Campaign finance laws have always been hard to enforce, and the penalties of breaking these laws have almost no impact on the candidates themselves. Recently, two campaigns have violated these rules. Obama, in the 2008 presidential race, failed to report the identities of over 1000 donors who have contributed over $2 million in the final weeks leading up to election day. However, not only did the FEC prosecute his campaign much later than the violation itself, he received only a fine of $375 thousand, a minuscule amount for a person of his wealth. On the other hand, Trump's campaign was found guilty under the acts of Michael Cohen, who arranged to cooperate with corporation AMI to cover up the story of a playboy model, and used his personal money to pay Stormy Daniels to ensure that she would not damage Trump's campaign. The Washington Post article investigates the campaign finance violations between these two campaigns, thoroughly examining the specifics of each of their actions. The rules behind campaign finance seem to be really loose and hard to control, so are they really making elections fair?
1. Which of these campaigns do you think committed bigger crimes against campaign finance?
2. Should the rules behind campaign finance be changed? Why or why not? How?
1.) While Obama and Trump both violated campaign finance laws, I personally believe Trump violated more laws. Obama was just fined by the FEC for not naming donors, while Trump is being investigated for using his own money to keep his campaign in order.
ReplyDelete2.) In terms of what happened in the Citizens United case, I think there should be more regulations because corporations have way too much power when supporting candidates. For terms of disclosure, the rules of campaign finance shouldn't be changed because people should know who they're supporting.
P.S When I posted this, my name doesn't show for some reason even though I'm logged in on my stu.smuhsd.org email.
Delete-Alec Soohoo
1. Even though Trump and Obama both broke campaign finance laws, Trump's violations were more substantial than those made by Obama. Trump used his campaign budgets to pay off Stormy Daniels, the woman he was having an affair with, which was not illegal. However, to cover this up he chose not to disclose where the money was going to in order to uphold a good reputation, which is violating campaign finance laws. I believe this is a worse crime then Obama who was fined for not naming donors.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that there is too much money involved in the campaigns which has resulted in unfairness. Ever since the ruling of Citizens United v. FEC the power of Super PACs and big corporate money in campaigning has had too much of an impact. There should be compromise to find a middle ground in order to make the process more equal.
Charlie Chapman
ReplyDelete1. At this point Obama's violations are a bigger deal. His violations are clearly illegal but charges against the trump campaign are shaky at best. Several legal scholars have said that if campaign money was not used then the donations do not constitute an in-kind campaign contribution.
2. I believe many restrictions on campaign finance are unconstitutional. Campaigns are always going to be unfair and attempts to regulate them abridge the rights of Americans to have their voice heard.
Sophia McMaster
ReplyDelete1. Obama and Trump violated campaign finance laws but I believe Trump's actions had more impact than Obama. His violations were seen largely through the public eye especially the incident with Stormy Daniels. He is being investigated for the crimes he may have committed but Obama did not make as drastic decisions.
2. I think campaign finance laws should be enforced and become more strict. If this is a reoccurring problem within the presidencies, more laws should be implemented.
1. I personally believe Trump's violation of campaign finance are more severe as his action was way more shady compared to Obama's. Trump's actions to hush Stormy Daniels is a huge deal for Trump and it doesn't make him look too good.
ReplyDelete2. I believe campaign finance laws should be strictly enforced to allow for equal platforms for campaigns.
1. The Trump administration committed a more serious crime against campaign finance. Obama’s infraction was relatively small, and it was unclear if the missing donors were a conscientious or an error in paperwork. On the other hand, there’s a clear motive behind the Trump administration’s payments. In addition, Trump’s defense against the allegation has moved the case directly into the public’s eye.
ReplyDelete2. Campaign finance has become a necessity as candidates continue to increase their budgets. However, the over regulation of campaign finance makes it too difficult for people to express their voice. The laws can stay the same, but enforcement should be limited to when those laws are clearly broken.
1) I think both acts were pretty bad but, I think Trump's was worse because the acts that he committed were unethical and very "shady". It reflects on who he might be as a person, and what he thinks he can get away with.
ReplyDelete2)I think that they should be changed to close loopholes but if these loopholes are closed, I think more will come up creating the same issues.
1. Although both Trump and Obama committed some pretty serious crimes against campaign finance, Obama's violations were not as bad as Trump's. Trump was involved in bribery and chose not to disclose it. On the other hand, Obama was simply fined for not naming some campaign donors, and the small fine itself shows the smaller magnitude of his actions.
ReplyDelete2. I think the rules should be more strict. The solution to people violating the campaign laws should not be to get rid of the law and allow them to freely act.
1. I think Trump's administration committed a more serious crime because paying someone off to stay silent is more unethical than Obama's crime which doesn't seem that bad.
ReplyDelete2. Rules should be more strict but someone will usually find a loophole around new rules.