Limits on how much corporations and individuals spend on campaigns

4 billion (Zocalo). There has been debate over whether to restrict the amount of money that people spend on campaigns. Most of the money spent on these campaigns comes from donations from individuals and corporations. This is to mean that these individuals who provide these donations are likely to have great say to the government in case those whom they donated to win the election. Super PACS together with the wealthiest in the U. According to the findings made by Martin Gilens and Andrew Bartels, “policy preferences of the very wealthy consistently prevail as compared to the preference of the poor and middle-class voters” (Schmitt 1). Due to the large amounts of money that is invested by the rich cartels in politics, this has led to the crossover of economic inequality into the political sphere, whereby the wealthy are more advantageous than the poor who lock in their gains, thus threatening the vibrancy as well as the growth of the economy (Schmitt 1).

Failure to restrict the amount spend in campaigns thus allows those who are wealthy to dictate over the others who lack such powers in the market, thus affecting democratic leadership and promoting dictatorship of money in democratic countries. The traditional approach of reducing the impact of the rich leading to sabotage of democracy is by imposing limits on the amount that people spend on campaigns and those that they receive from their “financiers. ” It is important to reduce the total amounts that an individual can give out into campaigns or any form of outside spending that aim at influencing elections (Schmitt 1). Those with leadership traits have nowhere to show them unless they have money. Those supported by rich donors have added advantage because they are likely to have a great say in the society.

Moderation of the amount that politicians spend during their campaigns will be important as it will help such leaders who may have stable financial support from their friends and other corporates but have good leadership skills to enter into the power. \ There is need therefore for the American government to come up with regulatory measures to make sure that the amount of money that such politicians receive from the donors is not so excess. It is due to this big money that democracy has been corrupted. It is thus important for the electoral body to come up with a better way of controlling this amount to ensure that the outcome of elections is not influenced by money poured into campaigns. This also has led to the development of the “secret money groups” that are not accounted for when determining the amount that a candidate has received from donors (Zocalo).

Some of the laws that are currently being enacted also favor poor accountability of the amount invested in campaigns. Social welfare groups are not allowed to disclose their sources of donations. This thus gives them an opportunity of receiving a lot of funds that are not accounted for. This creates a threat to the competitors that if one fails to treat the donors well, then they are likely to support any other candidates. It is thus important for the government to illegalize direct donation as this affects the democracy of the nation. Direct donation corrupts democracy of the nation. It also affects the decision made by the voters. It leads to some voters being overrated than others thus given then an opportunity of winning when they did not deserve a win.