By Building a New Financing System, Are Candidates Mocking the Rules?

Works Cited

Balz, Dan. "By Building a New Financing System, Are Candidates Mocking the Rules?."         Washington Post. 15 Mar. 2015: A.2. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Nov.         2015.

        Author’s Credentials:  Dan Balz graduated from the University of Illinois, and         has worked as a political correspondent at the Washington Post since 1978.         Currently, he holds the position of chief correspondent. He is a highly decorated         journalist, and has received such awards as the American Political Science         Association award for political coverage, the Gerald R. Ford award, the Mariam         Smith Award, and the National Press Club award.

        Summary: Campaign finance limits began after the Watergate Scandal in the mid         1970’s. They were designed to limit what a candidate could raise and spend         during their campaigns, with the goal of preventing wealthy individuals to heavily         influence elections. Over time, they have become less and less successful,         especially with the conception of superpacs, who have the same influence the         limits were created to prevent.

        Bias: The author has a slight bias against superpacs.

        Questions Answered: Why was campaign finance legislation created? What was         its intended purpose? What specific events have led to its demise?

        Questions Created: Where do campaign finance limits seem to be going in the         future? How are specific candidates reacting to said limits, and how do they         intend to reform the system? Which specific candidates are heavily invested in         reforming the campaign finance system?

Confessore, Nicholas. "Koch Brothers' Election Flood." International New York Times.          28 Jan. 2015: 5. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.

        Author’s Credentials: Confessore is a Princeton graduate with a degree in         political science. He won the Livingston Award for national reporting in 2003, at         the age of 28, and the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news reporting. Currently         he works as a political correspondent on the national desk of the New York         Times.

        Summary: This article dealt with the Koch brother’s increasing influence on the         presidential election, especially with the increase in their funding to $900 million,         a number close to the amount of funding given by the respective political parties         to their candidates. Additionally, this increase in spending puts a great deal of         pressure on democratic and liberal groups, and emphasizes the roll of donors over         political consultants and operators.

        Bias: The author has a slight bias against the Koch brothers, but not large enough         to negate the importance of the article.

        Questions Answered: How much are the Koch brothers spending during this         election cycle? On which candidates are they spending said funds? How is this         impacting parties and other political organizations?

        Questions Created: Are there other people/organizations who are spending large         sums of money to influence the 2016 election? Exactly which candidates are         receiving the bulk of the money from superpacs/billionaire backers?

Flitter, Emily. “Why U.S. Billionaires May Not Be Able to Buy the 2016 Elections.”         Pittsburg Post-Gazette. 07 June 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

        Author’s Credentials: Emily Flitter is a political reporter based out of New         York. Currently, she holds the position of 2016 Campaign Finance Correspondent         at Reuters News in New York. She received her Masters in Middle Eastern         studies and journalism from New York University in 2007, and has worked as         such publications as The Wall Street Journal.

        Summary: This article discusses the falling influence of money (mainly that of         Superpacs and Billionaires) in buying the next election. Though some smaller         candidates, such as Rubio and Carson, still have billionaire backers, there is a         great deal of questions as to the effectiveness of billionaire dollars in the 2016         election. Over the last few election cycles, political watchdogs have feared the         growing sway of billionaire dollars on the elections, but are now seeing some         pushback. Additionally, political experts think that said pushback may be due to         the larger amounts of perceived discontent at the unjust distribution of wealth, and         a greater knowledge of the role money has played in past elections. Though one         cannot deem this a trend, as it has only been occurring for one election cycle, it         seems as if the era of big business buying elections is coming to a close. In         response, some candidates, mainly Bernie Sanders, have turned to their supporters         for funding in order to avoid billionaire influence altogether.

        Bias: The author maintains a small bias towards those who do not use superpacs/         have billionaire backers.

        Questions Answered: What is the role of money in the 2016 election? Is the         general public dissatisfied at the influence of big money?

        Questions Created: Where do specific candidates stand in terms of campaign         finance legislation? What are their plans to either limit/expand said legislation?         Who considers this to be a major issue?

Rothenberg, Stuart. "'Big Money' and the 2016 Elections." Roll Call. 23 Apr. 2015: n.p.         SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.