The Presidential Nominating Process, Campaign Money, and Popular Love” (original) (raw)
Related papers
Money that Matters: The Role of Money in Campaigns and Elections
Using the results from a unique experiment imbedded in a national survey on attitudes towards money and politics, this paper tests voters’ reaction to the disclosure of campaign contribution information. In particular, we explore reactions to differences in the source and amount of campaign contributions. In general, we find that voters react far more to the source than to the amount of campaign contributions.
2016
Over the last three decades, the Supreme Court has curtailed meaningful limits on political campaign spending and contributions. Te alarming, but predictable, result is the rise of a small group of wealthy elites who make large political contributions with the goal of infuencing election outcomes and policymaking. We are lef with a government that is less responsive to the needs and concerns of ordinary Americans, and more responsive to the needs and concerns of economic elites. To understand what big money in politics means, it is important to understand the "who" and the "what" of political donations: who is spending big money on elections, and what do they want? In the following analysis, we uncover the demographics (the "who") and policy preferences (the "what") of the donor class that dominates U.S. campaign funding, in order to shed light on why money in politics is distorting our democracy in favor of economic elites, and particularly w...
The Influence of Money in Politics
Self-Publishing, 2023
This study delves into the pervasive impact of financial resources in politics, focusing on corporate lobbying, special interest groups, campaign financing, Super PACs, the revolving door phenomenon, and the wealth gap's influence on political power. These elements collectively undermine democratic principles, causing concerns about fairness, transparency, and public trust. The recommendations include stricter campaign finance regulations, enhanced transparency, ethical guidelines, and public engagement, aimed at creating a more equitable and responsive political system while mitigating the influence of money and special interests.
So that's life, then: things as they are, This buzzing of the blue guitar. —Wallace Stevens, " The Man with the Blue Guitar " Be prepared. You have to understand Trump to stand calmly up to him and those running with him all over the country. — George Lakoff This essay seeks to come to terms with the new political and ethical paradox proposed by the use of language of Donald Trump, the 45 th president of the United States. While some of his statements have been denounced as slander and many others as lies, such rational understanding of Trump's discourse has had but little effect on his supporters and, indeed, has not kept him from winning the presidency. The essay resorts to a linguistic analysis of a philosophical tradition about lies established by Immanuel Kant and reexamines it through the work of thinkers such as Jacques Derrida, Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault. Thus, the essay exposes the linguistic novelty of Trump's discourse in what may be called the " history of the lie " and the ethical and political impact on the political community. The essay concludes, with the help of Michel Serres, that Trump's discourse coalesces with malfeasant forces at the heart of late capitalist discourse that appropriates the world by defiling it. In The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant claims that a lie is the exclusive property of the person who utters or writes it. For Kant, a lie defines the person who proffers it, and, like that person's pain or death, that speech act cannot be shared by the community. Conversely, Kant suggests that truth is a common good shared by all. Truth belongs to all and founds the very sense of ethical and political community. Lies are personal and idiosyncratic and rest outside the democratic metaphysics of common sense that establishes the community and in which " common sense appears not as a psychological given but as the subjective condition of all 'communicability' " (Deleuze, Kant 21). Lies, rather, are harangues thrown at the crowd. While lies are practically indistinguishable, from a linguistic point of view, from a truthful statement, they are distinguishable in that the latter is shared by the community while the former aims at exciting the personalities of the individuals forming a crowd. This essay examines the changes made to our understanding of language and politics by the language of the 45 th President of the United States of America, Donald Trump. Performative speech acts form the basis of social life, and Trump's language nullifies this sociality, rendering community no longer a community, but simply a " crowd. " In his reading of Kant,
This paper tests the logic of the Supreme Court’s reasoning with respect to corruption in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In particular, we are interested in the justices’ emphasis on perceptions of corruption and on regulation as a critical mechanism to dispel the notion that elected officials are simply ‘bought and sold’. Using new data from a national poll on the role of money in politics, we test several related hypotheses about public perceptions of the role of money in politics, the salience of campaign finance as a public policy priority, and the effect of campaign contributions on mass voting behavior and political participation. We also leverage variation in the level of campaign finance regulation among the fifty states as a natural experiment to test several hypotheses that flow from the court’s reasoning in Buckley regarding the relationship between public perceptions of corruption and the level of regulation of campaign finance. We find very little evidence to substantiate the...