Last week in class, we discussed campaign finance reform and I told you that I may re-post something I have posted previously in another class. So, as promised, here it is.
This past Presidential election was the most expensive race in history, with candidates literally raising millions of dollars to finance their campaigns. During the primary contest, then candidate Obama pledged not to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. In fact, Obama returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists during the course of his campaign. However, Obama did take money from individuals who while not registered lobbyists, were still employed at lobbyist firms. This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists in previous races drew criticism and charges of hypocrisy.
The top spenders in the 2008 Presidential election, ranked in order from highest to lowest, were as follows: US Chamber of Commerce, Exxon Mobil, AARP, PG&E, Northrop Group, American Medical Association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, American Hospital Association, General Electric and Verizon Communications. It is no coincidence that one can see two of our countries' biggest domestic issues reflected in this list; health care and energy.For more information on who gave what to whom, check out the Center for Responsive Politics at: http://www.opensecrets.org/. This website will give you the full details on campaign finance and show you who has supported your politicians in the past.
My question to you this week is, "Do you think it is okay for candidates to take money from lobbyists? If it were up to you, how would you reform our campaign finance laws?" Answers are due no late than Thursday, November 12th, 2009.
First of all we have to get 5% of the vote for an Independent candidate so every American can have a voice in an election. secondly, we should look at pooling all contributions and dividing it equally to all candidates on the ballot. Lastly, we should definitely get rid of any situation where soft money is an option.
ReplyDeleteAnna Wilson
ReplyDeleteI feel that if Obama or any other president takes money from lobbyists, that is their decision, but they should not be able to. Without taking money from lobbyists, I feel that they would not receive as much for their campaign as necessary. However, I feel that by taking the money from lobbyists, that is more of an incentive for them to follow what the money persuades as their decisions, which is unfair. People are almost being able to persuade the president with money to support how they feel, rather than the general public and that is not right. He should have more limits to taking money from people.
To tell you the truth, after watching CNN tonight, I could give less of a damn about how political campaigns are run. I do not understand what is and what is not the truth in the news, I have no clue who I can trust in making judgments for our country, the news tells me one thing, and I see the complete opposite in real life. That is until the media persuades the common folk to believe and act on what is said. We know we are free in this country, because that is what they have always told us. We have grown up with that exact education. When in all actuality I understand now that I have always been under the impression it was meant as completely free, which many may agree with me until we grew up. However, freedom is defined as the power or condition of acting without compulsion. We are free in that sense. I don't have it as wonderful as I thought.
ReplyDeleteI am thinking James is right when she told us 'they' teach us what 'they' want us to know. I am also thinking James is persuading me to think that. I am also not trusting my own thought right now, because persuasion is a bitch.
I saw, in the reports of this Texas based shooting, a few Muslim guys on the streets of New York freely discussing ON TV how they would not be affected by a terrorist attack on our president. While saying those words ON TV, those Muslims are protected by OUR first amendment. Think about this for a minute; on CNN, Muslims (US Citizens) are speaking of the comfort they would find in the murder of our president, and we don't do anything about it.
I can not put into words how frustrated I am about the country I live in. I would love to visit a few more, solely to get a hint of comparison between my home, and anywhere else.
i agree with most the comments listed here and i also think that its not a matter of who the best canidate is its who has the most money or who's back pocket the canidates are in because there are too many businesses that influence how and what is done i this company.
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand the whole process of lobbying but I do understand that it takes money for campaigning. Now, where the candidates get some of their money from (besides voters and big companies….I don’t know). If the candidates take money from unregistered lobbyists, it seems to me that the lobbyist should be able to claim that money on their taxes….can they? If so, then I don’t suppose that would be a problem. If for some reason unregistered lobbyist cannot claim the money given to a campaign on their taxes, then maybe the campaign laws should changed to reflect this. Lee Jackson
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with taking money from lobbyists because it starts to sway your opinion about things. It's like the lobbyists are giving you money so that you can speak up about the issues they care about. Not cool. The whole presidency is to protect and serve the country and taking money and being swayed is the total opposite of our goal as Americans. I would make it so that each candidate was given a much lower, set amount of money and time to speak and advertise, after it was gone that's it. I would make the focus more on issues and solving problems instead of raising money and creating popularity among the yuppies. This class has really opened my eyes about how everything in the World is about money and politics. What about the good in people?
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is ethical for big businesses and organizations to funnel money towards a presidential campaign. It is the same mentality and reality which was present in Al Capone's days as the underworld leader in 1920's Chicago. Policemen, judges, and politicians were paid to look the other way while corruption grew rampant. The payola, graft, and bribes kept the entire city under the rule of a madman. Puppets on strings and lobbyist campaign contributions are synonymous.
ReplyDelete========
Keith M.
========
I don't think it's right to take money from lobbyist because they are only giving you money so you can agree with what they think on presidential campaign. That is just not right at all. Isn't suppose to be a free country where people have the right to give their own opinions and say what they want to say.
ReplyDeleteCandidates need money to campaign. Let them get what they need to cover those costs. For fairness, all lobbyists should have an equal percentage of that amount in which to donate. Beyond the campaign costs, no more money or "gifts" should be allowed. That extra money is used to sway those in office to directions they would not normally sway. The lobbyists' main interests and goals are not with the American public's welfare, it is with their own. And this is not where our governments loyalty should be. It should be with us!
ReplyDeleteIt all seems to come down to money. I understand the need for political candidates to gain endorsements, etc. but I do not agree with accepting money from lobbyist. It seems that the candidate would then be obligated to whoever contributed to his/ her campaign.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if I really have an opinion on this matter. I feel that if they take money it is thier buisness... but I also feel that the people who give the candidates money, the candidate mostly does what that company wants. And of course now our issues lie in these....
ReplyDelete-Naomi V
Soft money should not be allowed for candidates, but of course all the money given to each candidate isn’t always reported. I’m sure there will always be several thousands that would slip through the cracks and no one will never know about it. However with that said, I understand that some funding is definitely necessary in order to run a successful campaign. But a campaign should be based on commonsense views and the well-being of ALL human-beings, not just for the upper class and upper middle class. Throughout history there has been too many presidents who was in office just to satisfy there own selfish needs, one of the more recent ones just got out of office. It make one wonder, how do selfish pricks like that end up in office anyway? Maybe it’s through manipulation, deception, persuasion, friends in high places, or simply having more money than the other candidates. It seems like most of our presidents was elected based on a combination of the previous mentioned, if not all of them. Campaigns shouldn’t be about who has the better friends in higher places or who has the most money. I feel that since this is suppose to be a democracy, then maybe just maybe, the voters should more of an impact on the outcome and not just look upon as mere opinions. I definitely agree with Bruce on that matter. I also agree with Phil, the media is one big contradictive and hypocritical circus, and should be watched to see how crooked and evil most politicians really are. I should run for president, I bet the people would love me. Well maybe not the rich government officials, but no one cares about them accept for other rich government officials.
ReplyDeleteMoney, money, money, is always a issue around the world. As far as the question I don't believe it's right to take from those who are out campaigning for their own good or reasoning. Lobblyist, may or may not have the right solution to what they campaign about for the presidential, but again it's their money.
ReplyDeleteI as well agree with Julian on his facts of; "Campaigns shouldn’t be about who has the better friends in higher places or who has the most money." However, even though his statement is true campaigns do look at where the money at. ~Anesia~
I don't believe it is right to have our candidates taking money from lobbyist. It wouldn't matter if it was true in the fact that it didn't matter which candidate had the more money, the people will judge. However, that s not the case.
ReplyDeleteTime is money. The more money the candidate has the more time they have to prove their point over the other candidate. Money and big business has a stronghold across the world. Even though in the US, we are always saying that the government does not deal with our daily lives, it just means they are more secret about it though media.
The point I'm trying to make is that even though people have the choice to who to vote for, their vote is unknowingly guiding though media which is run big business and the government. By giving more money to one candidate, it gives them an unfair advantage.
I agree with Daylin, the lobbyist money could easily sway the candidate and the issues that they deem important. The more money they recieved from that particulare lobbyist the more important the issue at hand. Plus, once the candidate gets into office, they could possibly make sure that those who helped them are looked after which makes the money an incentive. I think candidates should find other ways to raise money as opposed to taking money from lobbyists, i'm sure they have other means of raising funds.
ReplyDeleteI believe that as long as it is legal to accept the money the candidates are well within their rights to accept the money. I dont believe this is how it should be because it makes it too easy for corporations to buy themselves a politician. I would say that this bothers me a great deal but seeing as how they ALL do it in one way or another it makes it really hard to dislike only a certain few. The laws on this should certainly be changed but I would be shocked if they ever actually were. Money makes the world go round', and these guys are receiving lots of it.
ReplyDeleteI think that if a candidate needs money they should use their own money, or raise the money that they need. But it's up to them to make the decision if they want to take it from lobbyists or not. Thats what I would do if I was running. But people are going to do what they wanna do regardless of what other people think. This will possibly go on for a long while, unless something is done about it.
ReplyDeleteI think that taking money from lobbist is very restricting on the future President. If you take money from lobbists, like Exxon, once you become President, don't you lose the ability to make proper decisions if you are catering to their needs for helping you become President? It's a double-edge sword, where if you don't believe in an issue, or want to make a decision, you can't neccessarly do what you think is right because you have to take the companies who gave you money into consideration. This would become very limiting.
ReplyDeleteIt would be very interesting to see what a campaign would be like if the playing field was even for both candidates with their finances. The candidates would really have to get creative and think their stratigies out with a different point of view. Would the media and the public have to focus more on what the candidates where saying because they wouldn't be investigationg how the candidates where getting their money?
Maybe the solution would be putting a cap on how much money you could raise, soft money is not aloud, and reaching some other conclusions on how to make a fair and interesting race. I don't think we can be too extreme-we do live in America, where are rights are practiced.
I found it ironic that Exxon Mobil was the second largest contributor. I did a paper last quarter on the Exxon Valdex oil spill. What I learned from the research I did, was that the Alaskans whose lives and livlihoods were turned upside down from the spill that Exxon was clearly responsible for were compensated with a slap in the face from the supreme court. Only a fraction of the people were compensated ( around $20 thousand dollars). They didn't receive any money until 20 years after the spill. This was because Exxon appealed every verdict and kept the case tied up for nearly 20 years. Did I mention that Exxon has shown the largest profits of any company in the world...ever. The people not only suffered from loosing their livlihoods of fishing but they suffered tremendously from disease and ailments due to exposure to the oil while cleaning up the spill. So I find it to be a huge conflict for any politician to accept money for lobbyist.
ReplyDeleteJana Griffin
I feel that there is a better solution to be found when raising funds for presidential campaigns. If a canidate feels it is necessary to accept funds from a lobbyist I would hope that they would maintain their word when speaking to the public without letting those funds change or influence their decision in opposition to their promises.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the millions of dollars that are put towards campaigns could go to better causes. I agree with Bruce's idea of pooling the campaign money and dividing it equally among all candidates. This would probably reduce the amount of money donated by lobbyists. It would also give independent candidates a chance at competing with the big boys.
ReplyDeleteI think that money is taken from lobbyist and that it should be put toward a greater use then Presidency campaigning. There are many better things that could be accomplished than deciding on what president will be ours do to the campaign efforts. Presidents could be choosen just as well without all the glitz. I love graphic design, that is what I do, but to use that money for all the ads and publicity is just too much.
ReplyDelete