NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
INTRODUCTION The Federal Election campaign Act is an United States Federal law passed in 1971 to increase disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns and amended in 1974 to place legal limits on the campaign contributions. The 1974 amendment envisages the following: Shifting onerous on candidates for the disclosure of sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditure. Legal limits on campaign contributions by individuals and organisation and legal limits on campaign expenditure for those that accept public funding. Acceptance of campaign contribution directly from corporations, labour organisation and national banks, Government contractors, foreign nationals, cash contribution in excess of $ 100 and contribution in the name of another is prohibited. Elizabeth Drew argued that the present system of financing political campaign corrupted the entire senate and refused to divulge the individual names because he hold the system as the culprit and the individual within it. Elizabeth Drews alleges that in the corruption of American Politics: What went wrong and why that the culture of money dominates the Washington as never before.
But at the end of October, 1999, the senate once again rejected the kinds of changes to the campaign finance system that Drew, McCain and others find useful. The author argues in her book that American politics have been corrupted by the factor money and have suggested a number of ways to eradicate the corruption and refurbish virtue to Washington. In the drews list of solutions, traditional campaign finance reform measures feature prominently but also stresses that the subject themselves can accomplish many noteworthy results by forcing their elected representatives. Drew finds that the failure of the campaign finance system established in the aftermath of Watergate as the most serious of the problems. She further emphasis that main issue is the increased selfishness, decreased disinterestedness of politicians and a decline in the quality of politicians, the increased partisanship of politicians and a decline in the civility in the political process. Drew views that money has corrupted congress, money has influenced the government and also presidency.
She adds that money influences the legislative decisions of members of congress and outcome of election campaign. But for the enough money, it is difficult to run an effective campaign and this distracts the members of congress from their legislative duties. Further, career choice of US politicians is influenced by the money. In a nutshell, drew points out that striving for and obtaining money has become the predominant activity and not just in electoral politics and its effects are pernicious. One of the indirect ways to access to government officials is to make liberal contributions as university chairs and military museums. Drew recalls how the University of Tennessee established a chair to honor Vice President Gores late sister and how Gores fund raiser raised funds for the chair.
She also narrates that how phenomenal fundraising aids members of congress as they strive to gain leadership position within the House and Senate. Drew also narrates a White House memorandum explaining that staff briefings of President Clinton may be considerably truncated or eliminated in order to accommodate the Presidents coffees with individuals who had contributed at least $ 5000. Drew also illustrates how New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg declined to run for reelection in part because he would have to raise $ 3000 an hour for nearly two years! Though the book lacks the kind of detailed historical review to support her contention that money plays a role in politics today that it never played ever before, but drew stresses that money being used to sway legislative and administrative decisions and her views can not be dismissed as crying wolf! Dysfunctional politics: Drew insists that now congress is filled with men and women who are neither qualified nor interested in serving the public good. Drew feels that the reducing quality of the members of congress evidenced by their lack of their overriding pursuit of their own careers and their failure to socialize with political opponents in a way that would breed understanding of different point of view.
Drew is against the role of soft money -money raised and spent by political parties or private interests, as opposed to the hard money given to and spent by the candidate himself. After the Supreme Courts decision in Buckley v Valeo, federal law has limited hard money contributions to $ 1000 per individual and $ 5000 per organisation. Drew charges the spiraling efforts to obtain soft money for virtually all of the Clinton financial scandals in his 1996 election the large contributions from unsavory or possibly illegal sources, the heavy-handed fund-raising by the president and vice president candidates then. As per Drew, due to Supreme Courts invalidation of previous campaign finance reform efforts beginning with Buckley, all this unsavory fund raising is being practiced by American politicians. Drew begins by expressing skepticism that the First Amendment argument against campaign finance reform proposals is anything more than a tactical ploy. Drew thinks the campaign finance system and a dysfunctional Congress as two distinct problems that result in the corruption of American Politics.
Corruption: Corruption has constitutional consequences and some feels that the entire system has been corrupted and drew feels that the dysfunction of Congress constitutes corruption. Drews book offers the promise of a compelling brief for the case that the campaign finance system is corrupt. We all know that if a campaign contributor funds a candidate in exchange for an agreement to take legislative action is corrupt. Drew informs that some members of congress confess to struggling with the implications of granting access, supporting or opposing legislation, or taking other actions affecting their campaign contributors. Corruptions is often seen the amount of money contributed to and spent on political campaigns by corporations, unions, political action committees (PACs) and wealthy individuals.
Drew brings to light when she traces how money influenced the congressional debates over the expansion of NATO, telecommunication deregulation and banking reform. Drew also asserts that how contributors gain to government officials, regardless of whether money affects any actual decision on pending legislation. She also accepts that quid pro quos are usually hard to prove even if the circumstantial evidence is alarming. Drew feels that contributions make good legislators to do bad things. Drew seems to endorse that model of representation even as she worries that todays politicians find that view passe and even a bit weird and she complains that legislators today implicitly reject it when they reflect the monetary mood of the public. Polluting the politics: Drew alleges that campaign contributions and spending pollute the political system rather than corrupt it.
The pollution metaphor better captures Drews attention of the unseen, incremental and yet impairment that money works on the political and legislative system. If campaign contribution and spending are not designed to sway legislative decisions, such money may still be regarded as polluting if it has the unintended harmful byproduct of influencing legislative decisions. Drew argues that the culture of money dominates Washington as never before and she refers to the pervasive role played by political money. The meaning is that money spent on political campaigns permeates the political environment and affects it for the worse and such money pollutes the political system of U. S. A.
Drew also hold that all campaign contributions or spending are problematic, suggesting that money below a certain amount does not present any problem. It is to be remembered that if the money is the pollutant and political or legislative system is what is polluted, then the polluters are those who contribute to political campaigns which includes corporations, PACs, Unions, non profit organizations and interested individuals. It is to be noted that campaign money is not toxic but the concentration of such money in the hands of certain legislatures, candidates and parties is precisely the problem that much campaign finance legislation is designed to address. Drew echoes the calls of environmental groups for corporations to stop polluting the air or the water and for individuals to boycott those firms that offer no hint that they are ashamed of what they do.
Pollution metaphor offers a vehicle for bridging Drews distinct concerns about the campaign finance system and the incivility, partisanship and other ills that plague American politics. Thus the pollution metaphor enlightens how Drew can perceive the distinct harms to American politics even as it confirms the difficulty in showing how those harms have occurred. Some senators initiative to award several corporations Silver Sewer Awards that are designed to identify the nations worst cultural polluters. Presidential candidates of all stripes railed against cultural pollution.
Conclusion: Elizabeth Drew concludes that American politics and system of financing campaigns has become corrupt. Viewing campaign money as corresponding to environmental pollution would encourage lawmakers to spotlight on the amount of money that the system can bore and the best way to eliminate the harm that mammoth money can cause. It is become necessary to eliminate the influence of campaign money on the legislative process and the pollution metaphor illustrates how that proposal achieves Drews goals while honoring the first amendment.
Free research essays on topics related to: campaign contributions, members of congress, campaign finance reform, amount of money, supreme courts
Research essay sample on Campaign Finance Reform Members Of Congress
