Leena Ramlakhan
Explain and analyse three reasons money is important.
A first way in which money is important in US presidential elections is the because of the
ruling made in the Supreme Court ruling, Federal Election Campaign v. Citizens United
(2010) in which limits on independent spending by unions and corporations in elections was
ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment right upholding freedom of speech. This facilitates
PACs, Political Action Committees, to significantly contribute to a candidate’s campaign,
typically by funding adverts in support of their favoured candidate, or attacking the
opposing one, usually spreading misinformation and hindering a fair democratic process. In
the most recent presidential election campaign in 2016, the estimated total spent by super-
PACs is an overwhelming $1 billion. Nevertheless, some candidates have undermined the
function of PACs by pledging not to use them, which Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
have done in their respective campaigns to be the next Democrat presidential candidate.
Furthermore, another way money is important is because of the evident positive correlation
between money spent and success in elections. The biggest spender usually wins the
election. This has proven to be true in both congressional campaigns, which is evidenced by
the 250 millionaires in Congress, and in presidential campaigns, which was the case from
1988 all the way to 2012 in which the biggest spender has consistently become President.
However, this trend was discontinued in the latest presidential campaign in which Donald
Trump was victorious over Hillary Clinton despite spending approximately $3 million less
than her.
Finally, money is important because of the sheer cost of elections in the US. This is
particularly significant because of the way the cost is getting progressively higher over the
years. For example, while $1 billion was spent in the 2012 presidential campaign, only $200
million was spent in the 1988 presidential campaign. Modern campaigns simply require
candidates to spend more on things like the expensive mass media, advisers and
consultants. However, social media can still provide free communication for candidates to
appeal to the electorate, or alternatively gather ‘crown funding’ like Obama did in the 2012
presidential campaign, gaining 2500 small donors.
Media:
Significant: Not significant:
Television; news coverage – e.g. in Decline in viewers of the
the 2016 presidential campaign presidential debates – e.g. in the
Trump gained the equivalent of $2 1980 presidential campaign
billion free media attention because between Raegan and Carter, the
TV networks focused on his televised debate was viewed by 80
campaign. million which was halved in 2000.
Television; chat shows also have Polarisation; less swing voters – e.g.
millions of viewers candidates can only 5% of voters swung in 2012-
appeal to by appearing on – e.g. in 2016, rendering debates and other
the 2000 presidential campaign, media outlets ineffective in
Explain and analyse three reasons money is important.
A first way in which money is important in US presidential elections is the because of the
ruling made in the Supreme Court ruling, Federal Election Campaign v. Citizens United
(2010) in which limits on independent spending by unions and corporations in elections was
ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment right upholding freedom of speech. This facilitates
PACs, Political Action Committees, to significantly contribute to a candidate’s campaign,
typically by funding adverts in support of their favoured candidate, or attacking the
opposing one, usually spreading misinformation and hindering a fair democratic process. In
the most recent presidential election campaign in 2016, the estimated total spent by super-
PACs is an overwhelming $1 billion. Nevertheless, some candidates have undermined the
function of PACs by pledging not to use them, which Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
have done in their respective campaigns to be the next Democrat presidential candidate.
Furthermore, another way money is important is because of the evident positive correlation
between money spent and success in elections. The biggest spender usually wins the
election. This has proven to be true in both congressional campaigns, which is evidenced by
the 250 millionaires in Congress, and in presidential campaigns, which was the case from
1988 all the way to 2012 in which the biggest spender has consistently become President.
However, this trend was discontinued in the latest presidential campaign in which Donald
Trump was victorious over Hillary Clinton despite spending approximately $3 million less
than her.
Finally, money is important because of the sheer cost of elections in the US. This is
particularly significant because of the way the cost is getting progressively higher over the
years. For example, while $1 billion was spent in the 2012 presidential campaign, only $200
million was spent in the 1988 presidential campaign. Modern campaigns simply require
candidates to spend more on things like the expensive mass media, advisers and
consultants. However, social media can still provide free communication for candidates to
appeal to the electorate, or alternatively gather ‘crown funding’ like Obama did in the 2012
presidential campaign, gaining 2500 small donors.
Media:
Significant: Not significant:
Television; news coverage – e.g. in Decline in viewers of the
the 2016 presidential campaign presidential debates – e.g. in the
Trump gained the equivalent of $2 1980 presidential campaign
billion free media attention because between Raegan and Carter, the
TV networks focused on his televised debate was viewed by 80
campaign. million which was halved in 2000.
Television; chat shows also have Polarisation; less swing voters – e.g.
millions of viewers candidates can only 5% of voters swung in 2012-
appeal to by appearing on – e.g. in 2016, rendering debates and other
the 2000 presidential campaign, media outlets ineffective in
