One of the major notions of the American system of government is that it is a government by the people, for the people. The system is supposed to take into account the opinions and desires off all those who fall under its jurisdiction. This is said to be accomplished by a representative democracy, where citizens elect one of there own to speak for the group (Hastings, 04). Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that any eligible man or woman, under constitutional mandate, should be able to run for and win any office in the American government with no unfair advantages given to one candidate over another. This ideal still exists, but in todays modern society, only in theory. Multi-millionaire candidates, with large party support and a seemingly unstoppable fundraising team can squelch almost any competition without resources as far-reaching as theirs. Therefore many people are calling for a reformation of the system, a way to once again even the playing field and allow true democracy to blossom. The controversy is largely split down party lines.First off, what are the current rules concerning campaign financing? Concerned with the escalating costs of campaigns, lawmakers in 1974 passed legislation limiting individuals to $1,000 donations per candidate for federal office (capped at $25,000 per election) and making presidential campaigns, to an unprecedented extent, publicly financed. (The law also imposed spending limits on House and Senate races which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 1976).To the national political parties, individuals can give $20,000 each year in what's called "hard money," funds that can be spent directly on a presidential or congressional campaign. Contributors can give unlimited amounts of so-called "soft money," donations to the political parties for party-building activities. Presidential candidates who agree to abide by spending limits qualify for matching funds during the primary season, ...
