Respond to EACH post (3 total) 150 words each and using at least TWO reference sources EACH (not the same ones for each). Write whether or not you agree and why. How informative the post was, etc. THANKS POST ONE Using a reasonable person standard, one might assume that millions of dollars in campaign contributions have a deleterious effect on a candidate’s behavior, given that the money has to come from someone’s pocket and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Looking back over the past 14 years, the pattern of change in presidential elections and midterm elections is the same – growth. Worse still, those who achieved victory in the House of Representatives outspent those who lost their bid by almost 3-to-1, and the delta between the costliest campaign and the most frugal was a whopping 101-to-1. (Center for Responsive Politics n.d.) OpenSecrets.org The aggregate cost of the 2012 elections exceeded 6 billion dollars. With nine zeros to the right of the significant digit, this is money from very deep pockets. In 2012, the top five Political Action Committees (PACs) contributed 16.8 million dollars. As significant as that may appear, the top five individual donors contributed 173.3 million dollars, and unlike the PACs who spread the funds between parties, the individual donors were monolithic in one direction or the other. (Center for Responsive Politics n.d.) Lee Drutman, writing in The Washington Post, posits that no one is really trying to “buy” a candidate so much as they are establishing a foundation of understanding from which to establish a “relationship” with the elected official. For the small player or non-contributor in the process that is politics today, there is no “relationship” built on massive campaign contributions, leaving one to question just whom the elected official is representing when decisions are being made. (Drutman 2014) Regardless of the aggregate cost of running a political campaign, unless someone has devised a mechanism to turn money into votes, purchasing an election is a fiction. It is a fiction sold to the public with the same carelessness displayed by the use of the term, “assault rifle” which may be an attempt to make the public think there are selectable-fire military weapons in use or the journalist is simply ignorant. (Pamer 2015) Granted, in the 2012 elections in the House of Representative, losers only outspent winners in 25 races, but just as there are states and there are swing states, there is a similar nature reflected in political districts. For example, in California District 12, incumbent Nancy Pelosi (D) outspent challenger John Dennis (R) by a 4-to-1 margin ($2,001,648 to $480,226). When the winner was nearly a foregone conclusion, as was the case of the Democratic incumbent receiving 85% of the votes in a district containing the city of San Francisco, the fact that most of the money went to the favored candidate is only logical. (Center for Responsive Politics n.d.) Ac ...

1. Respond to EACH post (3 total) 150 words each and using at
least TWO reference sources EACH (not the same ones for
each). Write whether or not you agree and why. How
informative the post was, etc. THANKS
POST ONE
Using a reasonable person standard, one might assume that
millions of dollars in campaign contributions have a deleterious
effect on a candidate’s behavior, given that the money has to
come from someone’s pocket and there is no such thing as a free
lunch. Looking back over the past 14 years, the pattern of
change in presidential elections and midterm elections is the
same – growth. Worse still, those who achieved victory in the
House of Representatives outspent those who lost their bid by
almost 3-to-1, and the delta between the costliest campaign and
the most frugal was a whopping 101-to-1. (Center for
Responsive Politics n.d.)
OpenSecrets.org
The aggregate cost of the 2012 elections exceeded 6 billion
dollars. With nine zeros to the right of the significant digit,
this is money from very deep pockets. In 2012, the top five
Political Action Committees (PACs) contributed 16.8 million
dollars. As significant as that may appear, the top five
individual donors contributed 173.3 million dollars, and unlike
the PACs who spread the funds between parties, the individual
donors were monolithic in one direction or the other. (Center
for Responsive Politics n.d.)
Lee Drutman, writing in The Washington Post, posits that no
one is really trying to “buy” a candidate so much as they are
establishing a foundation of understanding from which to
establish a “relationship” with the elected official. For the
small player or non-contributor in the process that is politics

2. today, there is no “relationship” built on massive campaign
contributions, leaving one to question just whom the elected
official is representing when decisions are being made.
(Drutman 2014)
Regardless of the aggregate cost of running a political
campaign, unless someone has devised a mechanism to turn
money into votes, purchasing an election is a fiction. It is a
fiction sold to the public with the same carelessness displayed
by the use of the term, “assault rifle” which may be an attempt
to make the public think there are selectable-fire military
weapons in use or the journalist is simply ignorant. (Pamer
2015)
Granted, in the 2012 elections in the House of Representative,
losers only outspent winners in 25 races, but just as there are
states and there are swing states, there is a similar nature
reflected in political districts. For example, in California
District 12, incumbent Nancy Pelosi (D) outspent challenger
John Dennis (R) by a 4-to-1 margin ($2,001,648 to $480,226).
When the winner was nearly a foregone conclusion, as was the
case of the Democratic incumbent receiving 85% of the votes in
a district containing the city of San Francisco, the fact that most
of the money went to the favored candidate is only logical.
(Center for Responsive Politics n.d.)
Achieving name recognition and getting one’s message to the
voting public in a close election hinges on the ability to fund an
effective campaign, but the reality of the chosen example is that
no amount of money spent by John Dennis would have enabled
him to be victorious this election. It is a work of fiction to
believe John Dennis could have achieved victory, unless he was
actually able to turn money into votes. Ultimately, it is the
hand marking the ballot, not the hand writing the check, that
determines the victor.
Bibliography
Center for Responsive Politics. Election Stats. n.d.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/elec_stats.php?cycle=20
12 (accessed December 9, 2015).

3. —. Summary Data - 2012 Race: California District 12. n.d.
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=CA12&Cycl
e=2012 (accessed December 10, 2015).
—. The Money Behind the Elections. n.d.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ (accessed December 9,
2015).
—. Top PACs. n.d.
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/toppacs.php?cycle=2012
(accessed December 9, 2015).
—. Winning vs. Spending. n.d.
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/bigspenders.php?cycle=2
012&display=A&Memb=H&sort=D (accessed December 10,
2015).
Drutman, Lee. The Washington Post: Why we still need to
worry about money in politics. December 15, 2014.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-
cage/wp/2014/12/15/why-we-still-need-to-worry-about-money-
in-politics/ (accessed December 9, 2015).
Flitter, Emily. Reuters: Why U.S. billionaires may not be able
to buy the 2016 election. June 2, 2015.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-billionaires-
idUSKBN0OI07I20150602#GilLQI3SSTWa5ixP.97 (accessed
December 10, 2015).
Pamer, Melissa. San Bernardino Shooter’s Friend’s Purchase of
Assault Rifles Probed. December 10, 2015.
http://ktla.com/2015/12/10/san-bernardino-shooters-friends-
purchase-of-assault-rifles-probed/ (accessed December 10,
2015).
POST TWO
1. There is too much money in politics today. The money that
is used in politics is not primarily used to support the actual
candidate itself, it is actually used against the opposite political
party. In the 2012 election it came down to Barack Obama for

4. the Democratic Party and Mitt Romney for the Republican
Party. Obama raised $393,206,398 and only $49,764,651 was
used for the Democrats, while $333,851,814 of that money was
used against the Democrats. (Opensecrets.org) Romney raised
$186,401,701 and $90,580,049 was used for the Republicans,
while $95,275,499 was used against the republicans.
(Opensecrets.org) Obama had raised double the amount of Mitt
Romney. With this money organizations and individuals are
allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money towards ads, to
send mail, create commercials, or advocate for the election or
defeat of specific candidates. Outside groups were able to use
independent expenditures and electioneering communications to
raise an unlimited amount of money to use at their disposal for
or against candidates.
President Bush tried to put a stop to the unlimited
amount of campaign contributions by signing the Campaign
Finance Reform in 2002. This bill was signed into law to bans
softs money and prevents special interest groups from spending
corporate or labor union money on broadcast ads that mention a
candidate just prior to an election. (APUS) Of course this new
law was considered unconstitutional in 2003 so political parties
were allowed to resume raising an unlimited amount of
campaign contributions again. The court also lifted the ban on
ads aired by special interest groups, but they did adopt a stricter
standard that must be followed at all times. But with the law
being overturned now we are back to allowing an unlimited
number of dollars to be contributed to campaigns. I think that
money talks, especially in today’s economy and political
elections. “The 2016 presidential election will be defined by big
money more than any other in recent history.” (Frumin) A lot of
people believe that Jeb Bush is absolutely wanting to run for
President, but they also believe that he is exploiting a loophole
related to campaign financial rules by delaying his official entry
into the Presidential race in order to raise large sums of money
for a super PAC that is supposed to be entirely independent of
his all-but-certain campaign. (Frumin) This helps Jeb Bush

5. because a Super PAC is allowed to spend an unlimited amount
of money on advertisements to promote a candidate that is
unaffiliated with that group. This is the perfect representation
as to why there is too much money in politics.
2. 2. The amount of money in American Politics today is
not a problem. If more money is being spent on ads,
commercials, special mailings, it is being used to promote
things that the candidate stands for. Jim Bopp believes in more
money, bigger donations, more corporations and billionaires and
outside groups making more noise, openly or anonymously.
“…­the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife—for
“single-handedly” keeping him competitive with Mitt Romney’s
super pac, as if this was a noble rather than humiliating
distinction for a presidential aspirant with a theoretically
national network of support.” (Bennet) A lot of people would
not know what these candidates stand for if it were not for ads
on television or advertisements or sharing of information on
social media sites.. Which none of these are possible without
money. “The more money that is spent, the more individualized
messages will be able to be funded. The more individualized
messages, the more voters will feel that the message is pertinent
to them, and the more they’ll learn.” (Bennet) I think that the
more money there is in politics will lead to increased voter
turnout which is what the United States needs.
Opensecrets.org. 2012 Outside Spending, by Candidate.
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle
=2012&disp=C&type=R
APUS- Week 6 Lesson
Frumin, Aliyah. Money has too much of an influence in politics,
Americans say. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/money-has-
too-much-influence-politics-say-americans
Bennet, James. The New Price of America Politics.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the/3090

6. 86/
POST THREE
The Importance of Money
Money has been at the center of many election in the recent
history of the United States. With the massive donations of
PACs and Super PACs, and the money that candidates
campaigns raise through limited contributions and fundraisers it
is difficult to not look at money as a matter of extreme
importance in political races. Some people will argue that
money does not win election, the candidate and his or her
political stance on important issues, demeanor and intelligence
wins elections. While the candidates stance on issues is
important it is ignorant to ignore the money. According to a
New York Times article, titled “How Money Influences
Elections,” it is stated that “since 200, the average winner in
contests for open House seats has outspent the average loser by
at least $310,000” (New York Times). Furthermore, looking at
the statistical data comprised on Morning Consultant it is
becomes more clear why money is incredibly important for
campaigns. Candidates need financial benefits to not only for
media spots and advertising, but there are a multitude of other
reasons campaigns need money for. Candidates must raise
money to travel throughout the country, pay rent on office
spaces for campaign headquarters in multiple cities in every
state, mailing, polling and research, consulting, payroll for
employees (i.e. campaign managers and strategists), and other
expenditures. Still not convinced that money is an important (if
not the most important factor) of elections? Take a look at the
2012 election. In this election Obama won his second term by
defeating Mitt Romney, and Obama raised $632,177,423 over
Romney’s $389,088,268.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-
2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-

7. election/campaign-finance/
http://morningconsult.com/2015/10/how-presidential-
campaigns-spend-their-money/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/l21brooks.html
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Money in Elections is not as Important as People may Believe
The issue of money raised for candidates in elections has
come into the spotlight even more during the recent presidential
campaigns due to one of the Democratic candidates, Senator
Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders has pledged to not receive and
donations from Super PACs, limiting his campaign
contributions to individual donors (with a contribution limit)
contributing directly to the campaign. Senator Sanders has
announced this plan to refuse the acceptance of what he
believes is a sprouting oligarchy and to prove to the American
people that money is not the deciding factor in an election. One
person who shares the belief that money is not the deciding
factor in elections is David Brooks. Brooks wrote an article for
the New York Times in 2010 titled, “Don’t Follow the Money.”
In the article Brooks discussed the money raised and spent by
Democrats and the Democratic party between September 1 and
October 7, 2010 in which the they “raised an average of 47
percent more than Republicans…spent 66 percent more, and
[had] about 53 percent more in their war chests,” than their
Republican counterparts. Even with the monetary advantage the
Democrats running for the House and Senate dropped in the
polls. In 2006 Publican incumbents raised $100 million more
than Democrats and still aged to lose. In the 2010 Alaska
primary “Joe Miller beat Lisa Murkowski despite being outspent
10 to 1” (New York Times). Furthermore, in 2010 Mike Castle,
who raised $1.5 million was beaten by Christine O’Donnell,
who only raised $230,000, in the Delaware primary. While
money is important, it is an extremely difficult argument to win

8. that it is the only factor that now matters in elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?scp
=1&sq=follow%20money&st=cse
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-political-and-electoral-
reform/
http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do
The access code for a car's security system consists of Five
digits. The first digit cannot be zero and the last digit must be
odd. How many different codes are available?