Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has raised an impressive
thirty three million dollars in the last three months of campaigning. All of
this, in the spirit of his campaign, has been without the aid of SUPERPACS and
by keeping a monetary cap on the amount any one voter can donate. This is
largely in contrast to the manner in which the other candidates have raised their funds. With some of the
other candidates receiving donations in the ten million dollar range, what does
this landmark fundraising achievement reveal? Do you think that the Citizens
United case allowing such high amounts of donations from any single party
should be upheld?
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bernie Sanders has achieved impressive figures. There seem to be a lot of people behind him, but whether or not this is will enough is a good question. A lot of people appear to be voting for him because they look at him and say, "Here is a guy who comes to us without big money, without huge corporations behind him, and without owing much to anyone other than the American people." I don't know if that is true or not, but that is definitely the view that many people have of him. It also seems that that is the sole reason that many are donating to him. Through social media, I have heard very little about him other than that he is a socialist and that he has received so many small donations that he has almost caught up with Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteIn general, it seems absurd to me that we consider companies people. They are not. I agree with what we learned in class; we are consumed by an obsession with rights. There are other ways to display your support and utilize your first amendment rights than to spend your money. It seems to me that allowing a huge amount of money to be poured into campaigns has created many more problems than it solved.
As much as I like the idea of a candidate who refuses money from Super PACs, I have serious doubts about Bernie sanders' chances of winning this election. People point to the money he has raised from small donors so far as proof that he can compete with Super PACs, but in a general election he'd have no change of matching the fund-raising of his competitor if he doesn't receive money from super PACs. This is the case because, once the Republican field is narrowed down to a single candidate, all of the Conservative Super PACs will consolidate around that candidate and the funds that that candidate will raise will be absurd. On the other hand, Sanders can only hope to pick up Hillary's small donors (of which she doesn't have many). Not to be a total pessimist, I believe that Bernie's campaign has shown us that the people want change in campaign finance law. So while Bernie may not win, his candidacy may serve as the catalyst for campaign finance reform.
ReplyDeleteI think that Bernie Sanders has achieved Beverly impressive figures. There seems to be a lot of people that support him, but we still don't know if it will be enough to win the election. People look at the money he has raised from small donors so far and it is proof that he can compete with Super PACs, but in general elections he'd have no change in trying to match up with his competitor's fundraising. Once the Republican Party is narrowed down to one competitor, all conservative super PACs will go towards that candidate. Sanders can only hope to receive come of Hilary's small donors, which isn't a lot so it might be harder to recieve support for him.
ReplyDeleteBernie has shown everyone that it is not necessary to rely on superPACs to be financially successful in a primary election, which is pretty remarkable. However, it is true that in the general election he will be outfinanced by the Republican candidate, since all superPACs right now that are funding the various conservative candidates will all turn their money onto the Republican nominee, and Bernie can't match that with just donations from private donors. I don't really support the Citizens United decision that allows absurd amounts of money to be poured into these elections. It honestly just feels like a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe landmark fundraising achievement shows that the average American people CAN make a difference, it's not just the wealthy who can generate the funds and influence an election through campaign money. I think this shows that lots of people are advocates of Sanders. It's more impressive to raise money from lots of people with small donations and come close to the total amount as someone who raises money through fewer people with larger donations. I think that Citizens United allows way too much money to be spent on elections, but there are always loop holes, so I feel like the money would find a way to sneak in to campaigns anyway. It's inevitable.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that Bernie Sanders can raise that much money with donations ONLY from individuals giving what they can ($50 here, $25 there, etc.) is an amazing achievement and says a lot about him. I believe that it says that he has the most support from the American people out of all the candidates as all the other candidates are getting most if not all of their funding from PACs and Super PACs. The fact that Bernie can raise almost the same amount of money (or at least in the same ballpark) as the other candidates really says a lot about how many supporters he has and how strongly his supporters believe in him.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of money that Sanders has raised without the help of superpacs is impressive, and it shows that he does have a lot of support. However, if he does make it to the general election, he's going to have a harder time competing against a candidate who has the support and money from many superpacs.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the Citizens United ruling, and I think there should be stricter limits on the amount of money that can be contributed to the candidates.
Realistically, while the support Bernie has gotten over the past few months is, like Laura said, very impressive. I question whether or not it's sustainable. Has he possibly exhausted much of his monetary support? What if, for instance, he were to win the nomination? Could he possibly compete against the Republican candidate, who will presumably be backed by multiple large Super PACs? As unfortunate as it is, money talks, especially in the political arena. And in the political arena, it's a marathon, not a sprint. I don't believe Sanders can sustain his momentum, at least financially speaking.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Citizens United ruling goes, while I believe that people should be allowed to express their voices (mostly) however they wish, I believe that the integrity of our Democracy is more important than debating whether or not a person should be allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money. And, essentially, they still have the ability to do just that.
The fact that Sanders was able to raise that amount of money in one quarter is very impressive, but also extremely eye opening, as well as interesting. We will have to wait and see whether or not Sanders methods pay off, because if we can make the assumption that all those who are willing to donate to a candidate believe firmly enough in their platform as to go out and vote (which is a stretch, but too too great of one) then we can assume that Sanders has garnered a lot of sure votes this way. That, combined with his growing poll numbers and Clinton losing momentum opens up a real opportunity for Sanders in this election, one which we may not have seen before. However, we will also have to see if large donations from wealthy donors end up being able to garner more votes for candidates with SuperPACs as do most other candidates. It certainly is going to be interesting to watch, and also impressive to see how large Sanders's donation numbers go.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I disagree with the Citizen;s United case. It is based on the premise that money is equivalent to free speech, which in my opinion is inherently flawed because while free speech is not limited from one person to the next, money certainly is. Any person can have an opinion, but not everyone can then translate that opinion into large amounts of money in order to fight for what they believe. Therefore, I think that limiting the amount of money that can be donated levels the playing field, which in turn produces a more true democracy and more representative government, which are both naturally things to strive for.
While it is impressive that Sanders was able to raise so much money, I am uncertain whether or not he will win the election. I know many people who support him, but they are fellow teenagers who are unable to vote. The fact of the matter is Bernie Sanders is not a rich oligarch who is dependent on corporations, so what is his actual chance of winning? I cannot say. But it is noteworthy to see how many people support him enough that they are willing to donate their own money.
ReplyDeleteAs Dennis said, limiting the amount of money donated creates a more efficient democracy, however I believe that with the nature of America, it's highly unlikely that money won't somehow influence who wins elections.
Bernie Sanders is the dark horse in the coming primaries. He shows the abilities to gain supporters from all demographics. This recent feat of his can be credited to his support from millennial. He cares himself with purpose and appeals to there desires for the future of the nation. He is becoming very successful with as the article mentions not huge amounts of corporate and big money support. I believe we could be witnessing a new modern form of campaigning., one that realizes on the support of the masses rather than the support of the wealthy. I find this form of campaigning to come off as far more of an accomplishment and shows how much support he is truly getting. All in all this adds another interesting aspect to the 2016 elections.
ReplyDeleteThis landmark fundraising achievement reveals that Bernie Sanders is the man. The Citizens United case is to fundraising as the gunshow loophole is to purchasing firearms. It is a broken rule that allows for a select few individuals to profit. That being said, the amount of money being poured into campaigns whether by superPACS or by individual donors is the real problem. Sanders raised 33 million in a single quarter. He may not even win the election. In theory that's 33 million dollars wasted. That's 33 million dollars that could have been put somewhere else. Campaigning is like gambling. If you don't win an election, the money you spent on your campaign is essentially wasted. I'm not saying this is Bernie Sanders' fault. It is simply a major flaw in our electoral system that personally makes me question why we should be focusing on how candidates raise money instead of controlling the absurd amount of money involved in a campaign.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Sanders has raised so much money just with donations from individual donors shows where his support is truly coming from. It shows that millions of dollars from just a handful of people is not necessary in order to be successful; yet, the successful ones are usually always the ones with funds from superPACs. The amount of money a person can give to a candidate or to a superPAC/527 should certainly be limited. However, I think that money will always be something that will greatly affect American politics unfortunately.
ReplyDelete