Rick Santorum dropped out of his presidential campaign today. He did not give specifics as to why he decided to drop out, but it is most likely due to Romeny's dominance in across the nation. Santorum stated that he will still give any aid to the Republican Party that he can, of course that mean backing Romney when he wins the candidacy.
The issue of money is brought up in this article, which suggests that Santorum has far less money than Romney. Money has become a huge player in presidential elections, maybe too much of a player. The Super PAC, Restore our Future, has backed Romney by putting millions and millions of dollars toward campaign adds that targeted Santorum. The amount of money that is being put into these campaigns is unbelievable. This leads to the question; is the best candidate being chosen by the country or are the supporting factors behind the candidate putting millions behind that candidate in order for that person to win? Most likely the candidate with the most money or the most financial backing will win the elections or campaigns. But if there are two candidates with about the same amount of financial backing, I think that the country would pick the best candidate because they are seeing more of both sides instead of seeing a majority a single sides propaganda.
The question of financial backing is a tricky question, because the more money behind a candidate, the more good publicity they will get, and the more bad publicity their opponents will be get. But if a candidate has a major financial backing from several sources, does that mean that they are the best candidate? Is it fair to say the people and companies supporting the candidate have a lot of money for a reason; they are successful and educated. But, of course, this brings up another issue of the elites running the country. Is that such a bad thing? Maybe the educated and elites should run the country because they are the most educated and knowledgeable. I don't know, it seems to be a issue that will never be completely answered.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/santorum-to-suspend-presidential-campaign/?hp
Showing posts with label Financial backing.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial backing.. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Watergate Lesson Forgotten?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/politics/watergate-reform/index.html
The problem of potentially currupt finacial backing behind political candidates has been a big issue since the Watergate Scandal. Many poeple think a huge lesson of Watergate was that big money and secrecy currupts. Some experts are warning the public that the reforms made after Watergate to regulate campaign fundraising have been almost completely thrown away. There are no longer big regulations of campaign fundraising, but does that really matter? The flow of money to candidates is going to happen regardless of the law or regulations put in place to try and stop it. Candidates will get the money they need through any way possible, and if we think that simple reforms will stop them, we are nieve. Corporations and other powerful sources of money will always supply money to political candidates because they recieve favors in return for the money, whether its legal or not. The main issue is the secrecy of the sources behind all of the money the candidates get, because there could be some curruption involved.
It is impossible to stop the influence of money on political campaigning, but it is possible to somewhat regulate it. A political scientist and professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts says, "The remedy is publicity". The most powerful way to help regualte the secret funding of political campaigns is the media. If the media exposed more information about which corporations are feeding money to which canidates, we could control the flow of money a little more and somewhat eliminate curruption. Transparency would give voters the information needed to hold the candidates accountable. However, in reality, it is unlikely that much will change about the fincacial backing of political candidates. This years elecetion will have an enormous amount of secret financial backing to candidates.
The problem of potentially currupt finacial backing behind political candidates has been a big issue since the Watergate Scandal. Many poeple think a huge lesson of Watergate was that big money and secrecy currupts. Some experts are warning the public that the reforms made after Watergate to regulate campaign fundraising have been almost completely thrown away. There are no longer big regulations of campaign fundraising, but does that really matter? The flow of money to candidates is going to happen regardless of the law or regulations put in place to try and stop it. Candidates will get the money they need through any way possible, and if we think that simple reforms will stop them, we are nieve. Corporations and other powerful sources of money will always supply money to political candidates because they recieve favors in return for the money, whether its legal or not. The main issue is the secrecy of the sources behind all of the money the candidates get, because there could be some curruption involved.
It is impossible to stop the influence of money on political campaigning, but it is possible to somewhat regulate it. A political scientist and professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts says, "The remedy is publicity". The most powerful way to help regualte the secret funding of political campaigns is the media. If the media exposed more information about which corporations are feeding money to which canidates, we could control the flow of money a little more and somewhat eliminate curruption. Transparency would give voters the information needed to hold the candidates accountable. However, in reality, it is unlikely that much will change about the fincacial backing of political candidates. This years elecetion will have an enormous amount of secret financial backing to candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)