Importance of Political Science - Essay Example

Political Science Republicanism remains American s ideology to America is a democratic country whose sovereignty is exercised through two levels of governments- the federal government and the state government. The nation as endeavored to regulate the influence of money in politics and the election outcome through federal provisions and state legislation. However, the influence of money in voting habit cannot be actively changed unless spending by candidates and political parties is regulated. Money cannot equal a vote. With inadequate public funding, parties(s) and individual candidates who cannot access other sources of funding may not reach the voter- reducing their votes. The politics in California have been and is strongly influenced by finances. Inadequacy of provisions that govern campaign, and election finance is a threat to democracy. It exposes the government and political parties to scandals and blackmails by private corporations that may be willing to finance campaigns so they may earn some favors from resulting government. This paper explores shortcomings of election finance provisions and the impending threat to democracy. Money has done much for California politics by making fundraising an acceptable evil. The political class may be the beneficiaries of such insufficiency of the law in the sense that, as it is now, campaign funding and fundraising provisions do not favor persons without connections and money to spend. This discourages participation. This paper will also explore the political class unwillingness to enact serious laws to reduce the influence justice in politics. According to federalism Fundraising (lobbying for the financial donation) remain the primary source of campaign money in California. The Political Action Committee collects funds from donors and spends them on behalf of the candidate. Since American politics is closely related to finance and no campaign, money means no vote, individuals, and political parties are advancing in method of appealing for funding by wealthy individuals and organization. In 2004, Howard Dean used the Internet to mobilize civilians for funding. This might have changed fundraising approach in America for good -which is much important than manifestos. Candidates have started using the latest technology called the Microtargeting- that has the capability to target only potential donors. (Washington Post) This show how important money is treated in politics. Raising more money increases the chances of obtaining votes as observed in 2012 presidential and Senate election, those who raised more money went into the office by a chance of 91%. In relevance to the article the essentials of California politics, another method is the public funding that not everyone has welcomed. Candidate is to collect signatures and every signature $5 is extended. This could be one of the best provisions since the funding formula puts into consideration candidate’s or political party’s efforts. However, it is optional. Those who follow this path should not accept funds from other external sources. Expense is regulated as well (Federal Electoral Commission). The California state government allows the political class to solicit funds from Convention accounts. Moreover, the California commission is doing much for existing politicians than to the public. This account can help a donor and a partner to conduit $500,000 to a political party every two years there is a congress election. According to Santa Rosa news, their provisions that are affected seek to increase 2012 legal limit of $97,200 donation per year to $388,800. This is going to make politics expensive and difficult for the unhealthy. Most people have not realized these political shortcomings because scandals are embedded and don not get to trials. Scandals that have let to serious prop are sex scandals with exception of the previsous election scandal that let constitutional crisis. The last election scandal steered up the demand for a better electoral system. It seems that the spirit that was ignited in 1974 seemed to harm interests of the lawmakers, and the pace has been slow. According to Julian Zelizer, political reforms on campaign financing will not come easily. With the availability of campaign money, podcast time could be bought (broadcast time is limited in the California politics) reaching a bigger number of voters. Reaching the voter and preventing the opponent from accessing voters through television alone is sufficient to change the election outcome. Funds do not limit activities, nor the number of votes will be garnered. James Pollock and Louise undertook their inquiry into the effect of cash in the U.S. politics. They found a great deal of connection between the voting behavior and money spend on campaign. However, what is out is that the candidates or parties receiving donation are in agreement with corporate donors, but allegation exist that such corporation expect some favors from the resulting government. According to the article, California has failed us; the existung corporation could amount to the scandal where the law is sufficient. Favors that may be demanded by donors may include but not restricted to the enactment of certain laws and defeating some. Moreover, the article, describes the state as a blue state. Federal efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics can be traced back to 1867. Little success was registered until the enactment of Federal Election Act in 1972. The Act mandated candidate to disclose the bases of campaign money and their account for their expenditure. This provision was only about disclosure and did not fix limits of neither expenditure nor contributions- it was therefore amended to include such limits and Federal Election Commission created through the same act of parliament. The Act limited individual donation to a candidate to $1,000 and that from Political Action Committee to $5,000(Federal Electoral Commission). Close to 30 years letter, the need for further reforms was visible, and the 2002 Campaign Reform Act was enacted. This provision banned financing by corporations both businesses and non-profit making. The author of The California Budget artilce explains that after much progress and development of electioneering act, the supreme courts expected to give the injection on an allegedly ongoing funding of a candidate (Hilary) by a nonprofit organization. The court gives a different definition of funding making the funding a film that shows how better president Hilary would be to be an exercise of freedom of speech. Maybe the political classes are not ready for a partisan way of politics that gives everyone a chance in the ballot box. California Citizens went to court seeking injunction of the advertising of the movie, but the court ruled in favor of Federal Election Commission. The biggest benefactor was Hilary Clinton. In its statement, the court said that the financing of show time and advertisement of the movies did not violate the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in any way. Nevertheless, the law seemed clearer than what the court would have the public believe. The court overturned the law that prohibited the funding of advertising of such manner. Election and campaign parties financing in American states politics is an embedded fiddle that keeps the voters confident while upholding the influence of money in vote outcome. Votes cannot be bought but cannot be garnered without money. The court ruling on California citizens versus the Federal Electoral Commission opened up the loopholes for corporation to use the money to influence peoples voting habit. Well, that is not democracy, where every voter can look at candidate plainly not through the decorations of money and where every candidate has a chance at the ballot box despite financial capabilities. Shortcomings of regulation and the violation of such provisions by the judiciary is the main root of the problem. If the corporation were completely banned from spending on politics and the signature public funding upheld, then participation will be encouraged and lack of money be prospective candidates will not prevent them from reaching out to the voter. What is needed may not only be provisions and parliamentary acts, it is the collective responsibility of both levels of government and all their arms. The big picture in California politics is, politics is a tough game. Many people have unsuccessfully joined the politics. However, candidates can successfully participate in the politics in many ways. Unfortunately, some participants might decide to involve themselves in unlawful acts. Money is the greatest factor that lures people to act in the unlawful acts. Nevertheless, with the same kind of perception and little public concern, it will be hard to eliminate the influence of money in politics. If the money can influence voting behavior then the vote can be bought. Courts should not favor politician even when it means lending the law repugnant. Putting into consideration Julian Zelizer’s comments on reforms for campaign financing, little should be expected. Read More