Pickett 1

Rachel Pickett
Ms. David
Honors English 10
17 February 2016
For the People, Funded by the People
In the 2012 presidential election, the Democratic and Republican parties spent a
combined $1.9 billion (Jeremy Ashkenas). Around $227.7 million dollars of that money was
donated by the respective partys primary super PAC. Super PACs, or independent expenditureonly committees, can raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations or individuals and
then publically donate that money so it is used for or against political candidates (Super PACs ).
Campaign finance reforms are essential because money is an impactful component in an election,
American democracy is manipulated through super PACs and other wealthy individuals, and
campaign finance reform would be the first step in minimalizing the role that big money plays in
American politics. After all, money can single-handedly win or lose an election for a candidate.
Money is by far the most influential factor in an election. In the 2012 congressional
elections, better-funded candidates were nine times more likely to win their race (Lowery). That
means regardless of policy, intelligence, and reputation, as long as a candidate has enough
money, they will most likely beat their counterpart. In the situation where money is the main
factor in a political election, it is not a fair representation of who the American public thinks the
candidate should be. About $4 billion was spent on the midterm elections in 2014, which is more
money spent that any other election in history (Domenico Montenaro). When that large of
amount is being spent on elections, that means there is something wrong with the countrys

Pickett 2
elections. That much money shouldnt be spent on political campaigns when it could be used for
the 45 million people who are below the poverty line (Gongloff). The bottom line is that money
is one of the most influential pieces in a winning candidates victory.
Elections shouldnt be won by candidates relying on big donors. Charles and David
Koch, of Koch Industries, will give $889 million dollars to presidential candidates in the 2016
election (Confessore). This essentially manipulates Americas democratic values because a
conglomerate like Koch Industries is buying an election, which takes away the voice of other
American citizens who dont have the financial means to contribute to political campaigns.
Campaign finance reforms would essentially even out the playing field for all political elections.
For instance, The Major League Soccer has a salary cap of $3.49 million for each team, so one
manager cant build a team with phenomenal players just because they have more money than
another team (Kelly). The same concept should be applied to political elections, there should be a
limit on the amount of money an individual, company or super PAC should be allowed to donate.
This would keep super PACs and other corporations from being able to buy an election. When
campaigns are bought by money, it is not a true representation of how America feels about the
candidates.
Money needs to play a smaller role in campaigns and politics in general. Many people,
especially ones of lower socioeconomic classes, feel that politics can only be influenced by
people who have large amounts of money to spend. This shouldnt be the case. America was
founded on the morals and ideals that everyone should have an equal opportunity to be a key
player in politics. When money plays such a large role in campaigns, politicians who are running
start to only care about satisfying donors in order to get the contribution that they need. This
means that instead of focusing on the problems that they believe need to be solved, they instead

Pickett 3
end up agreeing with whoever will write them the biggest check. Too much money in the
political system can be damaging, because it can distort what candidates and citizens actually
think.
Critics say that if campaign finance reforms existed, that those reforms would essentially
silence someone who wanted to voice their political opinion. Specifically, critics like Dan
Epstein say that campaign finance reforms attack ones First Amendment right to the freedom of
speech (Epstein). This is not the case. Reforms wouldnt silence anyone, they would just cause
elections to occur on a more balanced playing field. Every person would still have the
opportunity to contribute money to the political campaign of their choosing; reforms would just
prohibit a person from donating too much money. Just because an individual has more money,
doesnt mean that they deserve to have a louder voice when it comes to politics. The United
States of America was founded on the idea that all men should have equal opportunities,
regardless of their wealth.
Campaign finance reforms are necessary. Money can make or break a candidates
prospects in an election and is one of the most influential pieces in American politics. When
super PACs or corporations donate large sums of money to candidates, they are going against
Americas democratic values. In addition to campaign finance reforms, money should play a
smaller role in politics because it disenfranchises a majority of citizens which is not what the
American political system was designed to do. Reforms would not be the death of First
Amendment rights, as critics would like their audience to believe. Rather, they are the first step
to fixing Americas broken political system.

Pickett 4

Works Cited
Confessore, Nicholas. Koch Brothers Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par With Both Parties
Spending. 26 January 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-tospend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0>.
Domenico Montenaro, Rachel Wellford, and Simon Pathe. Money is pretty good predictor of who will win
elections. 11 November 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/money-pretty-goodpredictor-will-win-elections/>.
Epstein, Dan. The Latest Progressive Attack on Speech . 2015 October 2015. <http://sks.sirs.com/cgibin/hst-article-display?id=SKS45045-0-573&artno=0000377686&type=ART>.
Gongloff, Mark. 45 Million Americans Still Stuck Below Poverty Line: Census. 16 September 2014.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/poverty-household-income_n_5828974.html>.
Jeremy Ashkenas, Matthew Ericson, Alicia Parlapiano, and Derek Willis. The 2012 Money Race:
Compare the Candidates. 2012. <http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance>.
Kelly, Ross. MLS Salary Cap Is Just Plain Ridiculous. 24 July 2015.
<http://sports.cbslocal.com/2015/07/24/mls-salary-cap-is-ridiculous/>.
Lowery, Wesley. 91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins. Dont act surprised. 4 April 2014.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-inelections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/>.
Super PACs . n.d. <https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php>.