Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that any eligible person should be able to run for, and win, an office in the American government with no unfair advantages given to one candidate over another.

This ideal still exists today, but only in theory. Candidates with multi-million dollar checkbooks are able to crush competition that doesn’t have the resources of its opponent. This problem has existed for some time, and in 1974 lawmakers passed legislation limiting individuals to $1,000 donations per candidate for federal office and $20,000 a year to political parties in hard money (Sifry 27). Hard money is funding that can be spent directly on a federal campaign.

In that legislation, however, there was no cap placed on soft money, or funds that can be made to the party for party-building activities only. These funds are unlimited and unregu

lated, and this is where the problem arises. Soft money is used very often for massive advertising campaigns that, while promoting the specific party, are clearly benefiting the party’s candidate. There is bipartisan agreement that those funds are used in ways that mock the law (Hastings 7). Soft money fundraising isn’t waning, either. In the 2000 elections, over $500 million was raised by the Democratic and Republican parties in soft money (Sifry 26).

This system means that those who donate large amounts of money have a larger voice in the government, which goes against the idea of equality that is so important to democracy. It is also not as though the very wealthy make up a large portion of the population, or that they even often share the same viewpoints as the rest of society. Individual donors who gave $200 or more in the 2000 elections made up less than one quarter of one percent of Americans (Sifry 27). Are they the only ones worthy of having their voices heard? If we do not reform campaign finance, we will have politicians working only for those who can afford to contribute.

Campaign finance reform would help the country grow and develop as well. With the system working the way it is, perfectly qualified people who could possibly assist America from leadership positions are unable to contribute due to a lack of funds.

The biggest reason supporting the necessity of campaign finance reform is the damage it does to our democracy. When a big business or a wealthy individual makes a large donation to a political party, they have more say in politics because the receiver of the donations will want to contin

Some topics in this essay:
Democratic Republican, Reform Necessity, McCain Arizona, Philip Morris, Jack Lohman, American Prospect, Reform Act, Newt Gingrich, Americans Sifry, Democratic Representative, campaign finance, soft money, campaign finance reform, finance reform, soft money fundraising, money fundraising, sifry 27, necessity campaign finance, 2000 elections, makes donation, necessity campaign, political parties, jackson 33,