Annonymous funding

Sheila Krymholz states that records for fund raising have far outdone themselves. It is said that spending is much higher than reported but the issue is that the sources for a lot of money is not disclosed.  Political funding is remaining anonymous and we can never know what the final tally is and where the money is coming from. For this, look especially at 30:20- 32:30

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/MoneyandCa

Who's paying the taxes?

Meredith McGeheefor goes into the real facts of the special treatment of political campaigns in the tax code. She states that they aren’t subject to the same tax codes as other entities. The cost of these policies are outweighing the costs of any public financing system.

Disconnection between the people and the candidates

Charlie Cook states that the money is a huge issue because it forces candidates to focus more on the collection of money rather than focusing on their connection with the people. He gives examples of a working class people who feel as though they can't even imagine elected officials in Washington understanding their lives. It’s a message of how abandoned and isolated people in America really feel. For this, look specifically at 5:20- 8:45 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/MoneyandCa

Corporate Money and politics

The legal changes within campaign financing have contributed greatly to the influence of direct elections within the past decade.  Eduardo Porter of the New York times states, ” In 2007, the Supreme Court blew aside spending restrictions (weak as they were) by ruling that corporations, unions and other groups could spend unlimited amounts up to Election Day on “issue” ads that mentioned a candidate’s name, as long as they did not explicitly urge a “vote for” or “vote against” a candidate.” As if that wasn’t enough, one major change was made with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision which eliminated the spending restriction on campaign ads that endorsed or opposed certain candidates. Money from outside groups increased tremendously, while party spending decreased. How disastrous can this be for American Democracy? Probably more than we even know or have come to terms with

When the 2002 McCain-Feingold law put an end to the unlimited “soft money”, supporters found other ways to channel in money towards the elections. Rick Perry’s supporters, for instance, have created a group called Make Us Great Again, which is eager to get him to win the Republican presidential nomination; eager enough to spend up to $55 million. Unions and other supporters are doing everything they can to keep money flowing into independent groups. These groups are called Super PAC’S and they are undoubtedly playing a large role on the share of money that is being poured into elections altogether.

The Supreme Court made a decision based on the First Amendment free speech principles. The Justices Black, Douglas and Warren wrote,

“Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesman. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important — vitally important — that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.”

With this said, Dissenters feel as though the unlimited amounts of corporate money will corrupt democracy and I feel as though it quite possibly can do so. The unlimited amount of money is going to give candidates more power than they deserve within the election. Many corporations will choose to overly editorialize certain candidates, blinding the public from the real truth. Why? Because they have the backing to do so.  The wealthy will seemingly have the power over the election. They will fund the candidate to their liking and the not so wealthy groups will be left out in the cold because they can’t afford to fund in the same way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/how-the-big-money-finds-a-way-in.html?_r=1&ref=campaignfinance

Quest for campaign cash

The hunt is on for cash as the two presidential front runners, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney make their way around this weekend in an effort to woo contributors before the September 30^th quarterly filing deadline.  In Mackinac Island, MI, both presidential front runners made a point to bring out their best qualities for the hundreds of party leaders and donors in order to rack in some extra campaign cash. Unfortunately though, while they were too busy in Mackinac, Herman Cain took the straw poll vote in Florida. This result leaves them both eager and ready to obtain the money necessary to campaign in other states.

Although the Straw Poll in Florida named Cain victorious, Romney too gained a few supporters. Perry’s performance on Thursday evening in Orlando, Florida pushed some big named donors who were initially on his side, towards Romney.  Romney took Mackinac Island like a pro, seemingly winning over the nomination. Although the candidates are neck in neck and Romney’s donors have urged him to take a more aggressive approach towards Perry, he surprisingly didn’t mention Perry in his speech. Instead, he pointed out the flaws of the Obama administration. Even though Romney’s advisers have been urged to see Perry as a more serious threat and take a more aggressive approach, his advisers responded with: ”the way we take him seriously is to run our campaign on our terms. “If we start to wobble and race around and be responding to [Perry], we’re going to look like the flip-flopper that we were accused of successfully last time. And if Romney tries to take Perry on on his turf, he’s going to lose. He’s got to take him on on Romney’s turf.”

Perry is out raising funds in Washington and several other mid-Atlantic states while Romney is out in New York and Boston. Romney is targeting these areas in an attempt to gain new contributors, especially the traditional republicans who have remained seemingly uncommitted. Perry’s team is targeting a sum of 10-15 million, all the while Romney is expected to raise nearly the same amount but unfortunately less than the 18 million he received last quarter.

Obama, like Romney and Perry, is beginning his search for cash as his reelection campaign open their offices in the battleground states.  His campaign is said to raise about $55 million with the Democratic National Committee, more than doubling the amount of each front runner. Although Obama’s campaign is looking quite wealthy in comparison to Romney’s and Perry’s, it would be a remarkable drop from the $86 million he reported last quarter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-romney-press-for-campaign-cash-ahead-of-fourth-quarter-deadline/2011/09/23/gIQAV4tPuK_story_1.html

The Electoral College: Are the voters being recognized

The Electoral College system is one that is one that is filled with controversy in many ways. Everyone seems to feel differently about the impact it has on present day elections. In 2000, the final elections were between Bush and Gore. Although Gore received the popular vote, Bush was elected into office simply because he had the Electoral College vote. The flaw within the system as Rob Richie stated on C-span is that during the elections in 2000, 3/5^th of all candidate visits remained primarily within four swing states, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The other states seem to be put off because of their consistency of being either primarily republican or Democratic. Primaries will never be held in New York City because time after time we vote in democratic representatives.  The only purpose we serve is as fuel, also known as: the cash flow for the candidates. Candidates zoom in on certain states and secure their electoral votes in those states, focusing less on their popular vote. Shouldn’t it be that the president is chosen based on the popular vote? In my opinion, the electoral system is in favor of the candidates with the most resources and money, making them capable of campaigning themselves at a maximum level; but where’s the genuine factor?  Many states are put off as a result of the electoral system and people are feeling left out or as if their vote doesn’t count. Just because New york is generally is a democratic state, doesn’t mean that everyone living in the state is a democrat. This in turn discourages republicans from voting in New York. Major states have this problem primarily because they seem to be set in stone as to what side they’re on, for the most part. Surely enough, the “Popoular Vote” system may be somewhat of a failure as well. It is said that many of the smaller states votes would be overlooked and outnumbered by the bigger states. Proportional Representation voting may be a good solution to the Electoral College, in which the votes for each state are fairly split.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm

The Electoral College: Now and then

Thomas Mann talks about the electoral system during the Obama election which was an ideal popular vote election whereas the election in 2000 (Bush) was quite the opposite. He give a little background on the
Electoral College in the late 1700's, bringing up the 3/5th's compromise which gave the South and advantage on the electoral vote. He states that the Electoral College was introduced for many reasons but pointed out the fact that if it was based on popular vote, "voters wouldn't have the information needed to make an intelligent choice" for president.

Discouraged voters

The electoral college seems to be discouraging voters. A caller talks about her disappointment in the system, mainly pointing out that she and many other voters have thought about refraining from voting because they feel as though thier vote doesn't count. Rob Richie responds pointing out the constitutional amendment set forth for the electoral college.

Womp Womp: Electoral College

Rob Richie explains that the bigger states typically get all the attention during the election process because the popular vote relies greatly on these states. This is important to look at because this is a result of the electoral college and the impact it has on the final election.