Campaign Funding- Presidential - finance presidential campaigns
There is a hot contest in the nation about the ability of corporate to finance presidential campaigns in the country. The issue of campaign funding is not new; it has been a source of concern since the turn of the century. In addition, other countries have experienced the same problems and had different outcomes.
For example, Panama was affected by the ability of Noriega to influence presidential elections in the country. Other counties have adopted alternative models of campaign funding to close all loops that may allow election of puppet presidents. This has been the result of realization that candidates with the biggest budgets have the best chance of success. This implies that it is possible to instill a president in power by simply making their budgets bigger than that of their competitors.
[...] Other counties have adopted alternative models of campaign funding to close all loops that may allow election of puppet presidents. This has been the result of realization that candidates with the biggest budgets have the best chance of success. This implies that it is possible to instill a president in power by simply making their budgets bigger than that of their competitors. Project Proposal Draft The issue of campaign funding originated from the constitution. President Roosevelt recognized the need to ban funding by corporate as far back as 1905. [...]
[...] It was proposed that public disclosure provides the public with the relevant information and therefore allows the public to make informed decision (Smith, 2001). The United States is not the only country affected by the fears of implication of corporate campaign funding. Similar cases have affected other countries in a negative manner. For example, Noriega was the most powerful person in Panama due to his contributions to presidential campaigns. His resources guaranteed success to his choice, but the presidents were merely his puppets (Yates, 2008). [...]
[...] This is a positive model and is applicable to the American case because some politicians claim to have spent more time raising campaign funds that doing the actual campaigns The volume of campaigning affects the chances of success. As shown earlier, soliciting funds takes up a lot of electoral candidates' time (Claessensa et al., 2008). Therefore, candidates with more money spend more time campaigning and have greater exposure. This bestows an unfair advantage over their competition (Claessensa et al., 2008). [...]
[...] Campaigns are not necessary flawed. However, the presence of questionable funding raises concern and thus leads to the current debate. Supporters of the current system point to the relevance of campaigning. The democratic process is reliant on the ability of all candidates to popularize their ideas because the public holds candidates responsible for their campaign pleas. In addition, campaigning and the competition attributed to it leads to better quality services and empowers the opposition to put the reigning government on its toes (Smith, 2001). [...]
[...] Therefore, the whole process of partisan politics does not have the ability to mitigate the effects of campaign funding because it may start from the lowest point and affect the entire process. In addition, candidates with more funding are more likely to succeed because it buy them more time in the press and thus gives them a better platform to air their ideas (Claessensa et al., 2008). The principles of democracy stipulate for equal opportunities for all candidates. It is clear that giving richer or more influential candidates an undue advantage violates the democratic principles (Claessensa et al., 2008). [...]
using our reader.