Senator Bernie Sanders Argumentative Analysis

Senator Bernie Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist running for the presidency of the United States and one that actively extols of socialistic style policies other nations have implemented. Socialism is a dirty word in American politics and has been lobbed at President Barack Obama since his first campaign. Yet, Senator Sanders embraces the socialist moniker, co-opting the term, and using it to his advantage. Senator Sanders is vehemently opposed to the influences of big money on elections and a tenant of Senator Sander’s platform is to completely rail against corporations buying elections in a country that mostly views corporations favorably. The dichotomy of these ideologies does not fit with Senator Sander’s current standing

The Court upheld disclosure requirements, voluntary public financing provisions, and limits on individual contributions. The Court did not uphold the caps on campaign spending, caps on spending by a candidate and family members to their own campaign, and limits on independent expenditures were abolished. Additionally, Buckley ruled compulsory acceptance of public financing unconstitutional taking an option away from campaign reformers. As demonstrated, Buckley was a monumental ruling that attempted to protect individual’s rights of expression while also protecting the integrity of American

Political efficacy is described as, “Faith and trust in government and the belief that one can understand and influence political affairs” (Mutz and reeves). The dearth of political efficacy is reflected in the mobilization numbers of the 2014 senate races. According to the Pew Research Center, only 38% of the voting-eligible population in states with senate elections turned out (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015). Pew finds that it was the lowest turnout since 1990 even though $1.1 billion was spent, 25% more than the 2010 election (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015). To be clear, the two numbers do not necessarily indicate causation, and there could be several other factors attributed. However, what cannot be debated is the same Pew Research Center study found a majority (Both, Democrats and Republicans) believe money has a greater influence on politics today, and the high cost of presidential campaigns discourages good candidates. (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015). The sentiment of voters is clear, big money has permeated campaigns to an unacceptable degree. To illustrate, Super PACs made $65 million in expenditures in 2010, $608 million in 2012, and $339 for the 2014 mid-term elections (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015). During the current election cycle, Super PACs have already raised a total of $313.5 million and spent $73.2 million (Desilver