Take the Money and Run for Office

I found it interesting to realize just how much time is spent fundraising and gathering donations by politicians in order to make their campaigns successful, in which special interests groups and lobbyists are some of the key driving forces in elections. Especially fascinating was the fact that there is an entire bureaucratic system dedicated to the sole purpose of raising money, which involves call centers, expectations for different departments, and even lists of certain people who have a history of donating and are thus likely to do so again. I am curious to know how such information is obtained and whether or not there have been any complaints regarding privacy violations when it comes to repeatedly being contacted by campaigns asking for donations. I agree that politicians who repeatedly contact friends and supporters for donations could be perceived as taking advantage of them and thus lose their support; however, I understand that such actions are necessary due to the huge amount of money that must be raised in order to run a successful campaign. I was shocked by the fact that the return on investment for lobbying is 22,000%. No wonder why lobbyists and special interest groups are willing to be so liberal with the amount they donate: most of the times, they can expect the candidate they are supporting to fulfill their interests and make up for the money they donated to them. Raising funds is part of any campaign, but to incentivize certain people or groups to donate in order to be allowed to influence a candidate’s vote on legislation is entirely difference. I strongly disagree with this practice and the court decision in the Citizens United Case, which allowed for the creation of super PACs which are able to funnel vast amounts of money into congressional campaigns and thus change the outcome as was the case with Bera when he lost his congressional run due to a donation by American Crossroads. I had known previously that large corporations and powerful businesses had sway in presidential elections; however, it was enlightening to learn that the Citizens United Case actually gave legal authority for these super PACs as recently as 2010 to donate unlimited amounts of to political campaigns and has since affected many close congressional races. To me, it seems to be a completely unjust decision. I agree with McCain and Feingold on their criticism of this decision and their desire for reform. How could the Supreme Court expect donating to campaigns to not be considered a form of coordination, especially when campaign managers are oftentimes the same people running the super PAC which donates to that campaign? I would like to know more about the details behind the Citizens United Case and what the Supreme Court’s motive was for allowing unlimited political spending in campaigns, as well as to what extent super PACs have influenced elections across the country. I imagine if more citizens were aware of the influence super PACs, special interests groups, and donors have on elections, they would be more compelled to protest against the court decision in Citizens United and support a movement to reform campaign finance.