Due December 9, 2007
7 pm
Research the cost of the Presidential Campaigns. The first person to log in will analyze the cost for 1st Presidnt and the 43rd. the second one to log in will analyze the cost for the 2nd and 42nd. The subsequent individuals will continue the assignment via the same pattern.
Upon completion of the research, include the resources in the blog. What 3 suggestions do you have for improving the Presidential campaigns? One suggestion must be related to cost.
36 comments:
haha first!!!!!
Sam Plourde
omg 2nd
3rd
5th
6th
I lost :(
7thhh
8th
9thhh
9 + 1 = 10th
I think we post another comment, so here's mine....
Since I had to research the sixth and thirty-eighth president, they were as follows:
President John Quincy Adams: Frankly, I can’t find it, but they started using pins to signify who they supported, so the price had to have skyrocketed compared to the 1820 election.
President Gerald Ford: $ 71.4 Million (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0996/ijde/alex.htm), which was the first time there was a publicly funded campaigns.
There are several ways that we can improve the presidential campaign funds to be decreased. One, of course, is the disbandment of PACs and any possible loopholes which would unfairly increase a politician’s funds. Another way is to mimic the British Parliamentary election system, where they are only allowed an allotted time and amount of money: this would make our cost of the presidential election greatly decrease and allow independents to become better known. And the last way to improve the presidential campaign is to destroy to the two party system that we have, and let everyone have an equal opportunity to become the presidential runner. Of course, there has to be a limit, but I believe that with more parties, we can improve the presidential campaign and ultimately the president by getting more individuals who will have a chance of being president.
I am 11 ^.^
I am to analyze the cost of the campaigns for John Adams and Bill Clinton, the 2nd and 42nd presidents. The cost of John Adams campaign is not documented. However, prior to being elected, John Adams never campaigned once, and instead it was the Federalist party that went out to gain people's support after electing him to represent them in the election of 1796 (http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/adams/essays/biography/1). Bill Clinton's presidential costed approxiamately $130 million including public financing (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0996/ijde/alex.htm). I believe that one way to ensure a more beneficial and fair presidential campaign is to set an absolute limit on the amount of money allowed to be spent on the campaign. This figure could be in the hundred millions, but would allow for all candidates to have a better chance at a more succesful campaign. Also, foreign contributions and soft money should be banned, and this ban to be enforced strictly, with money spent by the candidate documented. This would allow the government to keep a running total of the cost of their campaign up to that point. Lastly, I believe that negative advertising should be ended. If candidates focus their attention on the other candidate and making them look incapable, they should instead only be allowed to build themselves up. This way, people would be able to choose the person they want based on the promises they make or the benefits that are told of, instead of failing to elect someone because they are not as good as the other candidate. If negative advertising, especially in mass media is reduced, then everyone can focus on more important issues such as foreign policy. It's all a bunch of lawyer talk, anyway.
Lucky #13
14th!!!! ha
The thirteenth president of the United States was Millard Fillmore. Due to the circumstances of his political career regarding the presidency, he never needed to campaign for election. He came to the presidency because he was vice president to the twelfth president, Zachary Taylor, who died in office, so Fillmore succeeded him in 1850. Then he did not receive the Whig nomination in 1852 because he signed the Fugitive Slave Act, which the Whig party was generally opposed to. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/mf13.html) Because of these events, Fillmore never needed to campaign so there is no cost for his campaign. The 31st president of the United States was Herbert Hoover. His campaign in 1928 was during the period of time when the campaign costs for the presidency were rising sharply. In 1928 he spent $6 million to win the election and then in 1932 spent $3 million to lose the election to Franklin D. Roosevelt during the depression. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/30/60minutes/rooney/main2629080.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_2629080)
There are several reforms that I believe would benefit the presidential campaign process. One of these would be to remove all limits on presidential campaign spending. In the case Buckley v. Valeo the Supreme Court ruled that the right to spend money however one wants to is protected by the first amendment free speech right. (http://www.lwvcincinnati.org/publications/BuckleyValeo.html) Based on this decision, people should be able to fund candidates with whatever sums they want to. This reform would eliminate all controversy over what is legal in the area of campaign financing. Another way to improve presidential campaigns would be to set a definite time limit for candidates to campaign during. This would eliminate excessive campaigning by candidates with more money, giving strength to smaller candidates. A third way to improve presidential campaigning would be to take debates off of the television and only broadcast them on the radio. Appearance of candidates has too large an influence on people’s opinions about them. Debates should be about views not appearance, and eliminating a visual appearance all together will solve this problem. These are three ways that the process of campaigning for the presidency can be improved.
15th and 29th
16 and 28 por supuesto!
Honestly, I searched WAGs and the internet all morning and found very little on the campaign expenses of either of my two presidents, the 15th James Buchanan and the 29th Warren G. Harding. What I did find is as follows: James Buchanan followed in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson by spend nearly $10,000 on the creation of a newspaper that was used to support his presidency. (http://books.google.com/books?id=cOeQ1F1mFLUC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=campaign+costs+for+james+buchanan&source=web&ots=ZFOMVPI_h1&sig=94S9JOGwVJ0FiceAx1jRB9Cr_2I#PPA30,M1). And as for Harding, he spent most of his time campaigning in the open such as “on his back porch” which cost little to no money to do. The only expenses for this would have been minor appliances such as a microphone to increase the volume of Harding’s voice. So although in the 1920’s prices for campaigns were on a rise, due to Harding’s strategy, the cost for his campaign would have been lower then normal for the time period he was in. (http://books.google.com/books?id=aVoOiQmSpcUC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=warren+g+harding+campaign+expenses&source=web&ots=gTTwPNhHGj&sig=Jl4c3QXlvflxKDTxmQzzlqK4ZMw).
One way we can improve presidential campaigns which would have an end result of more people voting would be to make presidential candidates travel to each state and give a speech to the people there, so that way each state and its constituents feels more into the elections, rather then just the “important states” getting all the candidates attention. Another suggestion would be to put a specific cap limit to the amount a political candidate and party can receive from donations to equalize the campaign floor by allowing the less favored party or parties a fighting chance against the party in the lead since the leading party would have a cap on the amount they have to spend. This will also solve the loophole of “Soft Money” because now the public can not contribute as much as they want to the political party of their choosing. And finally candidate speeches and debates should be on TV at reasonable hours of the day when the most people are watching, such as they are now at night. But these debates should also be replayed multiple times during the week at different time on separate stations, that way more people who may have been busy at one time, can now see what the candidate or party they support had to say on specific topics. And the debates should also be played in the same fashion as described above, but on the radio for those who do not own a TV, so this way these people are not left out in any way.
I was to analyze the costs of James Monroe’s campaign and the costs of Jimmy Carter’s campaign. James Monroe did not document his campaign costs, as this was not required by law. This was not required until 1972. James Monroe was the first candidate to do a “Campaign tour” and therefore, his costs must have been significantly higher than any other individual before him.
The campaign of 1976 was the first regulated by the FECA and therefore had full disclosure of spending by the candidates. The total cost of campaigning in the 1976 election year was $540 million (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/finance.htm ). This has increased every year since then.
Campaigns could be made fairer by eliminating the Electoral College, which would force candidates to campaign everywhere. This would make sure that every candidate pays attention to every area of the country, not the states with a large number of electoral votes. Also, television advertising should be eliminated, so the people will have to look at the issues at hand and do their own research on the candidates so they will be better educated. This would also give an advantage to many candidates with lower budgets. A good way for the candidates to get their stance on an issue known would be to participate in nationally televised debates and submit their stances to a non-partisan database that would be available to the public. Campaigns could also be improved by eliminating any corporate donations, to the party or candidates. This would make sure that the candidates were going to be serving their constituent base, not a company.
For my blog I researched the 16th and 28th Presidents of the United States, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson. President Lincoln spent a sum of $100,000 on his campaign in 1860, an amount double that of the opposition that he defeated, Stephen Douglas. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/30/60minutes/rooney/
main2629080.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_2629080) This, without any further research at all, would suggest that there may very well be a connection between spending the most during the Presidential campaign and winning the Oval Office.
After a fun filled morning of scouring websites, history books, text books and encyclopedias for the exact figure of campaign spending for my second individual, President Woodrow Wilson, I am forced to admit defeat. It is known, however, that it was significantly more that that of Abraham Lincoln while being hardly more than a half century later. A strong leader, President Wilson argued that spending for campaigns should be controlled and strictly regulated, a surprisingly wise and forward thinking concept for a man so deeply involved in the trenches of Washington politics. (http://janda.org/politxts/state%20of%20union%20addresses/1913-1920%20Wilson/
wilson.916.html) Unfortunately, his advice was only marginally heeded, and the trend of increased spending has continued to this day. Recent campaigns for the Presidency have totaled in the hundreds of millions of dollars, a figure that will only grow in future elections.
The most obvious improvement for the Presidential campaign would be a spending limit. In this day and age, the limit would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars in all likelihood. However, the projected 2008 total of $400 million is quite excessive; I would like to see limits at half that much. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2007/03/30/60minutes/rooney/main2629080.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_2629080) Without a cap it is virtually impossible to become president without a massive bank account and the support of a powerful political backing, namely that of one of the two main parties. This fact is a shame for a country that prides itself as having equal opportunity and representation for all. Another improvement would be mandatory equal air time for all candidates. Currently we see a torrent of commercials, ads, and coverage of the campaigns for the republican and democrat candidates while other hopefuls are ignored. The same is true during primary time, when the front runners get all the attention and other candidates are shoved out of the way. This should not be the case, and regulations should be in place similar to that in other democratic nations such as certain countries in Europe. Finally, I believe that ads themselves need to experience a major shift in the way they are produced and regulated. It is shameful to see candidates for the Presidency launching hateful and slanderous ads at one another in the name of winning the election. One of those individuals will be the future leader of our nation, yet that same individual is bickering and name calling with other grown men and women in major newspapers and on national television commercials like a kindergartener. It is time campaign ads promoted the beliefs and stances on issues of a candidate, rather than trying to degrade the beliefs and stances of another.
am the 14th to log in so, I am in charge of Franklin Pierce and Calvin Coolidge.
Franklin Pierce’s campaign of 1853 was a successful one, carrying all states but four. He had a talent of remembering the name and face of almost everyone he met which helped him greatly during the campaign. But, Pierce also “promised, if elected, to respect the rights of the states and to conduct a vigorous foreign policy...but his desire to please led him to make promises he could not always fulfill.” (http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2023180-h) That could have jeopardized his campaign if he made even bigger promises to the country. Secondly, during his campaign in 1851, many New England Democrats turned to Pierce for a Presidential Candidate. Many did not think that he would get nominated because no Democratic convention rose. But, when one did, Pierce’s friend introduced him and delegates nominated him on the 49th ballot.(http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2023180-h) If his friend did not introduce him, he may have not been elected. It is important for a candidate to also campaign for himself and Pierce seemed to have trouble with that. Finally, on the cost issue of former President Franklin Pierce, there was no evidence on the internet or books that I have read that he had a great deal of campaign funds. He had one of the drearier presidencies according to (http://www.bookrags.com/history/president-franklin-pierce/01.html) and those factors contributed to it.
Next, Calvin Coolidge was forced into the President role for a short time after President Harding died on the 23 of August in 1923. Coolidge had his presidency also basically handed to him when he won “polling 15,718,211 votes to 8,385,283 for his competition (http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Grant-Eisenhower/Coolidge-Calvin.html). Calvin Coolidge’s strategy was to stick to strictly presidential business and nothing else. A way to maybe improve this image would be to talk about different views and show the people that Calvin Coolidge is just like everyone else. Calvin Coolidge was a very quiet president that had a popular slogan “Keep it Cool With Coolidge” because he was a quiet man. Even though this really helped him, it could have greatly hurt his campaign. He was also very known for being quiet, so he was naturally not that connected with the public. Also, Coolidge experienced a death in his family while campaigning which put a huge wall up between him and the public. He made a couple of speeches on his theory of government and nothing major so that could have really hurt his chances after his son’s death. Since Calvin Coolidge clearly won his election, he most likely made a lot of money on his campaign funds. But, it is not documented in any findings.
17th and 27th yes im probably last
I had to research the 4th and the 40th Presidents of the United States of America. The costs of James Madison campaign of 1808 wasn’t mentioned in any of the recourses that I have used, but however the 3rd president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson supported Madison’s nomination to run in 1808. The campaign centered on Madison’s role with the Embargo Act of 1807 which had been enacted during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. (James Madison,http://americanhistory.about.com/od/jamesmadison/p/pmadison.htm)
Ronal Reagan, began his campaign for 1980 Republican Presidential nomination, he established a political action committee that collected and contributed more than $600,000 to the Republican candidates at all levels during the 1978 off- year elections. Reagan used buttons and brochures to advertise. Reagan declined to participate in the debates among the major Republican candidates and lost the Iowa caucus, Reagan then embarked on a campaign tour of New England, appeared in two debates and won the New Hampshire primary. (Ronald Reagan, http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00 )
The three ways that Presidential campaigns can be improved are:
1.)The presidential candidate must be connected to people in the country, through debates, speeches and directly meeting them in public. Advertising about their views on issues will tremendously increase their chances of winning, but appearing in states and organizing a meet with people will not only help them raise funds, but also advertise and make themselves standout out of all the presidential candidates.
2.)I watched the Republican Debates and one of the things that didn’t seem very appealing to me is ridiculing the competition in their advertisements. In many of the republican advertisements, the democrats were derided. Instead of campaigning for themselves, they were criticizing the democrats. Also, the back and forth arguments between Giuliani and Romney was very immature, and degraded themselves.
3.)Internet is a great way to advertise! And it costs way less than advertising on television, newspapers or anything! The presidential candidate must make use of this resource and make sure that people know what their stances on issues are before the presidential election.
My assignment was to research the amount of money spent on the campaigns for the 8th and the 36th Presidents of the United States. The 8th President was Martin Van Buren. Although I could not find much about the cost of his campaign for the 1836 Presidential election, it is said that Andrew Jackson, the President prior to him was supporting him to be the next candidate for the Democratic Party. Since the Democratic Party was new, with Jackson being their first President from the party, I can only imagine that starting a new party was not cheap at all. Also, right in the beginning Van Buren's Presidency, he was hit hard with bankruptcy, unemployment and economic depression throughout the U.S, along with having to deal with the ruins of what Jackson left with the Bank War that happened during his Presidency. (http://www.history.com/presidents/vanburen/video). The 36th President of the United States was Lyndon B. Johnson. In President Johnson's first term, he did not have to campaign at all due to the fact that he was appointed the Presidency after the death of President John F. Kennedy. In the 1964 Presidential campaign, Lyndon Johnson made history when his campaign hired a top advertising agency to produce television and radio commercials. In one twelve-day period Lyndon Johnson's campaign spent $72,000 on radio and television campaign ads alone. Although, in the 1964 election, Barry Goldwater (LBJ's opponent) spent $17.2 million on his campaign to capture the White House and Lyndon B. Johnson spent $12 million yet he still won the election. (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0996/ijde/alex.htm)
I believe that there are many changes that could be made to improve the way that Presidential candidates campaign for the Presidency. The main way that the election process could be improved is to add a spending cap on how much money can be spent on campaigning. If there was a spending cap it would allow the less-endowed candidates to be able to be seen as much as the well-endowed ones. The way our elections are set up today, it is almost impossible for someone who is not of great wealth to have a chance at even making it past the primaries for the Presidency. If we put a cap on the amount of money able to be spent, it would allow people who aren’t being seen as much, to have a chance to voice their opinions. Another way I believe that we can improve the elections is to change the Electoral College system to make it actually beneficial for citizens to vote. I think that if people are taking the time to vote it should be worth something. Also, I think that it is especially important to level the playing field between the smaller and larger states. The Presidential election has changed from the candidates campaigning all over the country, to now them mainly campaigning in the states with high Electoral College votes, which is causing the smaller states to be forgotten about. The only way I believe this can be changed is if the Electoral College still exists, but the popular vote plays a larger role in the outcome of how the electors for each state vote. I feel that if this is changed, that the Presidential campaigning process will change and that states will be campaigned in more equally. Lastly, I believe that if the media’s role changed in the campaigning process, the outcome of the election would be different. If the media gave the same amount of publicity to each and every candidate in the election, it would give all the people running for the Presidency a more equal shot at having their opinions be heard. Also, if the debates that they have focused more on the issues that our country is having and less on trying to display a bad image of their opponents, everyone would benefit from it.
The 12th and 32nd presidents of the United States were Zachary Taylor and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, respectively. After searching for hours for the detailed costs of both presidential campaigns, I was left with no specifics. But I did, however, find information on their spending.
Zachary Taylor, was president from March 5, 1849 to July 9, 1850. (http://www.americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumber=12
) He held one term and his presidency ended upon his death in office; Millard Fillmore was his successor. From my research on Mr. Taylor, it seemed that his declaration to run for the Presidency wasn’t a serious matter; it was considered a “joke among his acquaintances”. (http://wfmu.org/~davem/docs/ztaylor.html) Taylor was half-heartedly running against an immensely popular governor, Samuel Gates. Two weeks before the election, a poll was taken that predicted “98.9% of the popular vote would go to Gates.” (http://wfmu.org/~davem/docs/ztaylor.html) If it had not been for a tragic accident on the eve of the election, Governor Gates would have had an insurmountable amount of votes and would have blown Zachary Taylor out of the water. Zachary Taylor becoming President of the United States was clearly not supported with much of a campaign, leading me to believe that a great amount of money was not spent.
However, the spending of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a different story. FDR remained president from 1933 to 1945; he too died in office. (http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/subjects/sose/history/roosevelt.htm) During his campaigning in 1944, FDR and Thomas E. Dewey were “battling” for air time on the radio. They combined spent about 2.5 million dollars on air time in just one year. (http://www.ithaca.edu/looksharp/mcpcweb/unit5_1932_1944/pdfs/1944/tguide1944doc3.pdf) In 1936, FDR’s campaign managers received over half a million dollars from the CIO, Congress of Industrial Organizations, as well.. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/history/history2.html) Evidently, ridiculously large amounts of money were being raised and spent during FDR’s presidential campaigns.
There are multiple suggestions that can be made to improve the Presidential campaigns.
The “Total presidential campaign spending by candidates and parties in 2000” was 1,213 million dollars. (http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=10643). In 2004, this number skyrocketed to an estimated 4 billion dollars. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2004/04spending.asp) To improve the presidential campaigns, we need to lower the campaign spending significantly. One way we can do this is to prohibit presidential candidates from investing in voter lists, which are large areas where money is being poured into. Together, both Democrats and Republicans have spent about 4.8 million dollars on “voter lists, consumer databases, and companies that analyze personal data for political ends” in 2007. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/19/candidates_spend_heavily_on_voter_lists/) Another way we can lower campaign spending is through passing a bill that limits the amount of ads that candidates are allowed to have. Mitt Romney spent around 2 million dollars in Iowa alone on ads, not to mention the other states he has advertised in. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080902379.html?hpid=topnews) A final way that would improve presidential campaigns would be to promote “Clean Elections.” Clean elections are elections where “candidates raise a threshold sum of small contributions”, and once that amount is reached they get “a grant in exchange for an agreement to raise no more money.” (http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=202895) Clean elections would help the US economy, especially the taxpayers, because candidates are serving the public “not the interests of lobbyists, unions and corporations.” (http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=202895)
These three suggestions would work to aid in the improvement of presidential campaigns.
I researched Thomas Jefferson and George H.W. Bush. The campaign spending for Thomas Jefferson is undocumented, although I was able to find that early campaign customs were that the candidate would not campaign for themselves, their parties would do the campaigning for them.
href=http://www.multied.com/elections/1800.html>Presidential
Election of 1800
In the 1988 election, the presidential campaign spending amount was $500 million.
href=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=presidential+campaig
n+spending+1988&btnG=Google+Search>(4th result on this page)
One way which I believe we can improve presidential elections is to restrict the travel of the candidates, and instead to broadcast all of the speeches that a candidate gives over the internet so that the whole nation can listen to the speech instead of several thousand people at a rally in some remote location in Iowa. This would cut down on cost immensely.
Another way to improve the election would be to pass a law saying that a candidate may not run if he is currently in a federal office. This would prevent a candidate from shirking his duties in that federal office, like Chris Dodd, and instead spend his time campaigning. This would improve the image of the president because they would not be seen as a slacker to the voters, and to the people whom they represent.
Another way to improve the elections would be to put a spending cap on all candidates, and to derive all campaign funds from taxpayer dollars, and reject any donations from any supporters. This would ensure that soft money and other loopholes would be eliminated, and that each candidate would get the same amount of money to campaign with, thus allowing the less rich people to run for federal office, and reducing the enormous amounts of money spent in campaigning by imposing a low spending cap.
18+26
Andrew Johnson was the 17th president on the United States. Johnson was Abraham Lincolns Vice president. He was chosen to balance the ticket over Hannibal Hamlin a democrat from Maine. Andrew Johnson was a favored vice president because he was a democrat and during this era democrats were the representatives of the common people like farmers and village artisans. Andrew Jackson did not go through the campaign and election process he skipped right over that to his inauguration after Abraham Lincoln was shot. Johnson ran for reelection after he completed Lincoln’s term. Johnson’s strategy was to attack the Republican Party and focus solely upon the democrats. Andrew Johnson did not last long in his campaign for reelection and was soon surpassed by Horatio Seymour to represent the democrats.
William Howard Taft was the 27th president of the United States. He was persuaded to run for president by his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt did much of Taft’s campaigning for him including giving him advice, speech making and energy. Both of these presidents actual campaign costs are not documented but the strategies by which they were elected are. Taft was one of the first candidates who did not bash his opponents to get him elected. He was also popular because he had the great president Theodore Roosevelt backing him and Taft agreed to continue Roosevelt’s policies.
There are many actions that should and can be taken to improve the presidential campaigns. One is to stop the candidates from bashing one another. They spend so much effort making each other look bad, that it takes away from the real issues. For example, at a recent republican debate, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney were speaking about their position on Immigration. This took a bad turn when Giuliani brought up the fact that Romney had hired illegal immigrants to landscape his house in the past. Bashing ones opponent is very unprofessional and takes away from the real issues at hand. Another way the campaigns could be better is to make all advertising and promotion of the candidates equal. All candidates should be given equal airing time on television, radio or any other form of media. The candidates should not be charged for the airing time used, so that no candidate had an advantage over the other by having more money. Money is a HUGE factor in campaign today. Candidates spend millions of dollar to promote themselves and to be elected. It seems that the more money a candidate has the more popular. The presidential elections would be much more efficient and money-based if there was a cap as to how much each candidate could spend. The cap would change based on inflation and the economy but each candidate must stay under the cap or be disqualified from the election process. The cap would be determined by how much travel the average candidate would need and other basic necessities. The average candidate in past years had spend approximately $600 million to get themselves elected. The new cap would be considerably less and start around $50 million. This would encourage the candidates to be more creative in their campaigns and find other ways to promote themselves than just throwing money around. The campaigns now are becoming more and more money focuses and the issues seem to be put on the back burner. If change does not occur the United States is headed for crisis.
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/taft/essays/biography/3
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/johnson
I am analyzing the campaign costs for the 10th and the 34th Presidents of the United States of America. The 10th President of the United States was John Tyler. Tyler was William Henry Harrison’s Vice President from March 4th, 1841 to April 4th, 1841, when William Henry Harrison died in office from pneumonia. Tyler became the 10th President from 1841 until 1845, and was the first Vice President to become President upon the death of the President. Therefore, did not have to campaign to become President. Also, President Tyler did not run for the subsequent election therefore I couldn’t analyze his campaign costs because he did not campaign to become Vice President, he was just asked by William Henry Harrison.
As far as the 34th President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the campaign process was much different. Eisenhower campaigned for two elections and won both of them. He was President from 1953 – 1961. The election of 1952 against Adlai Stevenson was a more highly-noted election than the second election. Eisenhower campaigned through political get-togethers, phone calling parties, and television sessions. (http://www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1952.html) The media played a large part in this election. As far as funding for the campaign entitled “Eisenhower Answers America”, was approximated to be a two million dollar campaign to ensure victory, by a research report. (http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/text/from_idea_to_ad/) Therefore, as just a generalization, I am fairly sure that I can conclude that Presidential campaigns are becoming more crucial and more expensive because of inflation and because of a stronger will and desire to become the President of the United States of America.
It is my opinion that there should be equal media time allotted for all Presidential candidates. If each candidate is given equal time to represent their views, then Americans would get to know their candidates better, and be able to choose their President with more knowledge of the candidates’ values and views on important issues. This would not harm the elections and campaigns in any way because it would help reduce spending by allotting equal time and it would allow everyone’s voice to be heard. The candidates should be able to use the time as they wish so they can improve their chances at becoming the next President.
Secondly, I believe that there should be no restrictions on funding for Presidential campaigns except for in certain situations. Restricting private funding causes candidates to try to find loopholes to the rules and the rules are always bent. The general population should be able to fund the candidates as they wish, because they will be the ones choosing the next President. The exception to this rule is foreign funding. Foreign nations or leaders should not be able to help any campaigns through monetary donations, because America is a sovereign nation, and foreign nations should not interfere and/or be able to influence the elections and the minds of Americans.
Also, Presidential campaigns should be run without any party labels. There should be no parties allowed in elections. These party labels (Republican, Democrat, etc.) stereotype candidates and influence a citizen when voting. For example, if a very liberal citizen is voting for a position in a Presidential campaign and they are unsure of who the candidates are, and what they believe in, they are more likely than not, going to vote for the Democrat. This party system influences many Americans and harms the election process. It hinders the population from learning about the candidates, because they will just vote one way, for one party. If this was eliminated, elections would be focused upon more, and all candidates would be given a fair chance and not be labeled with stereotypes.
Ulysses S. Grant (Republican) was the nation's eighteenth President. Although not much information is available about how much money was spent on elections for candidates back in his time, Grant was known for “corruption and financial scandals” (The Campaign and Election of 1872, http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/grant/essays/biography/3). Back in this time, candidates didn’t need to spend too much money on their campaigns because there weren’t many people who were fit for the job.
Theodore Roosevelt was the nation's twenty sixth president. He recieved funding from his associates who paid for almost all of his election. In fact, he raised more than $2 million for the 1904 election, all from supporters. (The Campaign and Election of 1904, http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/americanpresident/roosevelt/essays/biography/3). He ran in 1900, but the cost for this election and many elections before it is largely undocumented.
There are many ways to improve the campaigning process for the office of the Presidency of the United States of America. In other countries, a time restriction exists for candidates to campaign leading up to the election: they cannot campaign before this time. Of course, one loophole would be indirect campaigning, where a candidate uses subliminal advertising to raise awareness without actually "campaigning". Another idea to improve campaigns would help lower costs: receive support from the Government for certain campaign aspects such as advertising on .gov websites, Government sponsored and run television stations; as well as using facilities of the Government for free with due notice. This would eliminate the concerns for spending in these areas, allowing a candidate to focus on other issues that actually show candidates that they are worthy of votes (such as cleaning up the environment with non-government sponsored funds.) Finally, one final suggestion would be to give more resources to independent candidates, further allowing the “minnows” of the Presidential Election to become known and supporting different viewpoints than the ones expressed by the Republican or the Democratic candidates for the Presidency. In conclusion, there are a multitude of ways to potentially improve the United States Presidential Election in the areas of cost, time, and variety.
Chana Judith 11th and 33rd presidents- Money has a strong influence on an election. It determines who runs for an office, how a person campaigns, if that person is elected, and how that person prioritizes their agenda. I looked at the campaign financing of two presidents, James K. Polk and Harry S. Truman to gain an historical perspective of campaign financing. James K. Polk was referred to as the slave owner President. His campaign was center on the annexation of Texas and its establishment as a slave state. During his presidency, Texas did become a United States state favoring slavery. Polk expanded his slaves holding and increased his financial status. Whether his campaign was directly financed by slave owners could not be established however it would be reasonable to assume that these slave holders significantly contributed as the policy of slavery was expanded during his presidency. In contrast, Harry S. Truman ran a campaign with little money. His whistle stop campaign had a budget of only $1,500,000. During his campaign, a television speech was cut short, because he did not have the necessary funds to pay for the allotted time. Harry S. Truman ran on a platform that called for an universal health insurance program, labor rights and civil rights. The polls stated that Harry Truman was going to be defeated by Thomas Dewey. While he was able to overcome party division and attacks to be reelected President, he was unable to pass many of his desired civil rights reforms. He was able to use his powers as President to achieve some changes. He issued executive orders desegregating the armed forces and forbidding racial discrimination in Federal employment. However in the area of labor right his veto of the Taft-Hartley Act which was an anti-labor act was overridden. Therefore to reduce the influence that funding will have on an election, I propose the following three changes. These changes should be implemented on the local, state and national levels and for all elections. It should not be limited to just the Presidential election. First, there should be a limit on the amount any candidate should be able to spend on a campaign or primary. This limit should prevent or limit the number of wealthy candidates or candidate with money ties. James Polk was a wealthy slave owner. He used his wealth and power to manipulate government’s policy. Secondly, candidates should make a full disclosure of all contributions, and there also should be a limit placed on any contribution whether it comes from an individual, group or third-party. Any group who engages in any political activity has to publish the name of its supporters and the amount of these contributions. This would close the legal loophole that has been used by individuals, group and wealthy contributors who hid their identity by using a third party organization. Thirdly any third party organization who engages in any political activity which either openly endorses or discredits a candidate during a primary or election period would lose its non-profit status. These suggestions might not eliminate third party influences from our political system, but it could result in an improvement.
Works Cited
1. Information Services Bran. "James K. Polk." James K. Polk. 10 Mar. 2004. State Library of North Carolina. 9 Dec. 2007 http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/bio/public/polk.htm.
2. Lone Star Junction. "James K. Polk." James K. Polk. 1995. 9 Dec. 2007 www.lsjunction.com/people/polk.htm.
3. National Archives And Rec. "Truman: HST Biography." Biographical Sketch. 17 Nov. 2007. National Archives and Records Administration. 9 Dec. 2007
www.trumanlibrary.org/hst-bio.htm.
4. Time Inc. "The Angels of the Truman Campaign." TIME 6 June 1949. Time. CNN. 9 Dec. 2007. Keyword: Truman\\\'s Campaign
I was first to post on the blog, therefore I was to research the campaigns for the 1st and 43rd president and they are as follows:
George Washington: For about the first 100 years of the executive branch’s existence, the candidates for the presidency did not campaign as much as they do today. George Washington thought that campaigning was inappropriate and as a result, the future nominees followed in his footsteps. Campaigning actually began in 1896 William Jennings Bryan, a Democratic nominee, gave speeches from the backs of railroad cars. (Candidates spending millions for advice, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/02/candidates_spending_millions_for_advice/?page=2)
George W. Bush: In the 2000 campaign for President George Walker Bush, he raised a total of $193,088,650, used $67,560,000 in federal funds, spent $185,921,855 and had $7,201,734 cash on hand. George W. Bush raised and spent more money than opponent Al Gore. Bush, in the end won the election. (2000 Presidential Race: TOTAL RAISED AND SPENT, http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/index/AllCands.htm)
In 2004, George W. Bush received $367,228,801, spent $345,259,155, and had $19,291,231 cash on hand. (Race for the White House-Presidential Candidate George W. Busch (R) http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245) His opponent John Kerry raised and spent less money than President Bush, and also lost against him. (Race for the White House-Presidential Candidate John Kerry (D) http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245) These statistics prove that the candidate, who raised and spent the most money, ended up winning the office of President of the United States.
There are several ways to improve the campaigning process. One way to avoid spending millions of dollars is to use free media and make more public appearances to spread their views. There would be big turn outs at these appearances and it costs nothing at all. Many times, candidates spend millions for commercials and conferences. By going out to the public and speaking at schools and other public gathering places would save the candidates a lot more money that they could use for more important things.
Another way to save costs would be to send out emails to get candidates messages across. A majority of the population has an email address and it would be easy and cheap to send out campaign emails. The emails would share their views of issues and be sent to millions of people. Emails are free and many people check their emails several times a day.
One last way to improve campaigns would be for candidates to do more fundraisers. A lot of the time, candidates hold expensive dinner parties that raise money for the campaigns. A lot of people can’t afford these types of fundraisers. Doing smaller, simpler fundraisers like, taking a picture with the candidate for $20 would be a good type of fundraiser. It’s cheap, and a lot of people can afford it.
All these ways can save a candidate millions of dollars and also get their messages across in a cheap way and easy way. There are so many fund rules that candidates must abide by, so it would be easier and more effective to try doing simpler, cheaper campaigns.
I had to research the ninth and thirty fourth presidents: William Henry Harrison, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. When it comes to the "Log Cabins and Hard Cider" election of 1840, not much is known about the cost. I do know that the two parties, democrats and Whigs, utilized new ways of campaigning. The Whig Party, or William H. Harrison's party, "succeeded in turning the campaign into a mixture of religious revival, folk festival, and mass entertainment." [The New Political History and the election of 1840 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953%28199321%2923%3A4%3C661%3ATNPHAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage)]
There was a "financial panic" in 1837, which makes me believe that the campaign would not have cost a very substancial amount of money.
Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidential campaign costs amounted to much greater than previous elections because this was the first campaign in which televisions were used. The cost of Eisenhower's campaign was around $2 million. Most of the 2 million dollars just covered the ads that he used to promote himself on television. (http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/text/from_idea_to_ad/)
One way that we could improve presidential campaigns is to regulate them. This has been talked about before. The idea that the government should pay for the campaigns giving a set amount of money to each candidate a month and making rules in which the candidates could not accept any contributions from businesses or donations from the citizens of the United States. This would enable the common folk to be able to run rather than just the rich people. Another way that campaigning could be improved would be having the candidates discuss the real big issues in the country rather than letting them off the hook and allowing the discussion of small issues that do not effect the whole population of the United States. The issues need to be better defined. Lastly, candidates should have to give up their existing posts in government. Senator Dodd of Connecticut moved to Iowa to better represent that state while leaving his post and not attending more that 1/3 of the congressional meetings. He is supposed to represent the people of Connecticut considering we elected him as our senator. If someone such as my dad were to run there would be no possible way for him to keep his job because he wouldn't be there most of the time. You should not be able to hold one political office while running for another.
Post a Comment