mccutcheon-v-fec-ruling/) to help you understand the pros and cons of this case (SPOILER ALERT! The Supreme Court ruled last spring that the aggregate limit you're reading about right now is unconstitutional). Perhaps you could read the additional link above to better inform before you post.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I completely agree with the author because it is absurd to allow those with more money to influence government more than those with less money. I completely agree with the claim that this will lead to high levels of corruption and bribery within various levels and branches of government. Politicians may now focus their attention on the select few Americans who earn enough money to donate to their cause. Any individual with enough money could contribute to a candidate or campaign of their choice, which brings in a "fair aspect" in terms of party competition. However, fairness is thrown out the door when only four out of a thousand people are willing and able to donate more than $200 to politicians. This is similar to voting, more specifically to primaries and caucuses, in the sense that only those who can afford to attend, or in this case donate, are likely to do so. Thus, donations are likely to come from activists who are passionate about political views and have the resources to show it. Meanwhile, the rest of the nation, who are mostly moderate on most issues, are ignored and unsatisfied with new policies. This would lead to worse efficacy, lower voter turnout, and higher mistrust towards the government than Americans already have. Thus, even if the issue of corruption is overestimated, this case opens America up to more bad than good in its future.
ReplyDeleteJason Hartogh
Per 3
I believe that our government should intervene and limit donations in order to protect the political system from further corruption. In my opinion I do believe that money can play a huge influence in the government and lead the way for the top wealthy fraction to have their influence on policies (Ex, "The record reports that a popular generic drug bill died in Congress in 2002, shortly after two Republican Party congressional committees held a large gala fundraiser to raise almost $30 million in contributions.") Allowing there to be no limitations on donating will allow more corruption to the government and allow our country to be led by the top wealthy.
ReplyDeleteCrystal Kim, Per. 3
I agree with author of this article. It is important to limit the contributions a candidate receives from anonymous individuals. There is no reason to spend 123,000 on a candidate without having a motive behind it. And because of that, people with higher incomes and pockets could influence our political elections and system because of how much money they have. I agree we should have a aggregate limit because it protects out politics and politicans from corruption and bribing.
ReplyDeleteAlex Rodriguez
Per 2
I disagree with the author because the new policy won't allow big donors to put all their money into one candidate because there are still limits but to spread the wealth and allow people to put their money in multiple candidates. The new legislation is beneficial to party committees because different Democrat groups won't be fighting over large amounts of money based off of limits because each group can now get the same amount of money if they can find a donor willing to give a large amount. The author's main argument is that this legislation will lead to more corruption but giving out money doesn't necessarily mean that you expect something in return but could mean you have the same values as the candidates you give money to and want those values in Washington. There are more benefits passing this bill than the arguments the author described.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Van Balen
Period 3
I agree with the author's argument that eliminating the donation limits will result in political corruption. I agree with the author when she says that "...it would provide another advantage for the tiny fraction of Americans who have the means to give so lavishly". With this, I feel that getting rid of set donation limits will give more political control to those who have more money, thus causing the government to be more representative of a small population of Americans, as opposed to the whole population of American citizens. However, I do believe that it is an individual's right to do as they please with their money, and should not have restrictions placed on the money the possess. If an individual is passionate toward the platform of a particular candidate, they should be allowed to give an amount they feel would be sufficient enough to help, yet not sufficient enough to give that particular politician an unfair advantage over other politicians.
ReplyDeleteAlexis Garcia
per. 3
I like how Mcgehee says that if the supreme court sides with Shaun McCutcheon, it will only open new routes to corruption without doing anything to close the old ones. I'm on board with this argument for a few reasons but i do find a problem with putting an aggregate limit. One reason why i agree with Mcgehee is because I resent the fact that our politicians are becoming more and more centered around trying to raise millions upon millions of dollars for campaign purposes. And to get these millions they seem to be only catering to the wealthy small percent of Americans that will finance their next campaign. Another reason I support Mcgehee is because I cannot fathom how any one citizen would justify donating more than 2x the average american salary in order to help a candidate win. I understand why people/organizations donate money but i just don't get why they feel the need to donate such hefty funds. There are literally a million nobler causes that one's money can go to. Some people would never donate 100,000 to things like cancer research or to help third world children but they would drop that much and some on trying to get Joe Smoe, a figurative politician i created, re-elected.
ReplyDeleteHowever i do find one problem with an aggregate limit. Is it constitutional to tell me how much i can donate? After all, the government cannot guarantee that what i donate is tied into some corrupted system. What if i wanted to donate a million dollars to Joe Smoe because he's my brother and not because he will vote on some bill that will favor my company's interest. Because of this, I don't really have a clear cut opinion about this but i guess that i lean more towards Mcgehee's argument of an even lower aggregate limit.
Matthew Rivera
Period. 2
I agree with the authors argument. A persons wealth should not be a determining factor of whether or not they have a say in government. As it currently is, there is no real reason for one person to want to give/donate and extreme amount of money. To give that much, they are expecting something out of it or they are hoping to sway things their way. I believe that there should be some form of limit on donations to keep everything on an even and fair playing ground.
ReplyDeleteIbukun Akinbohun P.3
I agree with Maddie because like she said it allows big wealthy individuals to spread their wealth around. This allows them to give money to more candidates, as many as they want but not an unlimited amount of money. The second articles that you linked said that the winners of this reform were joint fundraising committees, party committees, big donors and state parties. The losers were however campaign finance reformers and big donors (its a pro con thing). Honestly the money involved buys advertising, not votes. We could go a long way as a society towards limiting the negative effects of money in politics by teaching citizens critical thinking and how to evaluate the credibility of their sources of information.
ReplyDeleteAnju Girivasan
P. 2
Although I am against the idea of removing the limit on how much an individual can spend overall, having a limit of $123,200 for overall spending seems irrational because the individual wouldn’t be able to over donate towards a particular candidate. So in fact (if I am understanding Cavanaugh’s interpretation correctly), the individual would not make a major contribution and/or influence in “bribing” a candidate as everyone is so worried about political corruption. However, I do think that placing a limit on that much money gives the wealthier a greater advantage to contributing to a candidate than the less prosperous. If individuals would still like to donate more than the average person, just like the article said, they can contribute through independent expenditures or simply PAC’s/Super PAC’s.
ReplyDeleteJenny Hong P.3
I have to disagree with the author, if a donor wants to donate 123,000 or more than let them. This cannot cause corruption for the donor is still limited to give each candidate 2,000 each election, so they are not particularly making that person’s campaign, or bribing them, they are just able to donate to multiple people, meaning more people are able to receive donations. If this donor feels very passionate about his party or campaign, why can’t he donate as much as he desires? Also there could be other people who donated the amount to that candidate, so what makes him different from the others? The candidate receives the same amount of money from his particular donor as he did from the other 20 or so, why is he a problem?
ReplyDeleteJada Bryant P.2
I don't agree with the author because you are only allowed to donate $2700 a candidate anyways so that initial limit should, in my belief, limit the amount of influence a contributor has because others will be able to sponsor any other candidate at the same price. I believe the aggregate amount you spend on numerous candidates is superfluous. Had the limit been lifted to allow unlimited funding from a contributor to any one candidate then I believe that the contribution process would be corrupt and those with the will/means to give large sums of money would then become a powerful influence over policy making. I don't think the overall amount of money you spend on several candidates should be regulated but rather the limit of how much money a contributor can give per candidate(which is great because that already happens). Who cares how many candidates you invest in because no one in actuality can tie your personal interests in sponsoring those candidates in the first place. One may say that a wealthy person can buy more candidates if you allow limited contributions to an unlimited amount of candidates but because it is limited everyone has a fair chance of contributing up to a certain amount, allowing their 2700 dollars to be heard in policy making.
ReplyDeleteKristian-Frakie Ripley
P. 3
I believe it is important for our country to place limits on the amount an individual can donate to a person running for political office. We need to limit these donations in order to prevent corruption in office. Corruption may include donors believing Politian's "owe them" public policy because they were financially involved in getting them their position. I agree with the author of the article's statement that no limits on donations would "allow candidates to outsource the dirty work, like attack ads." Without limits, donors can remain anonymous and political campaigns may run a different course. I agree with the authors argument that there needs to be a limit on the amount someone can donate to a politician's campaign.
ReplyDeleteKristina Munoz P. 2
As seen from independent expenditures, our nation's political strategies can already be deemed as dirty and corrupt. If the aggregate limit were to be removed, the playing field would be even more difficult to level with. Donors with higher incomes can easily influence at election through unrestricted offers. Therefore, the candidate that lures in those voters with higher incomes have the advantage of money. Our nation's foundation is equality, and even our own political government cannot achieve such a thing because certain politicians desire more money for themselves.
ReplyDeletePamela Santos
Per. 3
One thing I notice when I read articles concerned with political corruption is that people seem to forget that 90% of the presidents and congressmen that the United States of America has put into office have been corrupt in some shape or form. Even those who fought the political party machines were corrupt, because they lied to the people in order to get there then exacted their own personal agenda (which is one of the definitions of corruption). So before we start grabbing our pitch and heading to D.C., we have to understand that we really haven't gone anywhere in terms of limiting politcal corruption, we've just rearranged the furniture a bit. So go ahead, put even more limits on expenditures and contributions if it helps you sleep better at night. You can make as many obstacles as you see fit, but it still won't take the corruption out of Washington.
ReplyDeleteBrian Wright p.3
DeleteAfter finding out that the change that was proposed is on the total amount someone can give, i disagree with the author and personally think that there is no problem with taking off a limit on the total possible donation amount. If the limit on $2700 per candidate continues to be active, then there is no reason to believe that any extremely wealthy individual will have an enormous influence since he or she is limited to a donation of only 2700 dollars per candidate. This new law can be nothing but beneficial as it will allow a donor to help everyone that he or she wishes to without any restricting thoughts.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Kim P.3
I feel removing the aggregate limit on contributions is a bad idea, but not as horrible sounding as the author makes it out to be. I feel that if candidates do receive more money from certain donors, they those donors will have more control of the policies that federal candidate will have. This contributors donate because the candidate policies often favor them already, so they don't need to have a say in what they want since their interests are already similar. But some may argue that since they have more money they should have the right to give as much as they want. My reply to that is simple: too bad. These rules are put into place in order to control people who feel that they have money so they make the rules. Rules are put in place to give everyone an equal chance, but removing a law to get your way is the most childish thing you could do.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Nunez P: 3
I agree that increasing the cap on contributions will add to the corruption of politicians. The people with the most money will be able to persuade politicians to vote a certain way on a bill or law. Some politician already feel it necessary to "repay" their donors or fear the power those donors have to destroy later years campaigns. Adding more money only adds to the strength of the donors power. The government must regulate this to keep our politics a but cleaner.
ReplyDelete^ Sarah McNair-Wilson
DeletePeriod 2
I agree with the author that money seems to be the object that determines the outcome of elections or any legislation to be passed. Allowing the election process to be centered around money is basically allowing the process to fall into corruption. Great corporations, the minority, are donating great piles of money to certain candidates to only fulfill their own interest, while neglecting the regular-sized income people. The candidate that possesses the most amount of money basically controls the entire election, which is unfair to other candidates. It's certainly true that money has the capability to influence our election outcomes, after all money talks.
ReplyDeleteDavid Tirayoh P.2
While loopholes can probably be found in such a way that removing a total limit of donations from an individual could lead to a candidate getting more money indirectly, I think that it would not happen as bad as the author makes it seem. The limit would almost be useless because the wealthy already have the means to influence and promote a certain candidate with super PACs and other methods. A limit on the amount of money that can be given to a candidate directly is needed for obvious reason but the limit purposed is unnecessary and therefore shouldn't be imposed.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Pinon Per.2
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author of the article. If we were to have elections without limiting the amount of money each candidate is allowed to receive from one person, our elections will be very biased and corrupt. They will be biased because those who have the most money to give (such as interest groups and wealthy individuals) will have an unfair advantage in getting their voice heard as compared to an individual who doesn't have as much to give. There will be corruption because the candidates will feel the need to only listen and do as the interest groups and wealthy say. Keeping limits on monetary donations to candidates keeps bias and corruption at a lower level.
ReplyDeleteTalin Miller
Period 3
On the side of liberty, people can spend their money however they want. But, can us regular people send in a letter that makes us not have to watch all the advocacy ads. Maybe it's just my general apathy for almost anything. But I just get tired of sitting through non-stop advertisements. Anyways, I should probably actually talk about the article. We definitely need to put some limits on contributions. There of course are already the ones in place, but Super PACs make me scared to go to sleep at night. Money given for the pure, bare fundamental of campaigning of course shouldn't be completely restricted, but maybe a general limit to how much can be spent. Raise $700,000,000, probably should spent a smaller portion of that on actual campaigning. But maybe the rest can be put into our country's national debt... hahaaaa..
ReplyDeleteMichael M.
pd. 3
The author states that one of the reasons aggregate limits should not be eliminated is because the corruption that'll come from it will be definite. However, I think it is clear that whether or not there are limits to individual contributions, political corruption will remain. The supreme court has ruled these limitations unconstitutional and rightfully so. What does it matter how much an individual can contribute over their lifetime? As Mr. Cavanaugh stated, there are restrictions on how much an individual can give at a time to a candidate, but I don't believe that it is right to put a limit on how much a person can donate to something they are passionate about. Political corruption is inevitable and I understand that there is a fear of elections being influenced by large amounts of money, but individual contributions are limited to $2700 so what is there really to fear? I disagree with the author and I do believe that these restrictions should be eliminated (as they have been).
ReplyDeleteNicole P.2
I have to say that an aggregate limit on spending would be unwise. If the limits are in place so that the officials have more of an even chance to win than why not allow people to donate to as many candidates as they want. This is a way of protecting one's liberty of spending and protecting from corrupting any single candidate because donation limits to any single candidate would still hold. Therefore, I disagree with the author, not to say that I agree with corruption, but that I agree with spending your money the way you want.
ReplyDeletePaige Hutchings
Per.2
I disagree with the author. The donor should be free to donate as much wealth as they’d like if they are so passionate about the candidate. This shouldn’t cause corruption for the donor is still limited to give each candidate 2,000 each election and also due to the fact that candidates are not “buying” votes or using that money to bribe voters. Donors should be able to donate as much as they want to any political candidate as any donor can to a church group or an organization. And are we limiting on how much money can be donated by one donor? Or how much a candidate can receive in total? Because multiple donations can accumulate to that single donation the author is so worried about.
ReplyDeleteBenedict Mamaril
P.3
Honestly from what I read she's being a tad bit dramatic. Of course there will be a little corruption and big donors will funnel all their money towards one group or a candidate, but it is not as bad as they think it is. To say it will turn the nation into an oligarchy is a bit melodramatic since there is now a limit on the donation amount to one candidate. But now we won't really see what candidate is really appealing to those donors if all in the same political party/interest group can get the same amount. As to say the members of the house will feel an obligation to owe them is a bit of a stretch since they can take into account what is needed for them to do to keep those supporters but that doesn't mean they're indebted to those donors for life. Politics will keep going on like this an removing a limit (though it was deemed unconstitutional now) isn't going to end the world; cause some difficulties and altercations, yes, but not end the world.
ReplyDeleteRume P.3
I agree with the authors argument. A persons wealth should not dictate whether they have a say or not in the government. The donations these people are giving have strings attached. The weathly will be able to persuade politicians to vote a certain way on a law. This would cause some corruption within the branches of government. Politicians would focus on the very limited Americans who actually donate. It is unfair because only the 4 of 1000 Americans who can afford to donate will do so, which would cause the government to be more representative of a small population of Americans instead of the whole population.
ReplyDeleteSavanna Tafish
Period 2
I also agree with the authors argument. Without restrictions or limits, those who can, will continue to manipulate politicians however they please. There is a large percentage of unrepresented citizens, who may never be heard because these fat cats can bend the system as they please. This is highly corrupt as is, so to relinquish these existing limits will only increase corruption.
ReplyDeleteMolly S per.2
I tend to agree with what the author has to say on the grounds that the income one has shouldn't affect the chances they get of voicing their opinion out on governmental Issues. The wealthier people's donations allow them to persuade politicians more to what they want them to do due to their donations being trackable. Politicians will only pay attention to the select few who donate, leading to a mass undercoverage bias of all whom do not or cannot donate money and whose opinions are rendered obsolete.
ReplyDeleteJess West, Period 3
I agree with the author that completely getting rid of donation limits will open the door for more corruption in this country. limiting donors is important because we don't want one person or organization to influence an election. There of course are already the ones in place, but i feel like we need more. super pacs don't have as many restrictions because they don't donate directly to the candidate allowing them to persuade the election in a positive or negative directions through ads. that's why i feel that a persons wealth should not choose whether they have a say or not in the government because money does by elections and a lot more.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with author of this article. No one person is allowed to give over $2,700 dollars, and from what I understand there are thousands of people in these political parties, so how could one persons individual donation be more "important" than the next. There is no way that the Supreme Court is going to lift restrictions on how much an individual can donate because like Mr. Cavanaugh said if one person was allowed to give $1 million then we would have a problem on our hands, were rich powerful people would have these candidates on a string.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author's argument. I think that money does influence politicians and the outcome of some elections. Those who receive money are more apt to the stances of their benefactors. Those benefactors funnel money into a campaign so the candidate is more likely to listen and follow their side of an argument. People pay large amounts of money expect something in return. These candidates sometimes feel obligated to repay them by voting in favor of the group. I believe raising the contribution cap do more harm than good.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Parker p.2
I agree with the authors argument that eliminating the donation limits will result in political corruption. As McGehee argues "... The corruption that would arise from eliminating these limits is not hypothetical". The limits on specific donations are set for a reason and therefore should not be lifted or altered. Increasing the amount of money that's allowed to be donated by an individual would cause further corruption in our government system. Unfortunately, money plays a key role in today's society, thus abolishing or raising the amount of money that is allowed to be donated would place power in the hands of the wealthy, creating an unpropotioned representation of the American people. On the other hand, as Americans we have a right to spend our money as we please. With that being said if one has such a desire as to donate a very large sum of funds to a particular campaign or party, there are other means and ways of doing so.
ReplyDeleteJessica Heim Period 3
I believe that individuals should have a cap on what they could donate to a candidate. Donating a $1000, is different than donating millions, at that point it feels like there has to be a sort of agenda behind it. With a cap on the amount you could donate, it would allow people to support a candidate they believe should be in office, but not feel like they owe them something in return. Although its constitutionally right by freedom of speech I still believe it's wrong to let the rich have such a large impact on who will win the candidacy.
ReplyDeleteAhmed Gouda p2
As long as individual limits are still in place, I don't think an individual donor can have a significant influence over any candidate. A candidate will not feel compelled to vote a certain way just because some rich dude donated around $2,000 to him/her (as if I think the SuperPACs should be a greater concern since they exert a much greater influence over both voters and the candidates.
ReplyDeleteChristina Chang Period 3
I believe that there should be a cap on how much an individual can donate to any candidate for any given election. First, simply because elections should not be about how much one can outspend the other. Second, because there is a huge difference showing support for a candidate one believes in and just trying to help buy that candidate's spot into office. As it is, I believe that the amount of money spent of campaigns is ridiculous. Instead of burning through millions on a campaign, why don't the parties invest that money into reforms and improvements in American economy and society. Right now, there are 15 million children going to bed hungry at night. If politicians would invest even 1/4 of their campaign spending on issues like those kid, I'm sure they would have much of America voting for them.
ReplyDeleteNathalie Du
Per. 3
After reading the article by Meredith McGehee, I do not believe raising the aggregate contribution to any amount would make any difference in the matter of things when you can donate (at max) only 2700 dollars to one candidate during a election. But, with that said, I also do believe that the current restriction on campaign contributions towards a specific candidate is still a good thing to have since it is aimed towards cutting corruption of politics and evening the playing field for those who cannot afford to give as much as their affluent counterparts in America. With that said, there are still independent expenditures that the rich peoples can still contribute to and have their voice be heard that way rather than actually donating to the candidate directly. In the end I do not believe that raising the aggregate contribution limit to 123,000 dollars will actually corrupt anything.
ReplyDeleteAlex DuBois Per. 3
I agree with the author of the article because the wealth of one person or the misfortune of another should not play a role in the policy making & such in this country. The fact that there are people out there donating absurd amounts of money which the only reason for that would be to influence the policy making. Not only is this in a way bribery because once they step into office they will be in "debt" to these donators but it can also be considered corrupt. This country is supposed to help & keep the people safe from these happenings. The regulations for this cause should be examined more carefully & be more firm about them.
ReplyDeleteJunior Camarena p3
DeleteI agree with the author of this article. While there are limits as to how much a person can give any one candidate, major contributions to parties can also lead to a more corrupt government. Without limits, the wealthy have an unfair pull on policy making in Washington. For example, a wealthy investment banker may full well "donate" a large sum of money to a majority political party in order to repeal a law that impedes on their business. In this way, the wealthy are able to influence American politics in a way that many of the country's citizens cannot. Here, we see a possibility of tyranny by the minority; which is just as bad or worse than its cousin "tyranny of the majority". However, the aggregate limit helps to ease the issue, but does not fix it. So, while the current aggregate limit is by no means perfect; it is the best option at this point in time.
ReplyDeleteHermes Pelayo, P.3
I agree with the author because getting rid of donation limits will incrementally push more corruption into this system than there already is. If this were to happen only the wealthy will have a say on what happens in these country's policy making & who goes into office & who doesn't. In my opinion I do not think that getting rid of the donation system is the answer but to cut out the loop holes & put more caps in it. Make a system that will be fair for everyone & have the people have an equal say on this.
ReplyDeleteDevon Castillo P3
Our nation was built upon the idea of equality and even our government is having a hard time achieving this because of the greed of some politicians. With that being said, I agree with the author of the article that there should be limits on how much an individual can donate to a candidate that is running for political office. If we do not, some donors may create the mind set that the politician they so generously helped now "owes them", because they were a big reason for why they are currently in their political position. Without limits, donors can continue to donate money anonymously which will cause corruption in the political campaigns.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree that it is a part of their freedom of speech, but I still think it's wrong for an individual donor to have so much power/effect on a single political election.
Samantha Leyesa Period 2
I do believe that the these individual contributions should be limited on the basis that it simply, corrupts politicians, it just does not make sense for some fat pig to hog up all these richy rich contributions that stand more than an average Americans annual income. Money is power, and bribery, which the article states that about a senator who supported an amendment for $100k.And personally, the amount of money spent on campaigning is jaw- dropping high, money that can be spent on other benefits, not some terrible acting campaign ad.
ReplyDelete~Lisa R. per.2
I agree with the author of this article. I believe there should be limits on how much people can donate to candidate. I mean, the purpose of these elections is to see which candidate is favored the most by all of the people living in the US, not just the wealthy individuals. As a result, if we do not set limits on how much one can donate, then those with excess money can heavily influence the outcome of elections by giving their favored candidate a bunch of cash to defeat their opposing candidates. Thus there should be restrictions on these donations so that people who are not as wealthy will have an equal say as those who are wealthy.
ReplyDeleteTarik Gibani per 2
The author brings up important points regarding the necessity of maintaining at least a semblance of the restraint that now exists in our election system. Demolishing the spending limits would do nothing more than open a gate for the wealthy upper class to swing the vote in their favor. As the author states, the current spending limit is already twice the average American household income without including taxation; making it difficult for lower socioeconomic classes to have their voices heard, because they cannot through money at the candidates. It is common knowledge that the ones that pay the most are the ones that are heard the most, and this economic sway can compromise the already-feeble integrity of the election process. In our own school we frown upon excess spending in terms of running for class positions. Why is this so? Because we know that there are two possibilities: the candidate may essentially "buy" the vote, or they will overspend and end up upset when the vote does not turn in their favor. Both options are not bright and not something the Supreme Court should place the system in a position to battle. The Supreme Court needs to step up and start remembering the fundamental reasons why those limits were introduced, instead of falling prey to the sway of the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteJulia Jacob
Period 3
I believe limits on how much someone can donate to an individual candidate should be regulated in order to prevent corruption. This is necessary in order prevent candidates from feeling obligated to rule a certain way once in office over fear of being targeted in another election or risk losing money for future campaigns. However, I do not understand why the total amount should be limited. The $123,000 would not be going to any one individual candidate. He would most likely have to donate money to different parties in order to reach that total sum. These large donations would be spread amongst many candidates. This allows each candidate to fairly utilize these donations to their own benefit. If anything, large donations to campaigns could help stimulate our economy. This is because the money the wealthy have on standby would be put to use and circulation instead of collecting dust in their bank accounts. Donated money is used to purchase more advertisement and exposure, not direct votes.
ReplyDeleteJocelyn V.
per. 2
I honestly think that limit for donation is unnecessary. Like what the author mentioned, there were only 4 people out of 1000 American who donated over $200 or more. However, this is with the restriction, meaning even though there were no limit of donating, the amount donated would have been similar. Of course there will be an outlier who will donate incredible amount of donation, but that person will be 1 out of 100,000 American or so. Therefore I disagree with the author.
ReplyDeleteyoung suh per.3
I completely agree with Ahmed. First of all, people that donate to a politican or even to an interest group are participating in politics. Yes, some of these individuals are political activists but not all. Second, a small donation does not have a major impact. A small donation simply displays an individual's belief and position on a matter. Therefore, with a donation cap, individuals are able to support their opinions and the rich are not able to have such a large impact on the the election.
ReplyDeleteMeagan Mandala
Period 2
In my opinion the author here as little to no substantial argument. She basically just goes off about how the limit being raised or eliminated would "lead to corruption" without properly outlining an avenue for such corruption to take place. Rather, she decides to bring in absolutely irrelevant cases in order to try and scare readers into agreeing with her.
ReplyDeleteBasically, what she does with the pharmaceutical companies "point" is point out that there indeed is corruption in Washington...but there are problems with this. First, she has no proof the bill would have passed without the fundraiser, just speculation. Secondly, and more importantly, the entirety of this point is irrelevant in that it has nothing to do with individual spending limits.
If an author is unable to even make relevant points, why should we even take her seriously? There's very little need to even counter this argument because it's so full of holes logically.
Derek Croxford, P.2
I agree with the author. Money is power and giving no limits to what a person can donate will allow people to influence government in an unfair fashion. Most people don't have the money and frankly the political efficacy to donate large amounts. Only the richest people would donate large amounts of money, only to benefit themselves in some way. They will donate to whomever or whichever party they see fit to carry out beneficial actions. This leads to corruption and selfish gains within the government which is what most people are worried about.
ReplyDeleteAzmine Bhuiyan
Period 3
I take this back I just read what Cavanaugh wrote. If the person donating still can only donate 2700 to each candidate then i don't think raising the limit to 123,000 is a terrible thing. In the end each candidate can only receive 2700, the donator can just donate to more candidates. I'm gonna have to disagree with the author now that the 123,000 limit has to be shot down.
DeleteAzmine Bhuiyan
Period 3
I firmly believe that without limits on individual contributions to candidates our government would cease to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. A miniscule minority would effectively control the country because they financed their candidates election. However, I believe that the limits on individual contributions should be lessened which would therefore defend free speech. The amount of money donors choose to spend should not be so strictly limited because then our Constitution and the principles our country was founded on becomes restricted. I offer a solution in which a balance between these two ideas is met which allows for individuals to donate up to 500,000. This solution would appease both sides to an extent and keep peace on this debate for the time being.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Swart
Period 2
I feel that there should be a limit to what people donate to these campaigns. If there is no cap it gives the rich to easy of a pathway to having serious implications on campaigns and will be regarded as more important to congressman then the regular middle class person who can't donate millions. By setting a cap you're limiting the impact of the rich people and making sure that people's voices are equal to congressman. If there wasn't a limit it is very likely congressman would want to win the support of the rich so they could get more money which would lead to lots of corruption and that's a major reason why I believe a cap should be set on campaign donations.
ReplyDeleteAdrian M
P.2
I both agree and disagree with the authors' argument. I believe that the government should have no say on how one should be able to spend their money. If someone wants to donate to a certain organization, the government does not have any right to interfere in that transaction. But on the other hand, if a wealthy person donates a large sum to particular candidate and the candidate wins, they may feel obligated to sign and favor bills in favor of the donate. This is indirectly influencing the government and its choice. So I really come to a conclusion about whether I completely support the authors' opinion or not.
ReplyDeleteSunny Puppali
Per 3
Limiting the amount of money an individual can donate should be regulated to avoid corruption or to avoid a person having control over a candidates decision making. Since only 4 out of 1000 Americans donated $200 or more it would give them an adavatage if they eliminate the limit.
ReplyDelete-Lisbeth N. p.3
https://twitter.com/WhoIsSizzle/status/574681724682178561
ReplyDeletehere is the link for the picture and its captions.
Sunny Puppali
In my opinion it doesn't make sense to shoot down the idea of increasing the gap to 123,000. There would still be a limit of 2,700 for each candidate. This would allow more money to be spread evenly throughout the candidates and would support them as well.
ReplyDeleteGino Franco Period:2
I believe that having a total aggregate donation limit is necessary to prevent corruption during the campaign. Even though you still wouldn't be able to give more than a certain amount of money to each candidate, we also don't expect every candidate to win. That candidates that do drop out can give the money they earned through donations to the winning candidate. If we were allowed to donate without a total donation limit, potentially, we could donate as much money to one party, and when all the losing candidiates drop out, they could donate a lot of their money to the winning candidate, therefore adding up the winning candidate's donation drastically. If we had a limit to the total donations, we could prevent all the candidates in one party from having enough money to be able to make one candidate more powerful through the means of money. The candidates' donations would be more limited, therefore making it harder for a party to win through money.
ReplyDelete-Bradley Mangunsong per. 3
I agree with the basis of this article, that there should be regulations implemented on the total aggregate donation limit. Large amounts of money, only huge sums coming from wealthy individuals, are only opportunity for corruption and bribery slowly or even vapidly in the government. Despite the loopholes, now, with no regulation the tyranny of the rich would only grow insurmountable .
ReplyDeleteMonica Juarez
Per 3
I agree with the author of this article in that there should be a limit as to how much a money a person person can donate to a candidate or political party. It would not be fair for candidates of lower wealth because money is influencing their outcomes when their goal is to serve the best interest of the people, and money should not decide who is most fit for the job. Therefore, the US should continue to place restrictions on how much an individual can donate to prevent corruption.
ReplyDeleteSami K. p.3
I agree with the author's argument. Limits are a good thing. By releasing the cap, the rich will further influence the election and leave candidates feeling as if they owe something to the donor. If that were the case, corruption would be off the charts and it would be a battle of who can donate the most money rather than deciding on bills that are necessary.
ReplyDeleteArmando Blancas p. 2