At the end of this, we should realize how important it is to donate to the political candidate of our preference because it should go a long way. I understand why some people would want to infinitely fund a political campaign of a candidate. And I understand that wealthy people are most likely the ones to be able to do so. It is arguable that millionaires and billionaires, the 1 percenters, have the greatest influence over electioneering communication (political campaigns) and as research finds that campaigns can easily go over $800 million (www.opensecrets.org), it may be hard to argue against it.
Ever heard of an independent group Citizens United? Well, it is a conservative group, known for its support of conservatives in politics, and made it possible for infinite funding with their attained case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It may be a bit confusing to comprehend but statistics show that the Republican Party are the breadwinners of what “controls the most corporate of money” which are political action committees or PACs . These organizations can be controlled by the politician and have no monetary limit (and super PACs are all the more beneficial). Another debate is: Is this truly fair to everyone? Hillary Clinton, one of the two Democrats that has publicly confirmed her candidacy for the 2016 election, seems to want to get the dice rolling and court donors for super PACs, according to a New York Times article. Any why not? This would be the first time a Democratic presidential candidate fully embraces the use of this aid and could lead to more revenue with incoming donations that otherwise may not have reached the politician.
The quality and wealth of a political campaign can be noticeable in comparison to other campaigns. Pay attention to how many times a commercial is aired, how many varying commercials there are for the campaign, and whether it is broadcasted on television, radio, etc. The cost of production of political campaign ads are ridiculously high. When I read that over $2 billion (within both parties) was engrossed in the 2012 presidential election I was shocked that amount of money could ultimately go into the induction of President Barack Obama. The upcoming presidential election is projected to gain the most revenue in history.
Citizens United, in this case, argued that their First Amendment rights were violated by controlling that aspect of campaigning. If they argued using the “freedom of assembly” as their support then their reason is plausible, but logical I am not so sure. The low restriction of campaign spending only helps those who have the money to spend. If a candidate does not have great monetary support, increasing the spending amount will not matter because they were never gaining enough revenue to compete. So, in a sense, aside from presidential elections that get more than enough funding from both parties, those who do not have the capital to expand their political campaigns could be doomed from the start. Non-presidential elections, which fall victims to this disadvantage the most, are just as important if not more. Local elections (like the midterm elections) actually have the biggest impact on your day-to-day life.
My assumption is research could likely show trends in the amount of money spent on a political candidate and the outcome of the election polls. Usually the ones shelling out the most cash are those attaining the most votes. Feel free to disagree. And if there is curiosity, one should never suppress exploring the sources of the incoming revenue especially dealing with these substantial amounts. It could be easy to cloud financial misconduct if there’s too much of it to track. Just a thought, not an accusation. If there is scrutiny with a dramatic appearing landslide in political funding for one party over the other, maybe things should be regulated and audited. In the end, a person should donate dollars to elect a candidate based on his or her mission and how they can improve society—money can blur one’s vision and that is just not what it is all about.
Putting a limit on spending most likely will help those who do not have much political campaign revenue to spend because they are not being overlapped by those who do. Leaving off a monetary limit may do the opposite so opinions on the system may always be scattered. Whichever way an individual supports, they must do so wholeheartedly. So if you support the uncapped money limit of PACs, make sure to donate to the political candidate you want into office. When you think that the value of your donation will not stretch very far, believe me it will.