Political Sociological Analysis

A Political Sociological View of State Government in Montana

My sociology background has given me a unique perspective on situations during my summer internship in the Montana Governor’s Office. By making observations about events around me using a political sociological lens, I often thought of questions I would not have had without my educational background. When I needed to choose a topic to discuss at length, I was pleased to find I remembered many of these questions I could answer for my paper. Unfortunately, what was more challenging than thinking of questions was narrowing my focus down to just one. Therefore I will attempt to answer multiple questions in this paper. Because my experience is only with the Montana state government,

The Great Compromise showed a commitment by the framers to ensuring that no person’s vote be less important because of where they live. The Supreme Court used this and other cases to determine that “the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society,” (Reynolds v. Sims). Today, it’s easy to assume that we have more equality in our voting system than ever. That conclusion is difficult to reach unfortunately when examining two things: campaign financing and state wealth and political position.

The Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that corporations have the same donation rights as individuals under the First Amendment. This case has allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to make large donations to the campaigns of various elected officials. Thanks in part to these donations, congress has moved at a glacial pace to pass any laws relating to campaign finance reform. Unlimited potential for donations allow corporations and wealthy individuals to play a key role in shaping

A Montanan’s role in making decisions in regards to the United States is relatively small compared to someone from Iowa. While Iowans make educated decisions based on their personal values, they do not represent the feelings and beliefs of the United States as a whole. Perhaps while a candidate or their campaign strategy did not do well in the state caucuses and primaries of the early states such as Iowa or New Hampshire, had one of the rarely visited states like Montana’s or Hawaii’s primary been first the election could have turned out completely different. The election could unfold the same way, or maybe a particular candidate or strategy could do better in a specific region due to geographical and cultural differences that would shape the general and primary election. The point I’m making is that it is impossible to know if the election would turn out differently had the candidates been forced to focus on other states at the beginning of their