Monday, October 12, 2015
The Families Funding the 2016 Presidential Election
Just 158 families have contributed nearly half of the money so far in the 2016 presidential election. There are over 120 million households in the United States, so half of the money is coming from just 0.0001% of families. While individuals are limited to campaign donations of $2,700, these donors give money in the form of "super PACs," which can raise unlimited funds. Most of the donors earned their fortunes themselves (rather than by inheritance). Should those with the means be allowed to spend unlimited money on elections? Or are we granting the rich a disproportionate share of power?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would agree with the second question that U.S. Americans are allowing the elites to control the finding behind campaigns. I believe we should put restrictions on family contributions similar to individuals based something like annual income.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that, through super PACs, rich families gain a disproportionate share of power. Low and middle income families can't afford to donate $2 million to a candidate's campaign; many probably can't even afford to contribute the individual limit of $2,700. Super PACs should be abolished because they give too much influence to too few people.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the first point. The wealthy elite in this country are allowed to spend significantly more on the campaigns of the people they want in power than the rest of the population can. This leads to underrepresentation of the populous given that the vast majority of political power is in the hands of an extremely affluent minority.
ReplyDeleteUnlimited private campaign funding should no longer be allowed. It gives the wealthy elite control over politicians and creates an unfair presidential race, as some candidates will receive much more money than others through super PACs and private donors.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the elite should have some freedom to do what they want with their money, especially since most of the donors built up their own wealth. But I think the minuscule percentage (.0001%) of donors paying half of campaign funds is too much. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere. It's clearly more common for the rich to vote Republican, so it is creating an unfair advantage for the rich to funnel their immense wealth into the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelly, the rich should be able to spend their money the way they would like too. I also feel like like rich have a greatly disproportionate share of power. I do not think that Super Pacs necessary need to be abolished but maybe there should be a limit on how much one can donate to a Super Pac.
ReplyDeleteThe rich should not be able to give unlimited funding to candidates, as it creates an unbalanced situation in elections. If a candidate being supported by a super PAC were to be elected, they would essentially become a tool of their donors, since those candidates would not want to lose their funding for going against the ideals of the donors. Therefore, the rich are being granted a disproportionate amount of power, since then can control elections, and if their candidates are elected, control government decisions.
ReplyDeleteI thought the article raised a good point in that these families are not spending proportionately more than an average family could spend on a campaign donation; I think this helps the argument addressed by the first question that those with the means should be allowed to spend their money as they please on campaign donations.
ReplyDeleteBut although this was a good point, campaign donations of such large sizes should not be allowed. I would agree with my other classmates that allowing individual families to have such a great influence in campaign financing via super PACs makes them political elites; their interests are represented disproportionately more than those of the middle and lower classes. I think this really prevents true equality of representation in the government.
I feel that money doesn't equal speech. Just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean that your "political voice" should be any louder than people without. There should be restrictions on how much everyone can donate, so that politicians who govern everyone aren't heavily influenced by a minority of people.
ReplyDeleteI I believe the rich shouldn't have any more say in politics than the average American, especially since they make up such a small percentage of the population. I think that the Citizen's United decision has had a negative impact on American politics. What's the point of a $2,700 limit on individual donations if super PACs exist? As we've discussed before in class, money is involved in almost every aspect of politics. The last thing we need to do is increase the role of money through the existence of super PACs, allowing the elite of the country to contribute 2 million dollars when many Americans can barely afford to contribute triple digit figures. The elite deserve a voice in politics, of course. But they can, and should, obey the $2,700 limit like the rest of Americans.
ReplyDelete