Campaign Financing Position Paper

Money has come to dominate politics in the United States as more money was spent in the presidential election of 2008 than any other year. Many people believe this is corrupt and ruining the system of politics in America. However, infringing on the people’s right to freedom of speech would be ruining America. Americans should be allowed to donate any amount of money they want to a politician to carry out their beliefs. Overall, campaign financing is a constitutional right, it is not corrupt, and it should not be restricted by the government.

            Furthermore, Americans should be allowed to give their money to a candidate who represents his/her ideals. Money is a way of expressing views and those fortunate enough to be able to donate money to enforce their ideals should be allowed to do so. When the government uses legislation from preventing a person publishing or advertising something it is a violation of a person’s freedom of speech because that person can no longer express his/her views. The Daily Courier a newspaper which attempts to understand all of the aspects of the campaign finance debate defines “True censorship [as]…government force, used to prohibit people from speaking, writing, or publishing, under penalties of law” (Gregory 1). Essentially, this is what campaign finance restrictions do because they prohibit the candidates from placing ads on television.

            Moreover, critics of campaign financing argue that money is the greatest determining factor in an election but money does not automatically buy influence. Many of the donations made to politicians are made by American citizens who share the same political beliefs as the candidate. For example, a credible Facts on File article explains how the grass-roots citizen groups “provide an important role in democracy by allowing like-minded citizens to unite and advocate for candidates who will best represent them” (Campaign 1). Thus, the policies of the politician are the determining factor in elections.

            Additionally, the current restrictions on campaign finance prevent politicians and legislatives from doing their job. The current reforms put limits on the amount of money able to be donated by a group. Thus, politicians are forced to “to spend countless hours looking for new contributors instead of performing their legislative duties” (Campaign 1). It would be much more efficient for the legislatives if campaign financing wasn’t restricted.

            Although many critics to campaign financing argue the main parties are able to outspend the third parties thus eliminating competition, the third parties are still given an equal opportunity to win. For example, an article from Facts on File mentions the “independent candidate Ross Perot, a Texas billionaire, [who] won 19% of the popular vote in a presidential race against incumbent President George Bush (R) and Democratic challenger Bill Clinton (D)” (Third-Party 1). Therefore, third party candidates are able to obtain much of popular vote and possibly swing the election. Another example of a strong third party candidate would be Chris Daggett in the New Jersey Gubernatorial election of 2009. According to polls posted by the New Jersey newspaper the Star-Ledger Daggett, who represents the Independent party, is “at 8 percent among likely voters, with a 3 percent margin of error” (Corzine 1). Chris Daggett’s eight percent in the polls are likely to change the course of the election as Chris Daggett might take some votes from the Republican Candidate Chris Christie. Thus, third party candidates do have much power in the political process regardless of their lack of financial strength in comparison to the Republican and Democratic candidates.

            All in all, campaign finance restrictions are restrictions against a fair political process. Campaign finances are part of a person’s freedom of speech and do not automatically guarantee victory. Thus, America should definitely not create new campaign finance laws as it will just hinder the political process further.