"Despite several attempts to regulate campaign finance, money increasingly domninates the US electoral process and is the main factor contributing to a candidates success" Discuss

Authors Avatar by neematehranigmailcom (student)

Despite several attempts to regulate campaign finance, money increasingly dominates the US electoral process & is the main factor contributing to a candidate’s success

In recent years the increase in money poured into US elections has created a seemingly money dominated election with some arguing success relies on the highest level of campaign funding. As a result of the Watergate scandal The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 attempted to make a number of significant changes. However with the increased regulations there have been increased loopholes and many ways to get around these regulations, many donating large sums of money argue they are not the most important part of the campaign and the significance still lies with the Candidates strength and skills. But as the 2008 and 2012 hugely exceeded the expenditure of any previous election it is clearly to see money is playing an increasingly significant role.

FECA of 1974 aimed to reduce candidates’ reliance on few wealthy donors and equalise money spent by the major parties. This law was however weakened by the Supreme #Court in the Buckley v Valeo ruling that limitations on what individuals or PACs could spend infringed the 1st amendment.  In a similar case the 2010 Citizens united v FEC decision restrictions on corporations was removed leading to Super PACs. These played a significant role in the fundraising and spending in the 2012 presidential election. Supporters see them as a positive consequence of free speech, however many see that they are yet another outlet for unlimited money in electoral politics.

Join now!

It is evident to see that money is the arguably the most significant part of the election process due. Barack Obama has taken part is the two most expensive elections, with 1.1 billion being raised by Obama in 2012, raising more than Romney and subsequently won the presidential election. The increasing importance of finance has been shown by Obama’s actions in 2008, when he rejected federal funding in order to avoid restrictions on his spending, aware of the advantage of large fundraising support. Indeed in 2012, neither Romney nor Obama took matching funds and neither did any of Romney’s rivals ...

This is a preview of the whole essay