FINANCIAL DISPARITY IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Financial Disparity in Presidential Election

Financial Disparity in Presidential Election

Introduction

Financial disparity in presidential elections is not a new phenomenon in American political culture. Money politics have great impact on influencing the behavior of voters all over the world. In fact, to contest in presidential elections a candidate needs to use millions in order to influence the people's behavior and studies has proved that huge investments in elections are effective in shaping the behavior of people (Dalton, 2004). It is also noted that when large costs or benefits disproportionately fall to a few, those few groups are much more likely to organize to influence policy than groups whose cost or benefits are diffuse. Wealth, connections, and other power inequalities give some groups more incentives to organize and advantages in doing so. Well-heeled special interest groups generally have more access to decision makers, more influence in the policy-making process, and even the ability to set the rules of the political system in their favor (Anderson, 2000). The broad public interest is seriously disadvantaged and underrepresented. In this connection, the following discussion, will further elaborate financial disparity in elections, with specially focusing on presidential campaigns in United States.

Thesis Statement

Money equals power, especially in a presidential election; the size of the bank account generally tells who will win the election.

Discussion and Analysis

A variant of elite theory that gained prominence in the 1970s and continues to be influential today is the growth coalition or growth machine perspective. Neo-Marxist thinker Harvey Molotch and his collaborator, John Logan, provide a seminal contribution to this school of thought. According to Molotch's (1976) article “The City as Growth Machine,” landowners and businesses work with government to “intensify the economic functions of land use” (p. 313). This collaboration explains “the shape of the city, the distribution of people and the way they live together” (Dalton, 2004). For a more political take on this perspective, Paul Peterson (1981), in City Limits, explains city politics and policy as the result of city leaders' desire to retain businesses and population in the face of intercity and global competition. City policy, then, is not about serving the needs of the residents but about maintaining a friendly business climate. Most elected officials, however, do not want to create more competitive elections or to alienate large campaign donors or the media. So reform from inside government is difficult. Transformative political reform often comes ...