Current to American Policits - Essay Example

Political campaigns for public office, and presidential ones more than any other, should be based on the issues and their outcome should be consistent with the basic principle of let the best man win.' This is not the case in American politics and is especially untrue were presidential elections are concerned. Indeed, the outcomes of elections are largely shaped by the amount of money each of the candidates was able to raise. Numerous journalists, political scientists and government scholars have written on this issue.

Feldman (1999) argues that presidential campaigns have been reduced to media campaigns wherein the candidate with the most money can launch the more effective and intensive media blitz and win the elections. Auers (2006) agrees, arguing that political campaigns are "issue-free" and, ultimately, a question of which of the candidates has the support of the big lobbies, PACS and corporations. Arguing the same, Wagner (2005) contends that it is precisely because campaign finance has completely undermined the one person, one vote,' principle and has displaced the issues, that campaign finance reforms were introduced.

Instead of abiding by the limits established by campaign finance reforms, however, candidates have found a way around them, knowing the money will, ultimately, determine the fate of their political ambitions.Two of the 2008 presidential election candidates have declared their intention to adhere to the strictest of campaign finance regulations and make the 2008 elections one that is entirely based upon, and determined by, the issues. As Kirkpatrick (2007) reports, last February Obama announced that were he to win his party's nominations, he proposes the limitation of general election campaign funds to $85 million, on the condition that the Republican nominee accept a similar limitation.

On the 2nd March, a spokesperson for the McCain campaign announced that were Senator McCain to win the Republican party's presidential nominations, he will abide by Obama's proposal and limit his presidential campaign to $85 million (Kirkpatrick, 2007). Were this to actually happen, U.S. presidential elections will become elections based on issues and candidates' merits, as the Hatch Plan of 1939 had intended and not elections whose outcome is determined by PACs and lobby financial support and contributions.

Campaign finance reforms, or the effort to remove the money factor from political elections, have long been a concern of U.S. legislators and citizens. As Green (2002) argues, the extent to which money influences election outcomes is a serious concern in the United States, especially as it undermines the very principles upon which democratic elections are founded upon. These are the principles of one person, one vote and elections based on merit and issues. In 1971 the first, supposedly effective, campaign finance reform act was passed.

Known as the federal Election Campaign Act, it stipulated that candidates practice complete transparency regarding the sources of their campaign funds. In 1974, limits were placed on contributions and, again, in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act attempted to impose legal limitations and regulations on the typically unregulated soft money' (Green, 2002). Without exception, all campaign reform acts sought to reclaim the democratic nature of political elections.The activities of both lobbyists, representing corporate interests and PACS, have effectively undermined the democratic nature of US elections, on the one hand, and campaign reform acts, on the other.

As reform acts place limits on a particular source of funding, PACS and lobbyists find a way to overcome threes limitations. For example, prohibited from contributing more than an established financial limit, they get around it by contributing in kind as, for example, by launching very costly media advertisements and campaigns in favor of a particular candidate. The end result, therefore, is the same. Money determines the outcome, irrespective of campaign finance reforms.The importance of Obama and McCain's agreement stems from the problematic nature of campaign finance and the degree to which it has perverted the democratic process.

If, as Kirkpatrick (2007) reports, the two candidates win their party's nominations and abide by the proposed $85 million limit, American presidential elections will become a democratic process in which voters' opinions determine the outcome, not money. Based on the above presented facts and arguments, one may conclude with a statement of support for the Obama-McCain proposal. Campaign finance reform acts and legislatures have failed because candidates allowed them to fail. Should candidates agree on the necessity of removing the money factor from campaigns, the United States will witness democratic presidential elections in 2008.

ReferencesAuers, D. (2006) A normal, issue-free election.' Transitions Online, 16 Oct. 2006.Feldmann, L. (1999) In partisan era, bucks never stop.' Christian Science Monitor, 91(56).Green, M. (2002). Selling Out, How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy. NY: Harper Collins.Kirkpatrick, D.D. (2007) McCain and Obama in deal on public financing.' Wagner, A. (2005) The boundaries of campaign finance reform: Should the bipartisan campaign reform act regulate redistricting' Columbia Law Review, 105(5), 1597-1634.