Campaign Finance Pros And Cons

Campaign Finance refers the funds raised that are used to advocate for candidates and political parties. Over the course of the United States there have been many debates regarding the fairness of unrestricted donations, and who should be able to contribute to campaigns. On one hand you do not want rich people or large corporation to control an election, but on the other hand finance contributions are an expression of freedom of speech. Even though the last presidential election was not won by the candidate who spent the most money, most elections are. According to the Washington Post, 91% of the time the better financed candidate wins. However, Jeb Bush’s super PAC raised more in the first half of the 2015 than President Obama’s main super

Campaign finance disputes first showed up in politics in 1757 when George Washington lost an election to the Virginia House of Burgesses. George Washington decided that he needed a better strategy to appeal to the public, so two years later he bought almost two hundred dollars worth of hard cider and punch to hand out to voters in order to persuade them to vote for him. Although this new form of bribery helped him win, the legislature passed a law that prohibited candidates from giving out food, drink, or any other form of bribery in order to win over voters. Over a hundred years later in 1883, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was passed. This act, signed by President Chester A. Arthur, established that jobs within the federal government should be awarded based upon merit and not your affiliation within politics. This law also stated that a person could not be fired or demoted because of their political views. To enforce this act, the Civil Service Commision was formed. During the election of 1896, William McKinley raised approximately six to seven million dollars from corporations that filled the gap left by the Civil Service Act. Because of this, the McKinley administration was very business

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the predicted average for campaign finance spending for the 2012 election was 6 billion dollars. In the United Kingdom, party spending was only 49 million dollars. Because there is no limitation placed on the amount of money that corporations and citizens can donate to campaigns, it has led to a distrust in the public concerning the political process in the United Kingdom. According to Statistics Norway, over 74% of campaign funding is provided by the government in 2010. One drastic difference between the United States and Norway is that unlike the U.S., political ads are not permitted on the television and radio. Similar to the United States, Brazil spent approximately 2 billion dollars on campaigns. Dilma Rousseff, winner of Brazil 2010 presidential election, got 98% of her donations from corporations. Executive director of TI Brazil Claudio Weber Abramo states that corporations donated 99.04% of all money spent in Sao Paulo, Brazil's most populous state, during the 2010 election. This statistic is concerning because the distribution of money shows that the people of Brazil are not very concerned about supporting political parties. Currently, the two countries that have contribution limits but no spending limits are the United States and Finland. Both countries face the problem of being at