Introduction
In Democratic America, all persons with an interest to join government is allowed to participate in the election process. They submit they bid, campaign by appealing to the masses and getting as many votes as possible. In the spirit of democracy, the constitution is designed to provide an equal platform for citizens from all backgrounds to compete for any position in the local and national government. Unfortunately, the set stipulations are not practical in that the wealthy in society have an upper hand. This analysis suggests that outlawing campaign contributions and replacing them with designated funds from the national treasury will sustain an equal political platform.
Democracy in America
In its attempt to sustain democracy, the Supreme Court makes significant effort to create and maintain political equality. This approach has led to a number of decisions influencing campaign funding. Evidently, without such laws, interested parties such as corporate organization and non-governmental organizations (NGO) would push their agendas by funding their ideal candidate ( Garcia, 2016) . Also, people without influence would not stand a chance. For this reason, there are extensive guidelines indicating what is fair and not fair in matters of campaign funding. Notably, there are four main legislations that have been amended over the years to stabilize campaign funding as it is today.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
First, before the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), laws targeted specific contributors such as federal employees, cooperations and labor unions, barring them from making contributions to influence the political outcome. They retaliated by forming political action committees (PAC) to gather contributions from members and employees. The Supreme Court then enforced FECA that ensures campaign candidate adhere to the parameters of designated candidate expenditure, and monitors contributions from PACs, parties and political committees. In 1976, following the Buckley V. Valeo case, it was ruled that restrictions on candidate spending and self-financing are in violation of the first amendment ( Burnier, 2018, pp.62-78) . However, restrictions on presidential elections, PACs and other groups were upheld.
In the 1990, PACs could contribute provided that their finances were used for party building activities. Furthermore, political parties acquired soft-loans that were not subject to FECA limits because they were not used to advocate elections. Also, independent advocates evaded FECA laws by funding tv advertisements and other activities on behalf of their preferred candidate. These unfair approaches were addressed in 2002 where soft loans and advocacy on behalf of candidates was also banned ( Marino, 2018) . The final nail on election funding amendments was the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) where the court overturned a collection of FECA limits of contribution to political contributions from individuals to multiple federal candidates, non-candidate PACs and party committees.
Recent election funding
In recent 2016 studies, it was noted that politicians made themselves more available to meetings with higher donors and organizations that contributed more money ultimately got more contracts upon election of their candidate (Smith, 2018, p.139). These information is proof that money has significant political influence despite the laws in place to create an equal economic footing for candidates. Evidence of this disparity is seen in the most recent American election between the now president Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The former had deep pockets due to his business connections and backing from large organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA). The later was not as fortunate. As a result, they were operating on different budgets and Trump operates at a clear advantage. In fact, the difference in their final advertisement budget was millions. Clearly, due to the disparity on campaign funding in the 2016 presidential election, the competitive platform was already rigged.
Money affects campaign funding because it provides the more privileged candidate with more campaign possibilities than their competition. With more campaign backing, one can appeal to more of the voters in their jurisdiction. These funds go to large expenditures such as advertisements, transportation fees, setting up meetings with voters and other efforts to get their policies out ( Manjarrez, 2017, p.219) . Campaign funding is the difference between travelling on plane to three venues in a day and being forced to visit one venue due to lack of transport. For this reason, it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility that each participation politician has an equal footing in the democratic race.
Replace Campaign Contribution with Campaign-Funding from the National Treasury
The best solution to the dilemma surrounding campaign contribution is banning all campaign contributions and replacing them with public financing out of national treasury. This approach may seem drastic but it is effective. Campaign contributions should be banned because regardless of the laws in place, there are always loop holes that affected parties can explore. A good example of this outcome is the formations of PACs to continue candidate funding from corporate establishments and non-governmental organizations. Furthermore, doing away with campaign contributions relieves the pressure from struggling candidates especially so that they can focus on pushing their policies.
In addition, replacing campaign funding with national treasury funding not only create political equality, but also demand candidates get creative in getting their message across. In such circumstances, the individual’s passion for ideal policy shines because the noise of financial influence is silenced. Funding from the national treasury is also easily accounted for since it is clear how much each candidate was awarded and their budget limits from the beginning. Some may argue that funding elections from the national treasury would put a burden on tax-payers. However, the government can explore new sources of income to supplement this new expenditure.
How Funding Campaigns from the National Treasury Supports Democracy
The first step to democracy is creating equal footing for all aspiring government leaders in the local and national government. Equal funding, from a transparent pool allow this democracy fundamental. Secondly, providing campaign funding from the national treasury ensures that American citizens and their needs are honored through the election process. Currently, private and non-governmental organizations push their agendas in the candidates they choose to fund and the favors they expect from the political aspirants once they are elected. With this change, the leaders will only be accountable to their voters as should be the case in a working democracy.
Notably, centralizing campaign funds calls for accountability in leadership. The funded candidates have a responsibility to provide records of how they used election fees. This responsibility ensures that vices such as corruption and theft are minimized. Such vices are enemies to a functioning democracy and thus eliminating them improves the possibility of equal opportunity for all citizens aspiring to join government leadership. All these advantages of national treasury funding promote a transparent approach in leaders who can communicate their actual thoughts on policy without the fear of losing donors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, America is leading in its practical enforcement of democracy. However, there is more to do especially in matters of elections and campaign funding. Most people against the ban of campaign funding only take that approach because it is an opportunity to give their preferred leaders a competitive advantage. However, in the spirit of democracy, it is evident that the suggested change can only be passed through the proper court channels. However, it is a priority to create awareness on this new approach so that the courts and governments are prompted to consider the idea.
References
Smith, B. A. (2018). Campaign Finance and Free Speech: Finding the Radicalism in Citizens United v. FEC. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y , 41 , 139.
Burnier, D. (2018). Reimagining Performance in Public Administration Theory and Practice: Creating a Democratic Performativity of Care and Hope. Administrative Theory & Praxis , 40 (1), 62-78.
Garcia, R. J. (2016). Politics at Work After Citizens United. Loy. LAL Rev. , 49 , 1.
Marino, H. (2018). The Missing Theory of Representation in Citizens United. Va. L. Rev. , 104 , 1199.
Manjarrez, A. (2017). States Must Protect Issue Advocacy in a Post-Citizens United World. Lewis & Clark L. Rev. , 21 , 219.
