Case Study #1 – Money in Politics

Title of Case Study #1 – Money in Politics

 

 

Points Possible:  100

 

Due Date:  Sunday, 11/8 by 11:30 pm

 

Description:  The ability of wealthy individuals, interest groups, and corporations to influence elections, legislation, and public policy is nothing new.  You may remember that virtually all of the framers of the US Constitution were wealthy, property rich men.  I’ve made the point before that although our political system is a representative democracy, we have a capitalist economic system that encourages competition, profits, and individual freedom.  There has been a long-standing debate in our country over the pros and cons of money in politics and there have been many attempts at reforming our lobbying and campaign finance laws.

For this Case Study, I’d like you to research this topic and report on your findings.  There are abundant online articles on this topic.  Additionally, I have provided some resources that will provide background and context for you in developing your report.  I have also provided specific questions to address in this Case Study.  Finally, I have attached a “rubric” or grading guideline so you can see what I’m looking for in the report and how I’ll be assigning points.

Background and Context:

Chapter 10 – Money in General Elections – pages 304-308 (blue cover); pages 324-328 (green cover)

Chapter 7 – Interest Groups

http://www.propublica.org/article/money-is-speech-a-musical-history-of-campaign-finance

Case Study 1 – Fall 2015 – The Citizens United Decision and Why It Matters.docx

Case study #1 – Fall 2015 PBS Online -Pros and Cons of Campaign Reform.docx

Questions to be addressed:  Case Study 1 – Fall 2015 – Questions.docx

Research paper requirements:

1.  Must be a minimum of three but not more than four pages of content, double-spaced.

2.  Must be in #12 size, with New Times Roman font in black color.

3.  Must include an additional separate page titled “References” where you list all the sources used in your research (including the ones I provided as background) using the APA style guidelines.   You must include a minimum of three additional sources other than the ones I provided.   For guidance on how to properly cite sources see https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

 

 

Grading Rubric:  Case Study Rubric – Fall 2015.docx

 

As always, I urge you to start working on the assignment immediately and not to leave it until the last minute.  Take some time to read the background resources I’ve cited first as they will give you so

(1) Current federal contribution limits have not been adjusted for inflation in more than 20 years. The maximum individual contribution — set at $1,000 in 1974 — is worth approximately $300 in 1996 dollars. Candidates need to raise more than 3 times what they did 22 years ago to achieve the same result. (1) Only a small percentage of citizens can afford to give $1,000 or more to a candidates. Increasing the contribution limit or abolishing it altogethermight magnify the influence that wealthy individuals and groups have over elected officials. (2) Studies show that PACs and related organizations prefer to give money to incumbent candidates, not challengers. Raising contribution limits might help challengers raise enough money to get their campaigns off the ground. (2) Because PACs and wealthy individual contributors favor incumbents, there is no reason to believe that challengers will have an easier time raising money from those same sources if limits are lifted. (3) Candidates would spend less time fundraising, and more time meeting citizens and tending to their official duties. (3) Campaign finance problems would not be resolved by adding more money to the current system or doing nothing at all. We are much more likely to succeed if we build on what works in our current system. (4) Given the escalating cost of political communications, especially the cost of TV advertising, candidates need more money than ever to communicate effectively with voters. (4) People who are wealthy enough to spend lots of money on political activities that are not limited by current campaign finance laws (like soft money, independent expenditures) will continue to do so, making higher limits as easy to evade legally as current limits.

home | fixers game | interviews | special reports | cartoons | “show us the money” | press | discussion web site copyright 1995-2014 WGBH educational foundation