Campaign Finance Issues Essay Research Paper GENERAL
Campaign Finance Issues Essay, Research Paper
GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
We are non a democracy, yet we do hold a voice in our ain authorities. Elections are the pick mikes for many citizens. There on Election Day, they have the right of doing their voices heard ; nevertheless, many involvement groups and a few persons seem to hold a louder voice due to run funding:
No U.S. functionary should be beholden to one or a few groups. And no group or person should hold a greater claim on our elected leaders than any other. That? s the manner it should work. But it is turning clear to more and more Americans that it doesn? T ( McCarthy 24 ) .
Recently, it has been the tendency to seek to do certain the sentiments and concerns of minorities are punctually celebrated and pondered on. The lone job seen with this comes approximately whenever the minority? purchase? the attending of politicians. Typically, minorities are more than a figure. The grossly rich, while little in figure and per centum, have ne’er counted as a minority, but these are the lone 1s who can afford to give adequate support to a campaigner to pull attending to them. Again, we see an blue authorities. Even involvement groups of true minorities can? t give plenty to affect anyone.
Now that we have seen the dangers of run funding, we should travel back and happen out how it started. Max McCarthy speaks of a clip when everything got worse in political relations. This was non to connote that everything had been perfect earlier, but one time the media gets involved, things tend to travel otherwise. Many old ages ago, the media began to play a critical function in the political instruction of our citizens, with wirelesss and telecastings. Before, merely those with existent authorization had any complete cognition of what went on with governmental political relations. As each campaigner was brought closer and closer to the American people, they really started to care about things that before were nicely unbroken secrets. The sentiments of these, now apparently existent people, alternatively of future historical figures, were really heard, and the people really knew who they were voting for. With the start of this new engineering, runing was much easier ; all that was needed was adequate money to acquire the name acknowledgment:
As run costs have skyrocketed in recent old ages, the per centums contributed by the parties and little single givers have declined. . . An ever-growing section of political support now comes from particular involvement groups and big single givers. . . Money is the most corrupting, perverting force in American political relations today ( McCarthy xi ) .
The thought behind fund-raising for elections was a success at first, giving givers another manner to voice their sentiments and open up the doors for communicating one time the elected functionaries to the full realized who they owed their place to. However, this went excessively far. Those whose campaigner did non win were left with an functionary who will accept the thoughts of a past giver before any others. This favouritism, while good to certain givers, proves damaging to others. Besides, when before, all donated and spoke their head, now merely certain groups and people donate and non even all of them speak their head. ? The person doesn? t count any longer? ( McCarthy 25 ) .
THE HYPOTHESIS
Now that I have given about three pages of background information on the political procedures, now would be a good clip to present my Representative. Ken Bentsen represents the 25TH District of Texas. He is a Democrat and has served as representative since 1991. I really have a few theories sing the grounds he voted the manner he did and why certain groups financially supported his run. Scholars for 1000s of old ages have pondered the inquiry of whether it was the poulet or the egg, which came foremost. In the instance of candidacy and finance, such seems to be the inquiry. Because electors had the chance of watching his calling before 1996, it? s practically impossible to be able to state if either they saw how he voted earlier and wanted to back up him saw how he voted and wanted to alter him, or he voted because of the money. I will non reply this inquiry, but alternatively indicate out every possibility, hopeful making an expositive essay.
KEN BENTSEN: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bentsen received his Bachelor of Humanistic disciplines in Political Science from the University of St. Thomas in 1982 and his Masters of Public Administration in Finance and Economicss from American University in 1985. While still in school, from 1983 to 1987, Ken Bentsen served as a legislative helper to U.S. Representative Ronald D. Coleman. Among the duties bestowed upon him, were budget and revenue enhancement policy, defence, foreign personal businesss and international trade, labour policy, and transit. Even still, in the staying months or so of his schooling, he served as associate staff to the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, where he specialized in Treasury, Defense, and general authorities support. Traveling along, from 1987 through 1994, Bentsen worked in Houston as an investing banker specialising in municipal and lodging finance. Last, from 1990 to 1993, he served as Chair of the Harris County Democratic Party. Proving once more that budgeting is up his conference, he directed the rebuilding of the Party and the riddance of its debt, throughout his term of office. Ken Bentsen was born in Houston on June 3, 1959. Ken and is married woman, Tamra, have two kids, Louise and Meredith, and are members of the First Presbyterian Church of Houston.
KEN BENTSEN: BEFORE THE Election
While Bentsen brags about crushing the Republicans in a old race, even when they out spent him, but it is evident that in this race he wouldn? Ts take the hazard.
Dolly McKenna, his Republican opposition, followed far behind with lone $ 648,854 compared to his $ 1,692,979, yet she was the closest. The bulk of his money came from PACs and other involvement group, while Dolly McKenna received most of her parts from persons, which was really less than the sum Ken Bentsen obtained from single subscribers. The undermentioned chart displays the sum Congressman Bentsen raised shows where it came from, with the exclusion of single giver names or corporations.
KEN BENTSEN? S CAMPAIGN FINANCE
Time period of Datas: 1/1/1995? 12/31/1996
Net Receipts $ 1,691,779
Net PACs $ 1,035,588
Net Individual $ 649,687
Net Other $ 6,504
Net Spent $ 1,609,745
Ending Cash $ 41,840
Debts Owed $ 33,394
PAC Breakdowns:
Agriculture $ 23,750
Communication and Electronics $ 20,500
Construction $ 18,500
Defense $ 10,000
Energy and Natural Resources $ 34,214
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate $ 203,723
Health $ 46,400
Ideology and Single-Issue $ 76,246
Labor $ 355,550
Lawyers and Lobbyists $ 58,000
Misc. Business $ 24,350
Other $ 3,000
Party/Candidate Committees $ 133,050
Transportation $ 25,000
Unkn
ain $ 500
A big amount of the involvement group money came from labour. Consequently, the concern industries contributed less than 15 % of the labour part. ? ? We? re non seeking to purchase ballots, ? the oil company executive explained to the newsman. ? We? re seeking to purchase an entr & # 233 ; vitamin E to speak about our jobs? ? ( McCarthy 23 ) . ? They want their telephone calls answered? ( McCarthy 13 ) . It? s difficult to nail an exact ground why certain companies would give, while others would non. It? s possible they truly believed in Ken Bentsen, or knew he would win and wanted to be in good footings with him. Corporations or persons with influence have the same job many Americans have with vote for a campaigner they know will lose. Just as every citizen would wish to experience that their ballot really counts, concerns have this thing with money. They don? Ts like to blow it. Alternatively of giving to the campaigner they agree with, their money makes its manner to the hereafter victor? s run budget. If they can? t elect their preferable pick, the 2nd best thing, would to be in? good footings? with whoever is elected.
It has been said before that statistics, while factual, are besides invalid because of the many different ways they can been interpreted. This remains true with the sum of money raised by campaigners. It seems logical, because they amount raised proves that they have dedicated protagonists, but it besides goes to ground that non everyone who votes has the desire, or income to back up their campaigner financially. Their lone voice is their ballot, which isn? t heard until it? s all over. In fact, Jacobson put it this manner, ? As in every election since informations have become available, the sum spent by the officeholder has a much smaller consequence on the result? ( Malbin 62 ) .
Even still, there was merely one individual in this peculiar race who spent more than the 1 who was straight in front of him. As shown by the graph below, the sum of ballots followed the sum of money. In this peculiar graph, I used Ken Bentsen? s money as the set value and made up the per centums consequently, seeing that his run budget was highest.
KEN BENTSEN: AFTER ELECTED
As the representative of District 25, Congressman Bentsen works on several commissions:
Social SecurityLabor Issues
Medicare or MedicaidSBA
Veterans BondsEEOC
Military IssuesGrants
IRSEPA
Postal ServiceHUD
Educational IssuesImmigration Visas & A ; Passs
The bulk of his ballots concern in-migration and air power.
Few parts came from organisations Congressman Bentsen has no vote control over, or has non yet been able to vote over. The vote issue even brings up more possible ground for why certain people or concerns, or involvement groups decided to donate to his cause.
Because he has been in office since 1991, the electors already knew what he stood for. Curiously adequate, many subscribers gave even though he had antecedently voted against their wants in over 50 % of the ballots. It is possible that they excessively merely wanted a manner to acquire his attending, or thought they could purchase him. Ken Bentsen has proved that the money has non effected his ballots though. He has voted against his givers if he felt it was necessary. Most likely, it was easier for him travel against proposition designed to assist in-migration, or at least better its organisation, because merely U.S. citizens can vote. In fact he seemed to chiefly vote in resistance towards those sorts of measures. There is besides another instance where he rejected a measure that would give airdromes more money ( 19.5 billion ) to maintain up airport security, even though the transit industries donated $ 25,000 to his run.
Although, in a unit of ammunition about manner, givers have an border when it comes to voting. If they personally know him, they will of course experience more comfy speaking and explicating why they disagree with a certain measure. Besides, like most people, he may non accept the call or electronic mail of person whose name he did non acknowledge, doing it harder for them to acquire their sentiment heard. In fact run magazines explain the art of acquiring money. Making promises and taking pretty images weren? t plenty for a prospective giver ; they want existent communicating, to experience as if they know the campaigner. With this sort of relationship, it stands to ground that they won? T be disappointed rather often. Even if they disagree with him, he will be more likely to assist them see what he sees than for person else.
IN CONCLUSION
In life, there is ne’er any black and white. There are ever grey countries. In political relations, the fact remains:
Unfortunately, it is hard to get away Herbert E. Alexander? s decision that? there are no universally accepted standards by which to find when political run disbursement becomes inordinate? ( Goidel 39 ) .
As taxpayers, we can easy acquire disgusted by the tremendous sum of money being spent on an election, but we have no thought what it takes to do it anyplace in political relations:
Not merely is the pick between campaigners offered merely every two old ages. . . but the determination to seek a different trade name is based on the determination of more than a individual consumer. If the economic market worked in a similar manner, consumers who voted for Pepsi would be forced to imbibe Coca-Cola if 50 per centum + 1 per centum of the voting population opted for the? existent thing? ( Goidel 38 ) .
This analogy compared the economic market to runing. Both have the premier aim of selling something. It was decided that if Coke is able to pass 1000000s and one million millions advertisement such a fiddling object, our future leaders should be able to pass every bit much, if non more. The thought is non to purchase off the American people but alternatively, fastidiously inform them.
Bibliography
( Author Unknown ) . 1999. “ CNN ” . hypertext transfer protocol: //cnn.com/ALL POLITICS/stories/1999/07/01/haney/
Congress. 1999. World Wide Web. Fec.gov
Connolly, Ceci. 1999. “ Washington Post Magazine ” . hypertext transfer protocol: //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/gore 040499_full.htm.
Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, and Daniel R. Ortiz. erectile dysfunction. 1997. Campaign Finance Reform. The Brookings Institution.
Emenhiser, JeDon. 1999. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.sorrel.humboldt.edu/~jae1/paper.html
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weit. 1997. We The Peoples: An Introduction to American Politics. W.W. Norton & A ; Company, Inc.
Goidel, Robert K. , Donald A. Gross, and Todd G. Sheilds. 1967. Money Matters: Consequenses of Campaign Financing Reform in the U.S. House Elections. Rowman & A ; Little field Publishers, Inc. Lanham, New York.
Malbin, Micheal J. 1991. Money and Politics in the U.S. : Financing Elections in the 1980s. Chatham House Publishers, Inc. Box One, Chatham, New Jersey.
McCarthy, Max. 1972. Elections For Sale. Hough Mifflin Company, Boston.
Pelletier, Paul.1999. “ Closing the Deal: Ten Fund-raising Tips ” . Campaigns and
Elections ( May ) :56-59.
