Presidential elections are some of the most engaging and expensive affairs of all democratic processes. There are several sources from which the candidates get their funding because of the enormity and the expense involved in the affair. Until the period of the year 2008, all major presidential candidates were expected to receive matching funds that equaled the amount of money they had raised in the different states. For instance, if a candidate raised five thousand dollars in each of the twenty states, then there was a fund from the federal reserves. That matched that so as to enable such candidate to engage in campaigns properly. It is important to note and record that an individual presidential candidate could apply for the matching funds if he or she showed proof of the contribution raised by his or her supporters.
Similarly, there is a party convention and the general election grants which runs into millions in the form of funding of presidential candidates. This stems from the reasoning that each of the two main or major presidential candidates, the democrat and the republican would be legible for a twenty million campaign grant. This situation and circumstance are however set to change since the last candidates in the last elections opted out of such funding and instead did they own sourcing. If I did my humble and respectful submission, I would suggest that if the candidates have their alternative means of funding then the amount ought to be directed to the parties. This is so because there are people within the different political parties who run the secretariat and depend on that as their source of livelihood. Thus, the funds would go a long way to ensuring the democratic tenets of political parties remain intact over even after the presidential elections are over.
There is an argument in favor and against federal funding in the United States Presidential elections. On the side of disadvantages, federal funding increases the distance between the elites and the ordinary citizens. This is so because if politicians do not depend on their party members for contribution of funding then they are less likely to consult or engage them during decision making. Secondly, that kind of funding ensure status quo where the elite is continuously funded and remain in power. Thus, only those within the power circles would be able to maintain their position due to continuous funding.
On the other hand, public funding is part of the democratic process which is the cost of democracy. Political competition ought to happen within the confines of comfort, where the candidates would compete in terms of ideologies and not material wealth (Kiewiet and McCubbins, 730). Thus, if all the candidates have a stable source of financing. Secondly, it limited the amount of influence that one can draw relative to money and thus reduce the effects of corruption. It the candidates receive funding from the federal reservoir, it ensures a sense of independence because the candidate would not be controlled by external and foreign donors. Independence if important because it would mean that foreign donors or sponsors would not have an input to control the candidate in any case he or she wins the elections. Thus, it would be critical, and it would go a long way to ensuring that the president would have an independent opinion on matters.
Work Cited
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Mathew D. McCubbins. "Presidential Influence On Congressional Appropriations Decisions." American Journal of Political Science (1988): 713-736.
