The United States campaign funding is depicted by various instances of unfair practices because the rich get leverage since they can convince the mass in their campaigns. It is essential to note that political campaigns always involve the use of significant resources. Some of the expenditures incurred in a political campaign include the renting of conference halls, transportation, paying the campaigners, printing, appearances, and even soft finances. It would rather seem impractical to expect that funding offered by the federal government would meet up all those costs (Hames, & Ekern, 297). State funding would also seem to favor a particular candidate, which in the end would translate to an unfair advantage (Boatwright, 191). Political campaigns are about showcasing one’s high points as compared with the other prospective candidates. The US campaign system needs an overhaul, but in a way that does not curtail the freedom of political speech.
Buckley and Valeo case highlights the issues of finance in the American elections (Hames, & Ekern, 295). The case was driven by the federal campaign election campaign act’s move of imposing limitations on the kind of spending that would be incurred by the political candidates or their support groups. According to the federal election campaign act, the use of personal wealth to finance the campaigns served as a hindrance to freedom of political speech (298). Further, the average people would be sidelined as they would not have enough funds to convince the public of their worth. The court, however, upheld the limitations of donations from other parties. However, the Supreme Court contended that political campaigns require financing from the basics, and it would instead serve as a limitation of the political speech if the amendment were to be passed into law.
When the wealthy use their wealth to finance their political campaigns, they tend to have an advantage over the average American citizen. The property is often used a soft money to increase a candidate’s presence on the television channels, print billboards, and even notifications. Notably, the wealthy people also have a circle of rich friends who help contribute to the political campaigns. There is a need to change the funding of the American campaigns if the freedom of political speech is to be attained (Hames, & Ekern, 299). The financing system should ensure equality in the kind of donation the candidates receive from their support groups. The United States Supreme Court barred the candidate from expressly campaigning for the downfall of their competitors, but evidently when the wealthy use their finances to make their campaigns in, essence; they are doing the same thing.
The political candidates should not be barred from using their finances to meet the expenditures during their campaigns. However, it would make sense if the contributions from the outside parties were limited. When one uses their finances to the campaign, it promotes freedom of speech (Gora, 763). The individual can express themselves and engage in activities responsibly because they are responsible for the cash involved. Some of the political candidates have risen from humble backgrounds to their present state. In that regard, having a self-made political candidate as the current president, Obama gives hope to the younger generation and as such, motivates them to work on their dreams. The state funding may limit the freedom of speech because the funds provided may not be sufficient to meet all the costs that are to be incurred in the political campaigns. The freedom of expression arises from the fact that the candidates can use their finances to convince the citizens to vote them in (Gora, 761). However, the presidential candidates should be awarded an equal amount of funding so that one does not have an advantage over their competitors. While the personal campaign can equate to freedom of speech, the citizens may be blinded by the finances from candidates that they forget to look at the character of the individual. However, it would be unfair, regardless, to prevent the presidential candidates from using their personal finances to conduct their campaigns.
The American voting system operates in different stages. While the presidential candidates are allowed to campaign freely with the citizens being promised of their freedom to choose their leaders, it is not always the case (Boatwright, 192). The Electoral College is the legal institution in charge of electing the president and the vice president. Each member state has different parties from which three delegates are chosen by the majority vote. While the citizens go ahead to choose their preferred candidates, it is the electors that choose the president by their vote. The formula used for selecting the delegates chosen is not clear, and this brings about confusion in the election. Further, smaller states may end up being underrepresented thus give the large ones an unfair advantage in the general elections. The national election system should be simplified in that all the American citizens can understand it with ease. Every American citizen should be allowed to cast their vote directly, without having to go through the delegate selection process. Finally, the national elections should be changed to allow for the electors to be chosen freely and reduce an incidence of having pledges of favoring a particular presidential candidate.
Works cited
Boatwright, Robert G. Interest Groups and Campaign Finance Reform in the United States and Canada. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011. Print.
Gora, Joel M. "Free Speech, Fair Elections, and Campaign Finance Laws: Can They Co-Exist?." Howard Law Journal 556.3 (2013): 763.
Hames, Joanne B, and Yvonne Ekern. Constitutional Law: Principles and Practice. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
