Module 3: Election Rules & Factions

This week we are to discuss elections and campaign finance.

The text suggests that primaries were implemented to "diminish the influence of political organizations on political life." - in essence primaries were created to limit the amount of influence that parties have on the nominating process. I agree with this comment because the establishment of direct primaries have allowed the voters to have more of a say in who gets nominated and who doesn't. It's really become MORE democratic with the invention of the direct primaries. Caucuses and conventions, when they were used, were tools that allowed "bosses" control over who was nominated and what their platforms stood for. With the invention and success of direct primaries, voters have enjoyed the luxury of more political participation. They are allowed to use their vote as a way to voice their opinion. Primaries are also a simple way for average voters to take part in the entire process. Each primary is based on state law and each state controls their own primaries, which I think is important because each state can make their own rules and regulations as they see fit. One downfall of these direct primaries is that it produces a more moderate candidate - one who must conform to the wishes of all the voters so he must appeal to those on the left and those on the right. This may be a good thing for some, but it's also a downfall for others because some voters who label themselves an independent appeal to those moderate candidates, while those who label themselves as Conservative or Liberal may not be attracted to a moderate candidate.

Campaign finance has played a large role in campaigns for several decades now. There are generally three main complaints concerning campaign finance: campaign costs have grown too much, people who donate expect something in return, and there is often corruption when huge sums of money are spent/collect for political purposes. To address some of these concerns, the FECA and McCain Feingold Act have been created and implemented. Due to these "new" acts, new restrictions have been put in place regarding how much can be contributed to campaigns and how campaigns are suppose to disclose that information to the public. These regulations have come with mixed results. The main goal was to limit the cost of campaigns, but obviously this aspect has greatly failed. Campaigns are more expensive than ever. These acts have also failed to curtail the influence of organized interests as well as allowed candidates to use federal funds to aid their campaign. On a positive note, the regulations have somewhat limited the amount of corruption and misuse of monies that have gone on. Money is definitely a motivator so it's important to keep a close eye on who contributes, how much they contribute and what their possible "motivations" are. Certain groups may contribute more in the hopes that they will get something in return from the candidate if they win. For instance, let's say that a specific environmental group contributes tons of money to a presidential campaign in the hopes that if that candidate wins they will support that group's initiative. It's almost like buying votes - that sort of stuff we should keep an eye on - and that's why we've created these regulations. They will probably get even more strict in the future. Making campaign contributions available to public access is one way to hold candidates accountable. I think it's important to have factions because its a way to make sure every group is spoken for, but too many factions may clog the system and draw attention to places that aren't important.