The first article is an opinion-piece appearing in the “LA Times” and it is titled “Money Won’t Buy you Votes”. The author of this article is Peter Schuck a law professor and an expert in government and political policies. According to Schuck, campaign-financing stakeholders are concerned that new developments in electoral guidelines will promote inequality in the United States’ politics. The concerns of the stakeholders arise from two Supreme Court rulings that allowed politicians more access to private campaign contributions.
However, the author of this article disputes the notion that money can influence election outcomes or corrupt democracy (Schuck 1). Schuck gives several reasons to support his argument. For instance, the author claims that the money that is used in election campaigns is not excessive.
In addition, the author notes that there are several other factors that contribute towards the inequality of elections other than campaign finances. The opinion writer claims that incumbency is the leading cause of election inequality and not campaign finances. According to the opinion article, the popular belief that private campaign financiers can hijack the electoral process has already been disputed by the existing empirical evidence.
The other opinion-article is written by Mark Linsky and it appears in the online issue of “The San Diego Union-Tribune”. Linsky’s article addresses the issue of campaign financing and it is titled “Want Clean Elections? Public Financing is the Answer”. The author of this article is a political science professor who is based in San Diego City College. According to the article, the problem of corruption arising from campaign financing during elections can be contained.
The author notes that while local administrations have been trying to manage the situation using locally enacted laws, recent Supreme Court decisions have reversed the gains of some of these legislations. The article’s main argument is that ditching large private donations in favor of public financing would help level the playground for all election contestants. The author addressees the recent initiative to have San Diego’s election contestants give up private campaign financing in favor of publicly acknowledged money (Linsky 1).
According to Linsky, the fears of compromised elections would be alleviated by the San Diego initiative that favors public campaign financing over private campaign financing. According to the author, the advantages of public financing include prompting transparency in the electoral process and offering the underfunded candidates a fair chance during elections. According to the article, the money issue is very prominent in the current electoral processes and eliminating it would allow candidates to focus on other important issues.
Comparison of the Two Articles
Both of these articles address the issue of campaign financing. However, while one article articulates the disadvantages of private campaign financing, the other one downplays the relevance of financing in election outcomes. Schuck’s opinion-article argues that the influence of ‘big money’ in political campaigns is overrated. According to Schuck, all the spending that occurs during election campaigns is necessary (Schuck 1). Therefore, no amount of campaign financing is enough to alter an election-outcome.
Linsky disputes this viewpoint by arguing that the issue of campaign financing is too prominent and it has the potential of influencing an election outcome. Linsky’s argument is that “big money has become central to the calculus of success at the polls and it is only logical to find a way to limit its corrupting influence” (Linsky 1). Both authors are aware of the fact that the Supreme Court acts as a major stumbling block towards the enactment of laws that control private campaign financing.
Nevertheless, while Linsky supports the move to enact measures to curb private financing, Schuck does not. The main difference in opinion between the two writers lies in the belief that money can have an impact on election outcomes. According to Linsky, “not just the best funded” should become leaders (Linsky 1). On the other hand, Schuck believes that “equal opportunity in politics is impossible to define or control…some candidates have less money but more of other assets” (Schuck 1).
Personal Reflection
Schuck’s article is more appealing to me in terms of its persuasiveness and argument. According to Schuck, it is unnecessary to give prominence to the issue of campaign financing while existing empirical data shows that ‘money cannot buy votes’ (Schuck 1).
Furthermore, the decision by the Supreme Court to allow candidates to continue sourcing money from private sources makes Schuck’s argument legal. On the other hand, Linsky’s article is more of ‘political rhetoric’ than it is a valid opinion-piece. Linsky seeks unorthodox alternatives to private financing but ignores the empirical evidence and legal opinions on the matter.
The issue of private financing has featured in the United States’ political policies for several years. Private campaign financiers have been accused of hijacking policies and promoting political corruption. However, even in the absence of private financiers, policies are still being hijacked and political corruption still exists.
In addition, election outcomes are influenced by a number of factors and not just money. However, none of these factors receives as much attention as private campaign-financing does. For instance, in the 2008 presidential campaign public financing easily surpassed private financing because there were other prominent underlying issues.
Works Cited
Linsky, Mark. “Want Clean Elections? Public Financing is the Answer”. The San Diego Union-Tribune. The San Diego Union-Tribune Newspaper, 2014. Web.
Schuck, Peter. “Money Won’t Buy you Votes”. The LA Times. The LA Times Newspaper, 2014. Web.