Money in Politics & Reforms

Once again, campaign finance reform at the federal and state levels of government is high on the political agenda. The voters in six states approved some form of campaign finance law in the last election, and representatives of both Congress and the Executive Branch are talking about reforming the system of money in politics at the federal level. Although all this talk sounds hopeful, it arises from what is widely perceived as a failure of federal campaign finance laws. There does not seem to be any limit to the amount of funds flowing into federal campaign coffers--and from federal campaign accounts into state campaign accounts. State voters have responded by approving campaign finance reform ballot measures, and the federal government is feeling some of the heat of an adverse public opinion.

The new dynamic at work on this issue does not arise in Washington, but from the anger and outrage of Americans who are tired of system that shuts them out and lets the rich and powerful in and who want leaders who are going to do something about it. The people want change in the campaign finance system.

. . .
, when those two races are excluded, the spending of an average Senate incumbent is again twice that of the average challenger. The picture in the House is bleaker. By 1994, winning a seat in the House of Representatives cost an average of $450,000, and House incumbents outspent House challengers by a ratio of 2.6 to 1, or $549,801 on average spent by incumbents to $209,922 on average spent by challengers. In 1976, that ratio was 1.6 to 1. PAC contributions point up the fundraising advantage incumbents enjoy: in 1994, labor PACs gave 68 percent of their contributions to incumbents; business PACs on average gave 77 percent to incumbents. It is also, in large part, for this reason that, even in the "revolutionary" 1994 election, the incumbent reelection rate in the House was still over 90 percent. Incumbents generally are able to vastly outraise challengers and typically swamp their challengers by outspending them. The need to raise this enormous amount of money makes elected officials dependent on those special interest groups and wealthy individuals with money to contribute and which want to use those political contributions to buy access and influence. SOFT MONEY The most destructive and dangerous money in the political system
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS, Buckley Valeo--have, Watergate Soft, PACs Senate, House Representatives, House PAC, Executive Branch, Magleby Nelson, Finally Congress, Democratic Republican, soft money, campaign finance, national party, pac money, campaign finance reform, finance reform, 1994 election, political parties, money politics, pac contributions, percent campaign, national party committees, campaign money pacs, 34 percent worries, soft money contributions,
Approximate Word count = 3021
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Money in Politics & Reforms