Christensen 1

Kimberly Christensen
Mr. Campopiano
Government 1
2 November 2015
Power to the People in Politics
The United States was founded based on the idea of a democracy, where power is vested
in the people. Today, the system to elect government officials is corrupted and hardly democratic.
As a democracy, the President of this country should be chosen by the people, not the one
percent and private corporations that can actually donate to these candidates. These large
amounts of donations can greatly influence what the candidates say and do. Even with these
donations many candidates have to spend a lot of their own money, which most people cannot
afford. The American government should provide funding to all viable Presidential candidates
and cap all other sources of funding because many people cannot afford to run for office, large
amounts of private donations can influence candidates actions, and the candidates with the most
money have greater chances of winning.
It would be nearly impossible for a middle-class citizen to run for President due to the
amount of money needed to raise and pay for campaigning. Running for President takes time,
ideas, and millions of dollars. For an example, President Obama spent over 540 million dollars in
the 2012 Presidential race (Federal Election Commission). Any normal citizen does not have the
connections to people or corporations who can donate millions of dollars, or even use millions of
dollars from his or her own pocket, for campaigning. The authors of The States of Campaign
Finance Reform support these reasons by putting it this way: In contemporary American
politics, these are, with a few rare occasions, the options: lose, spend your own money, or accept

Christensen 2
contributions from special interests (Gross, Goidel 19). If these are the only options in todays
politics, there is obviously a serious problem. If someone, say a teacher, has great ideas and
visions for our country, then why should he or she not have a shot at becoming President? Money
keeps people like this school teacher from running for office, and the government needs to do
something about it.
The large sums of money donated to Presidential candidates can greatly influence what
the candidate says and does. Imagine if a big party was coming to an end, and there was only
time for one more song. One person gives the DJ five dollars to play Dont Stop Believin for
the last song, then another person gave the DJ 200 dollars to play Faithfully. Which song is
going to be played? Obviously the DJ would choose Faithfully, even if he likes Dont Stop
Believin better. This is what is happening in todays politics. A major corporation gives a
candidate millions of dollars and the candidate does what the corporation wants in return. This is
a huge contributor to the corruption of politics. 84% of Americans say money has too much
influence in politics, and 85% of those surveyed said that the campaign financing system should
be either completely rebuilt or fundamentally changed (Library of Congress). This survey
proves that many people believe money is influencing our politicians. [Campaigns] are bought
and paid for by special interest groups, Smith says. This leads to policy proposals that benefit
those who are giving money and not everyday people. (Donley). Megan Donley brings up an
excellent point here; if candidates are listening to the people who are giving them money, then
the voices of everyday people are being overlooked, just like the song Dont Stop Believin.
In 2013-2014, only 0.31% of the American Population over 18 years of age donated more than
$200 to presidential campaigns (Federal Election Commission). This statistic is unbelievable;
voters who donate more than 200 dollars only make up 0.31 percent of the entire American

Christensen 3
population over the age of eighteen. This means that Megan Donley is right because candidates
are listening to the voices of just 0.31 percent of voters.
History has proven that the candidate who spends or raises the most money has a greater
chance of winning an election. This is a recurring theme in every election, presidential and
congressional. Election winners can even be predicted based on economic data. Looking at
economic indicators including gross domestic product and unemployment figures, Vavreck said,
experts can reasonably predict election outcomes with a 75 percent accuracy rate (Donald). The
2012 Presidential is another great example for this. President Obama raised $632,177,423 while
Romney only raised $389,088,268 (Federal Election Commission). These numbers show that
President Obama had a great advantage due to the amount of money he raised; and the election
obviously went in his favor.
Many people may say that restricting and capping all types of donations from Presidential
candidates, including the candidates themselves, is a violation of the First Amendment. By
restricting their use of money, their freedom of speech would be oppressed. Other people who
oppose the campaign finance reform might make the argument that the idea that elections are no
longer in the hands on individual Americans is not true. The people who believe the first
argument use the Citizens United case as their justification. But since when has spending money
been a form of freedom of speech? The First Amendment certainly does not address money in
the freedom of speech clauses. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling
resulted in a tremendous uptick in election-related spending and it demonstrated the extent to
which corporate influence is now distorting the political process frustrating candidates and the
public alike (Wyden). This case has obviously resulted in even more campaign spending,
especially in secret. One example of this dark money is super Political Action Committees

Christensen 4
which donate unlimited amount of money to candidate anonymously. The people who say that
elections are no longer in the hands on individual Americans, do not understand the effect of
donations towards candidates. If a private organization gives a candidate money, he or she is
obligated to repay it in some way. Hillary Clinton confirmed this herself on the second GOP
debate, while Donald Trump agreed that he expects some type of repayment when giving
somebody money. Hillary Clinton is a great example for someone who does not understand that
these private donors are what is controlling most candidates. On the other hand, Donald Trump is
a great example for why the government should also cap the use of the candidates own money.
He is a billionaire, so obviously he can afford his own campaign, but now we have someone like
Donald Trump doing very well in the polls because he has the money to do so.
Obviously, the government needs to change the system of Presidential campaigns, while
the people need to speak up and fight to get this system reformed. The people also need to
understand and learn about the corruption in todays government to do so. The American
government should provide funding to all viable Presidential candidates and cap all other sources
of funding because many people cannot afford to run for office, large amounts of private
donations can influence candidates actions, and the candidates with the most money have
greater chances of winning. Not only would all of this be accomplished by changing this system,
but the people would regain their trust in the government and elections would be back in the
hand of individual voters.
Works Cited
"Congressional Record Proceedings, Debates of the U.S. Congress." Congressional Record
House Articles. N.p., 15 June 2015. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.
"Details for Committee ID : C00494583." Committee/Candidate Details. Federal Election

Christensen 5
Commission, 3 Sept. 2015. Web. 9 Mar. 2015.
Donald, Brooke. "Stanford Scholars Examine Big Money's Influence on Elections." Stanford
University. Stanford News, 21 May 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Donley, Megan. "Affecting Change Through Campaign Finance Reform." Affecting Change
Through Campaign Finance Reform. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
Gross, Donald A., and Robert K. Goidel. The States of Campaign Finance Reform. Columbus:
Ohio State UP, 2003. Print.
"Massachusetts Senate Special Election Notice." Massachusetts Senate Special Election Notice.
Federal Election Commission, 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Wyden, Ron. "Campaign Finance Reform." Senator Wydens. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.