Research Project on Finance

Elections have become auctions. The candidate with the most amount of money will win the position, regardless of their qualifications or previous experience. This statement is true for most, if not all elections. There has to be action taken to prevent candidates from "buying" their way into office. Only then will our political system work the way it is supposed to and people will truly care about the government.

The amount of money spent on elections currently is absurd. The federal elections monetarily equated to over $3 billion in 2000, with tens, perhaps hundreds of millions in additional cash spent by interest groups and state and local party organizations. This amount has nearly doubled the 1992 total. Together, the House of Representatives and Senate candidates had spent just under a billion dollars in 2000, which is up 30 percent from 1996. On average, the winning parties spent about $900,000 in 2000; this is nearly double the 1992 figure. A Senate seat cost the average candidate between $7 and $8 million in 2000, up nearly 60 percent from 1996 (TDD pg. 205). As a result of the high price tag on these elections senators interested in serving another term have to raise $5,500 each day they are in office, while House members must raise $1,500 each day (TDD pg. 206). Theoretically, any person that fits the constitutional qualifications is able to run for Congress. However, money has taken over elections so much so that there are now laws of modern finance (TDD pg. 206).

Order a custom research project on Henry Ford now!

There are three laws of campaign finance that govern all funds being used in the electoral process. First, Incumbent members of Congress nearly always receive more money than their challengers. As a result, incumbents usually get reelected. Second, the challengers are able to defeat incumbents only when they raise something close to the totals raised by the incumbent or the incumbent is very unlucky, openly corrupt, or very stupid. While this is rare, it happens often enough to prompt incumbents to defend themselves by raising more and more money. Third, the congressional campaigns that are really unpredictable are the open-seat contests where incumbents have retired. These are usually the most expensive races, and there are more of them than there used to be. The money and the campaign laws are more in control of the elections than the people are or will ever be if things do not change.

The candidates with the most amount money win the elections, regardless of their qualifications or previous experience. In 2000 almost all the elections were won by the bigger spender. After having, won the election the victors must still campaign so they will not be bested in the next election. All the money has to come from somewhere. It comes from corporations, political action committees, organizations, private donations and many other places. Hard money is disclosed and is limited. However, soft money can be given in an unlimited amount and the way the money is spent is often far from clear. Candidates have come up with many ways to acquire soft money. From $100,000 a plate dinners to specialized retreats in which congressional leaders mix policy discussions, golf, and soft money contributions (TDD pg. 217). As spoken about in the discussion, the victors might feel somewhat obligated to those that funded their way into office. In doing so those elected might put the interests of those that donated to their victory, over the interests of the people that elected them.

The practice of buying elections has to be stopped. The sources of where a donation for candidates comes from should be regulated more strictly. As discussed in the debate, corporations and individuals should have a limit on the amount of money they can give. The soft money that makes up most of the funds must be limited like the hard money. This idea is worthy in that it might help to eliminate corruption. In the situation now, soft money can come in an unlimited supply. As a result, a candidate that receives a very generous donation from a corporation or organization might be influenced into doing political favors for that corporation or organization once they get into office. Both candidates should get equal funding so that the better-qualified person for the position will win rather than the better-funded person. In this way power will be given back to the ordinary citizen and not in the hands of the elite as it is now. When the elections ceases to be about which candidate has the bigger campaign bank account and focuses on the issues that affect the normal voters then our political system will work as it should.

The elections are being sold to the highest bidder. Candidates with big bank accounts are pushing out the candidates that stand for the people. The amount of money spent on elections has become ludicrous and unless something is done in the near future the amount of money spent will continue to grow larger and even more preposterous.

__________________________________________________________________________

This is a free research project on Finance topic. Keep in mind that all free research project samples and research paper examples are taken from open sources – they are plagiarized and cannot be used as your own research project. If you need a qualitative custom research project on Finance for college, university, Master's or PhD degree – you are welcome to contact professional research writing company to have your paper written online by academic research writers.
__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
________________Enjoy our custom research project writing service!_________________