As the 2012 presidential primaries continue and the election approaches, campaign finance and super PACs are dominating the conversation. The Daily Orange conservative and liberal columnists take on the issue.

Candidates’ ideas should drive their success, not their donors.

But we’ve seen corporations and individuals pile in millions of dollars to help fund candidates’ campaigns since the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee ruling.

The United States spends the most money on its campaigns. The Center for Responsive Politics reports more than $75 million spent by outside groups in the 2012 election cycle, alone.

Candidates in the United States spend the longest time running for office. Other countries spend far less, and there is no suggestion their democracies have been weakened. Many of these countries have a wider variety of political parties and different ideologies.

Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire who has donated $11 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, told Forbes Magazine in February, ‘I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it’s doable, I know I’m going to do it.’

Donors like Adelson admit to a problem but continue to use their influence. Government regulation should exist to ensure money does not corrupt our political system. The United States does not need to spend so much on its campaigns. Money spent on campaigns is not necessarily producing better candidates or leaders.

When a few wealthy individuals control which candidates get financial support, the security of our democracy is threatened. Whether these groups or individuals support liberal or conservative candidates is irrelevant. The basis and fundamental values of this country do not support this behavior.

Harmen Rockler is a junior newspaper journalism and political science major. His regular column appears every Monday. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu. 

Published on February 29, 2012 at 12:00 pm