When it Comes to Lobbying, One Group Stands Out 

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-it-comes-to-lobbying-one-group-stands-out/

Summary: During this election year, one aspect of the political spectrum will remain a constant: money and lobbying. During April and June of 2015, the top three lobbyist groups; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Medical Association and Boeing, spent a record 14.4 million dollars on Capitol Hill trying to sway the minds of the nation’s lawmakers. However, the biggest spenders involved business corporations. They spent an estimated 86.6 million dollars in the three month quarter alone, according to MapLight. Big business spreading money into every crack and crevasse it can find is nothing new. "Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at centrist think-tank the New America Foundation, notes that 95 of the top 100 groups that spend money on lobbying represent business. Such organizations spend $34 for every dollar spent by labor unions, another interest group known for bending lawmakers' ears.” A lot of issues are being heard from lawmakers and politicians from these interest groups rather than from the consent of constituents. "Despite his organization's mission of shining a light on how money shapes politics, Daniel Newman, co-founder and president of MapLight, said that fixating on the exact dollar figures spent on lobbying can obscure the broader picture. For one, quarterly lobbying expenditures fail to capture the full extent of corporate influence. Companies like Google also flex their muscles by running their own PACs, funding think tanks and taking other measures to affect public policy.”

Class Connections: We have discussed lobbying and interest groups as of late in our class and that is the main focus of this article. It talks about how interest groups influence lawmakers and how groups lobby to get there information spread throughout Washington. We have talked about interest groups and lobbying and how they can be beneficial, but also how they can promote corruption and cause problems in politics. 

My Beliefs: I personally believe that interest groups and lobbyists take away from America’s system of freedom and Democracy. When corporations and big businesses are able to influence national lawmakers with money and information, I think it can lead to misrepresenting the people that these politicians should be representing. Corporations and special interests shouldn’t have a say in how laws are passed and carried out. I do believe, however, that groups can support politicians, if and only if they are giving reliable information, without money and incentives, to aid these higher ups in making informed and good decisions. This should be done only because of the enormous amount of laws and issues that theseCongressmen and women must vote on each year.

2/18/16

2/18/16 

Link to article: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-04/super-pacs-spoil-justice-kennedy-s-fantasy
Article Title:

Some Supreme Doubts on Super-PACs

Summary: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who helped create the modern campaign finance system, may be rethinking how he helped to invent the laws. He says “What happens with money in politics is not good.” To organize campaigns for the presidency and for Congress, it takes a lot of money considering the millions of voters in the country. For the 2016 election alone, total receipts have surpassed $300 million. "Politics generally doesn't lack hypocrisy, but the campaign-finance system all but mandates it.” In October of last year, Bloomberg Politics released an interview with Matt Murphy. Murphy was a longtime advisor for presidential candidate Jeb Bush before running a super PAC that is pro-Bush, and has raised over $103 million. Murphy said a document was released somehow and wound up in the hands of a reporter. It showed troubling signs for the organizational structure of Bush’s campaign in Iowa, during the caucuses. This document could have been an unintentional leak, But across the political landscape, the prohibition on coordination between campaigns and independent groups doesn't prohibit so much as inconvenience. For example, Carly Fiorina’s campaign doesn’t even arrange her campaign events, a super PAC does it for her. John Katich filmed ads for a super PAC supporting him, before his official candidacy. Justice Kennedy points out that disclosure is also a big problem in campaign finance. If contributions made by individuals were disclosed, the system would be much cleaner than it is now. We can only wait and see what will happen to the finance system in the future. 

Class Connections: This article is very relatable to our class for a couple of reasons. One, it talks about the campaign finance system in which candidates raise money for their presidential or congressional campaigns. We discussed several forms of how campaign financing is a problem, including soft money and independent expenditures; but we also discussed the ways in which the system has been reformed through the years, including the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Law and the laws and regulations passed by the FEC or the Federal Election Commission. The second connection can be made with the discussion about Super PACs. These PACs are ones that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, labor unions, individuals, etc. so long as it isn’t coordinated with a campaign. The court case that allowed for the creation of these PACs was Citizens United vs. FEC, which SCJ Anthony Kennedy was associated with when it reached the Supreme Court. 

Personal View: I personally believe that their are a lot of problems with the way in which campaigns are financed in this country. I think that there should be regulations on the amount of money that organizations and PACs can raise for a candidate. The legislation in place has too many loopholes to work efficiently, and candidates are able to raise millions of dollars to fund their campaign because of this. This is one reason why I love Bernie Sanders so much. Sanders doesn’t use PACs and super PACs. He asks for individual donations to be able to fund his campaign, and many people look up to him for this reason. It is time that we stop allowing corporations and big organizations to sway the way in which our election system is carried out, it’s time to stop the millions of dollars flowing into campaigns. The system has to be cleaned in order for a functional campaign system, and ultimately, a better outcome for the election.

GOP shatters its turnout record; Democrats lag behind

2/11/16 GOP shatters its turnout; Democrats lag behind

Link To Article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/10/gop-shatters-its-turnout-record-democrats-lag-behi/


Summary: This Tuesday, Republicans beat their voter turnout by a huge margin that rivaled that of the 2008 performance by the Democrats. Fueled by Trump and the other candidates, the number of voters reached around 285,000, just 2,000 short of the Democrats in 2008 and 15% higher than that of the 2012 primary. Democrats also performed well, with a showing of about 250,000 voters, but significantly lower than the Republicans. Combined, this turnout was a new overall record. Exit polls taken showed 15% of the voters said that it was their first time voting, and the majority of those voted for Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders. These results follow last weeks Iowa caucus turnout, in which the Republicans had 50% more voters vote than did the Democrats. It is worth mentioning, however, that the Democrats did very well for the fact that they had only two major candidates participate opposite the eleven major GOP candidates. “In Iowa our two candidates, along with Martin O’Malley, turned out 171,000 caucus-goers, compared to the ELEVEN Republican candidates — who ended up virtually in the same spot at 180,000,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Luis Miranda. The competitiveness of the candidates is most likely what is driving this extremely high turnout in the early primaries. There are more candidates on the Republican side which in turn, draws more voters. However, candidates like Donald Trump will have a harder time as the race gets deeper into the year. He relies mainly right now on uneducated, young voters who don’t end up showing up in big numbers to the elections. On another note, states later in the calendar see a big drop-off, as candidates have to spread their attention out, and don’t have money to invest in an intense turnout operation.

Class Connections: This topic relates to our class discussions because the article’s main focus is voter turnout. During our first unit, we talked about voter turnout and how it can affect the political elections. We discussed the pros and cons of high and low turnout, like when there is low turnout, the election process can unfairly favor a certain party and the basis of democracy is at stake because not everyone has their say in who is elected. 

My Opinion: I feel that it is somewhat discouraging, in my opinion, that the Republicans have had this high a voter turnout with the type of candidates that are running for President. People that have never voted before and who are uneducated shouldn’t be coming out voting for people like Donald Trump. He is not a good candidate for President. He has had no political experience in his career and he is a businessman, not a politician. He doesn’t even have set views on what he is going to do for this country. He talks about what he’s going to do like build a wall, and stop Muslims from entering the country. But he has no reasoning or basis behind these claims. Furthermore, I think the country should be more focused on the candidates that want to help improve our standard of living and what America is all about. I think the people should look to Bernie and Hillary for these things. The country should want to be more involved in these elections because this is a great chance for a great candidate to be elected that can meet the needs of the people. 

2/2/16 Hillary Clinton Declared Winner of Iowa Caucuses

Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-declared-winner-of-iowa-caucuses.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Article Title:

Hillary Clinton Declared Winner of Iowa Caucuses

Summary: On Tuesday night, February 1, 2016, Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of the Iowa Caucuses. In the final count of the vote, Mrs. Clinton was given 700.59 of the state delegate equivalents, while Mr. Sanders was given 696.82. Clinton is set to receive 23 of Iowa’s delegates, and Sanders will get 21. These results were the closest in history in the Iowa Democratic caucuses. The Clinton campaign did not expect such a close margin, but they viewed it as a significant win for the former Secretary, because of her trouble in the state beforehand. The close win, however, upset Secretary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. They thought a strong victory in the caucuses would help Clinton greatly in New Hampshire. Secretary Clinton has high hopes though, and thinks that winning the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary will not be a great downfall because she is certain that she will prosper in the southern states because of her strength in larger state primaries, where there are many delegates. She quotes that her "African American support will act as a political firewall.” Clinton is ready though, and looks forward to New Hampshire. She quotes, “I really need to get out there and make my case.” Now the Secretary has much more time to prepare, unlike for the Iowa caucuses where she had only five days, and is confident the Hampshire primary will bring much needed support and votes for the Clinton campaign.

Class Connections: This article relates to our class because we constantly talk about the presidential campaign going on, and the individual candidates and events within the campaign. We discussed who we would like to see chosen for President, and have been keeping up with the news of the campaign. We even covered the Iowa caucuses in class discussion, which is what this article’s main topic consists of.

Personal Views: I believe that the Iowa caucuses reflected a tie between Senator Sanders and Former Secretary Clinton. As a Burney supporter, I hoped that he would overcome Clinton and win the primary so he might gain a strong lead in the campaign to become President. Though he didn’t beat necessarily beat Clinton, I feel that the Clinton campaign was wrong to call this a “significant win” for Hillary. Senator Sanders was within .2% of the vote when the caucuses ended and he was within four delegates of Hillary. Clinton might have won Iowa on paper, but I think this was a huge step for Sanders in his campaign. I think this will prompt a huge support for Sanders as he prepares for the New Hampshire primary, his “backyard,” and will ultimately lead to his selection as the Democratic candidate for 2016.