I believe that funding should not be a major factor in a political race. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Funding is the largest predictor to who will be elected to office. Because of this, large contributors to one political side (NRA- Republicans, Goldman Sachs- Democrats) decide who gets elected and what bills get approved. In 2008, many banking and automotive companies gave millions of dollars to the Democratic Party because of their motions to help further the process of Federal Bailout. Even though I do live on a Liberal standpoint, I don't belive that the amount of money that is "raised" should determine the outcome of important political races.
money makes the world go round. to be successful in poltics , it requires a lot of money to even have a shot to run for president. by having a candidate raise a lot of money, it shows people that they are great communicators with the public, and that they also have the skill of raising large sums of money.a negative point is, just because a person doesn't come from money or can't raise enough to become president doesn't mean that they should automatically be eliminated from presidental contention
A positive of this is that anyone with or without money can run for president. If you already have the dough, then you are in good shape. If you are lacking the financial funds, you can try to achieve them by raising it. The negative though is that if you don't have the funds already then you might not come close to winning.. AMERICA WANTS A MAN/WOMAN DATS ALREADY GOT DOUGH.
Because it is neccessary to possess the ability to handle and balance money to get rich enough to run for president,we can generally expect the president to be at least somewhat good with money, which is essential. Also, because you have to spend so much money to run, we can expect the candidates' motives to be other than salary.(presidents aren't payed ridiculously) The negative impacts of the funding necessity include the increased likelyhood that the president will be more biased toward the rich because they themselves are wealthy. In other words,Do the rich have to have more control than they already posses? Because only a relatively small percentage of the population is rich enough, are we closer to an oligarchy? depends on opinion...
While it may be a noble idea to think that money is not an important factor in a presidential election, this idea is false. For one of the negatives of raising money is that a smaller candidate may not receive enough exposure as compared to other candidates. A prime example of this would be for those in an independent party. A positive of this situation is that those who do have money are able to clearly state what they plan to do for our country.
I don't think it should all be base upon funding at all bt unfortuately it is. The positive I would have to say so that he/she would have many supporters for their campaign they would have to raise money. Which will also help build up fundings and other financial things. On the other hand with the negative I would have to say there's a very low chance of he/she not getting elected. Also not saying that you have to be rich but having money would really help in the office and thats just what I think.
The positive of having a lot of money is more exposure. The more money a president has, the more campaigns and commercials they can afford. That is really helpful for two reasons: one, being that the people will get to see the new candidate, two, that candidate's ideas will be able to be heard. It is also a positive to have money, because the president will be handling the country's financial needs. It would be detrimental to the country if the president didn't know how to spend money wisely.
The negative of having to have money or raise it is: if you don't already have the money, plus the exposure, then more than likely it's going to be harder to obtain it while running for presidency. This will cause the candidate's ideas to be less heard and they may not get into office. That is clearly a negative because some candidates may have great ideas but wont get into office due to a lack of money.
Unfortunately money is one of the biggest parts of presidency because it shows your leadership and communication skills. Also another sad fact is if you do not already have money, your not well known so its hard to raise moneywithout support. so you almost need money to make money. There are positives though because usually the best canidates can raise the most money.
I beieve that the funding should not contribute majorly in a political campaign, because i believe that the amount of money you raise or funds you obtain in your campaign should automatically determine the outcome of who wins or looses the political race.The funding obtained during your campaign should not have an outcome on the race but it should not have a major impact on it.
In my opnion every smart man running for presidency would have money and finds way to earn them. It is not right for president to be poor, he/she should already know how to manage money, and when you are a president you play with big money,our money. Thay sure can raise money but i dont think they would win. Also it would be hard for president to move from lower class to higher class, some elite might not accept him.
One negative of this truth is that when you enter money into any equation it becomes much easier to manipulate people. Now I am not saying that this happens or has happened in any election but the truth of the matter is that when people are in need of money it becomes easier to gain leverage over them and if the wrong person was to gain leverage over a canidate it could be catastrophic to our nation. One positive of this truth however is that it allows everyday people and businesses to get involved in politics and allows for the canidates constituents to have a bigger pull on him. But this too can have positive and negative effects.
How would people know if you were President without signs? In order to run a campaign a candidate needs to have money or raise a lot of money. Without signs no one would even know you were running for President. I belive a candidate shouldn't reach out for money because people are struggling just as much as they are trying to support their runner. By basing the campaigns on money doesnt allow many people to run for President. Maybe the best President to support or government would be someone that doesn't have a lot of money.
By trying to find money for their run for presidency, the president meets a lot of different organizations and people. Which helps people get to know who may become their president in the future. This also helps the president by spreading their word to the masses. It becomes too much of a race for the most money though, which makes it whoever has the most money will most likely win.
Positives of having a lot of money already or raising alot when running for President are:better campaign signs and adds, more publicity to the public, and ideas better exposed and heard more throughout the community. Negatives would be the exact opposite of everything I've just said and your chances of actually being close to winning office would be SLIM to NONE. No, having a lot of money shouldn't be huge factor for a candidate but unfortunately it is and will probably always be that way.
The positive of having lots of money is that it's already an advantage for the person because the person can use that money to get in touch with people. Negative side of this is that the person has to show how much motives he has for running as a candidate. I believe money is one of the most important factors in elections because more money is used to compete with another candidate; if a candidate wants to have more people on his side, then he must do whatever he can to reach into them. Doing whatever he can to get in touch with people isn't the case for having lots of money, but a competition doesn't end quick; That's why having money is crucial.
The positive of this factor is that not just anyone can run for president, but as well that is the negative, for not just anyone can run for president. And so as we sacrifice the possibility of finding a great president in a not so wealthy person, we accept that the president is someone who has already shown the character in them self to make the kind of money they'd need to support that campaign.
I believe that money is an important part in winning the presidency. Without money, one can hardly get the public known of him/herself. Also, money shows the ability or popularity of one person. A person with charisma should always win the election because he/she can always get some kind of financial support and public support. The money increased the probability of winning the election but it’s not a guarantee of winning the election, Money can help a candidate become known by the public and get in touch with the public. One can hardly defeat an incumbent without money. But sometimes money can be a barrier that puts some great ideas aside.
It is definitely true that candidates need unreachable amounts of money that are unattainable for the "Average Joe." In the absolute majority of candidates who are seriously running, they raise money by having people or corporations donate large sums. There has been a lot of debate as to whether the limit for contributions an individual can give should be more or less. The reason why larger contributions from one place would be considered a good thing is that candidates could then spend less time raising money and more time meeting with citizens or doing their already present political duties. The problems with this raising of funds through outside individuals is that once elected, these officials could be bias towards the upper class just because they donated money to them and its expected that the laws that the new president approves help their sponsors rather than the American population.
Like the saying "It takes money to make money", the candidates have to prove that they are fincial stable and could show that they can not only maintain their personal investments but also show that they have the ability to maintain the nation's economy as well as help prosper it.Who wants a president that are limited to this common knowledge and lead us into a nation of debt right? However on the other hand, By using money as a prime factor in a campaign, it could lose the significance of the campaign itself. For instance, if every opponent seems more occuipied in trying to find ways to collect enough money to be reasonably exposed with media, how are they able to have time to listen to what the public has to say and the real issues facing our current nation. Therefore, it is more reasonable to base individuals upon their merits and ideas rather than how much is in one's wallet.
Money is an important aspect for running for president because with money one can learn how to budget money and spend money properly. The main disadvantage of not having a lot of money though, is that it only allows upper class citizens to run for office. After looking at both sides, I think that money should not be a major factor in running for political office or the presidential race.
Funding for Presidential campaigns is essential to weed out the irresponsible citizens from the qualified candidates. It is also suitable in our capitalist economy to require wealth in determining who will rule the land. If every citizen were allowed to vote for every average Joe regardless of social standing, it would greatly hinder the system of election. However, this is a sad truth, for affluence does not by any means equal intellectual capability (as the United States has seen in the last decade). Politics requires a flexible checkbook, and power oftentimes leads to corruption, which continues a never-ending cycle of being elected, to making more money, to funding more less-than-honest Presidential campaigns.
Running for president, you must have a basic economic power. A candidate of president needs money to propagate and popularize. They would have some publicity and advertisement, make some activities, give a lecture or speech, hire staff members or assistants. A good candidate has to be known for all citizens in the country, not just only the state that he/she has already participated in some politics. A candidate needs to show the advantage and benefits that he could give to the citizens in the shortest time. On a certain meaning, this is also a kind of investment, and the repay is certainly an uninterrupted flow of ballots. Although there's only one candidate can win the election, no matter what point of view, fame, benefits, they all give the candidate an inexhaustible power to drop lots of money.
Money can't always be the key to success. Money has been helpful, and at other times it has caused corruption, especially in politics. The postitive to a candidate having money is people can see the way he/she spends and the budget ,and there can be more advertisement. The negative is that the person is judged on how much money they have, and people overlook their goals and purpose.
The idea that someone has to have a ton of money to run for president is sad, but true. A negative of this reality would definitely be that it is a lot harder for someone who isn't already wealthy to run for president than for someone who is. I don't think how much money someone has should be a factor into who runs our country. A positive of this is that if a candidate raises a lot of money for their campaign, you can tell more about them from the people who they get their financial support from.
I think that it puts a slant on the validity of the candiate running and how qualified he/she is for the job. A financially challenged candidate could be more qualified as far as education and plans or ideas than a rich candidate does. Thus the "best candidate" is not chosen by waht they can offer but chosen by what they have. However, having money can work in a positive because a "rich" president could finance and run a better campaign than a poor president could. So the person who looks better would get the job.
I honestely think that funding should not be involved for running for POLTICAL OFFICE POSTION , BUT UNFORTUNALLY IT IS . BECAUSE ALL CANDIDATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO RAISE THEIR MONEY AND WHICH EVER PERSON HAS THE MORE MONEY SOMETIME AUTOMATICLLY WINS BECAUSE THAT CANDIATE GETS MORE ADS AND MORE NEGATIVE ADS ON THEIR OPPONET . BUT UNFORTUNALLY WHO EVER HAS THE MORE MONEY WINS
Yes, no matter how sad it is you do need to raise money in order to compagain. It does puts people who have great ideas, yet do not have any money revnue can not run for president. I know a lot of people that have great ideas but don't have enough money to run with it. Like me. The first black FEMALE president. Yea right.
The positives of raising alot of money is that you will have supporters and will have the money needed to fund things that go towards helping the citizens of the United States. The negatives of this is that you will sometimes want to spend the money on the wrong thing or that you could be a huge target for having alot of money.
Unfortunately, money is a very important factor in who, as president, will win the race. Let me tell you about one of the biggest negatives about not having money and running for president. Running with Obama and McCain last year was Ralph Nader, one of the most brilliant and logical minds in our society today. He was an independent runner and wasn't funded HALF as well as the other candidates mentioned. He is one of the main reasons that seatbelts are required to be worn in cars, saving millions of lives a year, and he was still absolutely overlooked as he ran for president in 04' and 08'. He receieved 0.56 percent of the popular vote, yet is active in so many areas of concern for America, such as humanitarianism, democracy, and environmentalism. He is a man, a leader, and an activist( What our nation was founded on) for OUR country and for the good of the planet. Because funding is such a dominating aspect of running for President, geniuses such as Nader are overlooked, and the country reaps the unfortunate benefits of not being run by the leader it should.
It is unfortunate that a canidate HAS to have a load of money to run for president because it takes so much of your funds and time. The positives of this reality is that the canidates would have a greater campaign which would put more people on there team. The negatives: Using a lot of money for a campaign could put the person who's running in debt and mess up their budget. Also, throwing functions to raise money can be kind of hectic and/or could cause a lot of confusion. I personally would not want to have to deal with any of the funding that goes along with running for president.
Positive effects of this reality is that candidates should know how to manage money and create or keep a stable economy. Also, having more money means being able to spend more money on campaigning in order to win. Negative effects of this is that the candidate may not be able to successfully run an office even if they already have or can raise the money to do it. Another negative effect is that the people who really are the most capable of running a country well, might be the people without enough money to support themselves. Overall, a person running for presidency may or may not be the best candidate based on the amount of money they have or can get.
I believe that funding is important when running for president. Some positives are that you would have enough money to campaign, and get yourself out there to the public. Negatives are that if you fail to meet the expectations that the american people put in you then there will be no votes and all those people who supported you would be dissappionted in all the time that they have invested into you
When running from president, much money is needed to get your name out to the public and persuade them to like you. There are goods and bads to this. A postives that comes out of this is that in order to have money, one must be knowedgeable. Thus, limitting the amount of non educated canidates. However this is a negitive towards the people who do not have the amount of money needed to run for presidentcy but are well infromed and educated.
The amount of funding that an individual needs to run a successful campain is really more negative than positive. basically, it means that whoever supplies the most funding, gains influence in government. this influence could possibly be good, but is more often, being used by large corporations, in one way or another, to gain back their contribution a few times over. i guess one positive could be that when a candidate does have a lot of money, it means that they gained it through doing things that have made people so happy that they just give them money
One good reason having to raise a large amount of money to become a presidential candidate is that it shows that the person running for president is responsible with money. To run a campaign costs an absurd sum, and being able to accumulate that much wealth shows that the runner has been through a profitable career (generally involving going through an extensive education), or has handled their money very well. If one bases their campaign off of fundraisers, it shows some of the same skills, and in some cases is harder. Although some come into money, it isn't enough to be nominated as a candidate alone. So there should be no reason for a candidate to be in the running because of wealth alone.
36 comments:
I believe that funding should not be a major factor in a political race. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Funding is the largest predictor to who will be elected to office. Because of this, large contributors to one political side (NRA- Republicans, Goldman Sachs- Democrats) decide who gets elected and what bills get approved. In 2008, many banking and automotive companies gave millions of dollars to the Democratic Party because of their motions to help further the process of Federal Bailout. Even though I do live on a Liberal standpoint, I don't belive that the amount of money that is "raised" should determine the outcome of important political races.
money makes the world go round. to be successful in poltics , it requires a lot of money to even have a shot to run for president. by having a candidate raise a lot of money, it shows people that they are great communicators with the public, and that they also have the skill of raising large sums of money.a negative point is, just because a person doesn't come from money or can't raise enough to become president doesn't mean that they should automatically be eliminated from presidental contention
A positive of this is that anyone with or without money can run for president. If you already have the dough, then you are in good shape. If you are lacking the financial funds, you can try to achieve them by raising it. The negative though is that if you don't have the funds already then you might not come close to winning.. AMERICA WANTS A MAN/WOMAN DATS ALREADY GOT DOUGH.
Because it is neccessary to possess the ability to handle and balance money to get rich enough to run for president,we can generally expect the president to be at least somewhat good with money, which is essential. Also, because you have to spend so much money to run, we can expect the candidates' motives to be other than salary.(presidents aren't payed ridiculously)
The negative impacts of the funding necessity include the increased likelyhood that the president will be more biased toward the rich because they themselves are wealthy. In other words,Do the rich have to have more control than they already posses? Because only a relatively small percentage of the population is rich enough, are we closer to an oligarchy? depends on opinion...
While it may be a noble idea to think that money is not an important factor in a presidential election, this idea is false. For one of the negatives of raising money is that a smaller candidate may not receive enough exposure as compared to other candidates. A prime example of this would be for those in an independent party. A positive of this situation is that those who do have money are able to clearly state what they plan to do for our country.
I don't think it should all be base upon funding at all bt unfortuately it is. The positive I would have to say so that he/she would have many supporters for their campaign they would have to raise money. Which will also help build up fundings and other financial things. On the other hand with the negative I would have to say there's a very low chance of he/she not getting elected. Also not saying that you have to be rich but having money would really help in the office and thats just what I think.
The positive of having a lot of money is more exposure. The more money a president has, the more campaigns and commercials they can afford. That is really helpful for two reasons: one, being that the people will get to see the new candidate, two, that candidate's ideas will be able to be heard. It is also a positive to have money, because the president will be handling the country's financial needs. It would be detrimental to the country if the president didn't know how to spend money wisely.
The negative of having to have money or raise it is: if you don't already have the money, plus the exposure, then more than likely it's going to be harder to obtain it while running for presidency. This will cause the candidate's ideas to be less heard and they may not get into office. That is clearly a negative because some candidates may have great ideas but wont get into office due to a lack of money.
Unfortunately money is one of the biggest parts of presidency because it shows your leadership and communication skills. Also another sad fact is if you do not already have money, your not well known so its hard to raise moneywithout support. so you almost need money to make money. There are positives though because usually the best canidates can raise the most money.
I beieve that the funding should not contribute majorly in a political campaign, because i believe that the amount of money you raise or funds you obtain in your campaign should automatically determine the outcome of who wins or looses the political race.The funding obtained during your campaign should not have an outcome on the race but it should not have a major impact on it.
In my opnion every smart man running for presidency would have money and finds way to earn them. It is not right for president to be poor, he/she should already know how to manage money, and when you are a president you play with big money,our money. Thay sure can raise money but i dont think they would win. Also it would be hard for president to move from lower class to higher class, some elite might not accept him.
One negative of this truth is that when you enter money into any equation it becomes much easier to manipulate people. Now I am not saying that this happens or has happened in any election but the truth of the matter is that when people are in need of money it becomes easier to gain leverage over them and if the wrong person was to gain leverage over a canidate it could be catastrophic to our nation.
One positive of this truth however is that it allows everyday people and businesses to get involved in politics and allows for the canidates constituents to have a bigger pull on him. But this too can have positive and negative effects.
How would people know if you were President without signs? In order to run a campaign a candidate needs to have money or raise a lot of money. Without signs no one would even know you were running for President. I belive a candidate shouldn't reach out for money because people are struggling just as much as they are trying to support their runner. By basing the campaigns on money doesnt allow many people to run for President. Maybe the best President to support or government would be someone that doesn't have a lot of money.
By trying to find money for their run for presidency, the president meets a lot of different organizations and people. Which helps people get to know who may become their president in the future. This also helps the president by spreading their word to the masses. It becomes too much of a race for the most money though, which makes it whoever has the most money will most likely win.
Positives of having a lot of money already or raising alot when running for President are:better campaign signs and adds, more publicity to the public, and ideas better exposed and heard more throughout the community. Negatives would be the exact opposite of everything I've just said and your chances of actually being close to winning office would be SLIM to NONE. No, having a lot of money shouldn't be huge factor for a candidate but unfortunately it is and will probably always be that way.
The positive of having lots of money is that it's already an advantage for the person because the person can use that money to get in touch with people. Negative side of this is that the person has to show how much motives he has for running as a candidate. I believe money is one of the most important factors in elections because more money is used to compete with another candidate; if a candidate wants to have more people on his side, then he must do whatever he can to reach into them. Doing whatever he can to get in touch with people isn't the case for having lots of money, but a competition doesn't end quick; That's why having money is crucial.
The positive of this factor is that not just anyone can run for president, but as well that is the negative, for not just anyone can run for president. And so as we sacrifice the possibility of finding a great president in a not so wealthy person, we accept that the president is someone who has already shown the character in them self to make the kind of money they'd need to support that campaign.
I believe that money is an important part in winning the presidency. Without money, one can hardly get the public known of him/herself. Also, money shows the ability or popularity of one person. A person with charisma should always win the election because he/she can always get some kind of financial support and public support. The money increased the probability of winning the election but it’s not a guarantee of winning the election, Money can help a candidate become known by the public and get in touch with the public. One can hardly defeat an incumbent without money. But sometimes money can be a barrier that puts some great ideas aside.
It is definitely true that candidates need unreachable amounts of money that are unattainable for the "Average Joe." In the absolute majority of candidates who are seriously running, they raise money by having people or corporations donate large sums. There has been a lot of debate as to whether the limit for contributions an individual can give should be more or less. The reason why larger contributions from one place would be considered a good thing is that candidates could then spend less time raising money and more time meeting with citizens or doing their already present political duties. The problems with this raising of funds through outside individuals is that once elected, these officials could be bias towards the upper class just because they donated money to them and its expected that the laws that the new president approves help their sponsors rather than the American population.
Like the saying "It takes money to make money", the candidates have to prove that they are fincial stable and could show that they can not only maintain their personal investments but also show that they have the ability to maintain the nation's economy as well as help prosper it.Who wants a president that are limited to this common knowledge and lead us into a nation of debt right? However on the other hand, By using money as a prime factor in a campaign, it could lose the significance of the campaign itself. For instance, if every opponent seems more occuipied in trying to find ways to collect enough money to be reasonably exposed with media, how are they able to have time to listen to what the public has to say and the real issues facing our current nation. Therefore, it is more reasonable to base individuals upon their merits and ideas rather than how much is in one's wallet.
Money is an important aspect for running for president because with money one can learn how to budget money and spend money properly. The main disadvantage of not having a lot of money though, is that it only allows upper class citizens to run for office. After looking at both sides, I think that money should not be a major factor in running for political office or the presidential race.
Funding for Presidential campaigns is essential to weed out the irresponsible citizens from the qualified candidates. It is also suitable in our capitalist economy to require wealth in determining who will rule the land. If every citizen were allowed to vote for every average Joe regardless of social standing, it would greatly hinder the system of election. However, this is a sad truth, for affluence does not by any means equal intellectual capability (as the United States has seen in the last decade). Politics requires a flexible checkbook, and power oftentimes leads to corruption, which continues a never-ending cycle of being elected, to making more money, to funding more less-than-honest Presidential campaigns.
Running for president, you must have a basic economic power. A candidate of president needs money to propagate and popularize. They would have some publicity and advertisement, make some activities, give a lecture or speech, hire staff members or assistants. A good candidate has to be known for all citizens in the country, not just only the state that he/she has already participated in some politics. A candidate needs to show the advantage and benefits that he could give to the citizens in the shortest time. On a certain meaning, this is also a kind of investment, and the repay is certainly an uninterrupted flow of ballots. Although there's only one candidate can win the election, no matter what point of view, fame, benefits, they all give the candidate an inexhaustible power to drop lots of money.
Money can't always be the key to success. Money has been helpful, and at other times it has caused corruption, especially in politics. The postitive to a candidate having money is people can see the way he/she spends and the budget ,and there can be more advertisement. The negative is that the person is judged on how much money they have, and people overlook their goals and purpose.
The idea that someone has to have a ton of money to run for president is sad, but true. A negative of this reality would definitely be that it is a lot harder for someone who isn't already wealthy to run for president than for someone who is. I don't think how much money someone has should be a factor into who runs our country. A positive of this is that if a candidate raises a lot of money for their campaign, you can tell more about them from the people who they get their financial support from.
I think that it puts a slant on the validity of the candiate running and how qualified he/she is for the job. A financially challenged candidate could be more qualified as far as education and plans or ideas than a rich candidate does. Thus the "best candidate" is not chosen by waht they can offer but chosen by what they have. However, having money can work in a positive because a "rich" president could finance and run a better campaign than a poor president could. So the person who looks better would get the job.
I honestely think that funding should not be involved for running for POLTICAL OFFICE POSTION , BUT UNFORTUNALLY IT IS . BECAUSE ALL CANDIDATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO RAISE THEIR MONEY AND WHICH EVER PERSON HAS THE MORE MONEY SOMETIME AUTOMATICLLY WINS BECAUSE THAT CANDIATE GETS MORE ADS AND MORE NEGATIVE ADS ON THEIR OPPONET . BUT UNFORTUNALLY WHO EVER HAS THE MORE MONEY WINS
Yes, no matter how sad it is you do need to raise money in order to compagain. It does puts people who have great ideas, yet do not have any money revnue can not run for president. I know a lot of people that have great ideas but don't have enough money to run with it. Like me. The first black FEMALE president. Yea right.
The positives of raising alot of money is that you will have supporters and will have the money needed to fund things that go towards helping the citizens of the United States. The negatives of this is that you will sometimes want to spend the money on the wrong thing or that you could be a huge target for having alot of money.
Unfortunately, money is a very important factor in who, as president, will win the race. Let me tell you about one of the biggest negatives about not having money and running for president. Running with Obama and McCain last year was Ralph Nader, one of the most brilliant and logical minds in our society today. He was an independent runner and wasn't funded HALF as well as the other candidates mentioned. He is one of the main reasons that seatbelts are required to be worn in cars, saving millions of lives a year, and he was still absolutely overlooked as he ran for president in 04' and 08'. He receieved 0.56 percent of the popular vote, yet is active in so many areas of concern for America, such as humanitarianism, democracy, and environmentalism. He is a man, a leader, and an activist( What our nation was founded on) for OUR country and for the good of the planet. Because funding is such a dominating aspect of running for President, geniuses such as Nader are overlooked, and the country reaps the unfortunate benefits of not being run by the leader it should.
It is unfortunate that a canidate HAS to have a load of money to run for president because it takes so much of your funds and time. The positives of this reality is that the canidates would have a greater campaign which would put more people on there team. The negatives: Using a lot of money for a campaign could put the person who's running in debt and mess up their budget. Also, throwing functions to raise money can be kind of hectic and/or could cause a lot of confusion. I personally would not want to have to deal with any of the funding that goes along with running for president.
Positive effects of this reality is that candidates should know how to manage money and create or keep a stable economy. Also, having more money means being able to spend more money on campaigning in order to win. Negative effects of this is that the candidate may not be able to successfully run an office even if they already have or can raise the money to do it. Another negative effect is that the people who really are the most capable of running a country well, might be the people without enough money to support themselves. Overall, a person running for presidency may or may not be the best candidate based on the amount of money they have or can get.
I believe that funding is important when running for president. Some positives are that you would have enough money to campaign, and get yourself out there to the public. Negatives are that if you fail to meet the expectations that the american people put in you then there will be no votes and all those people who supported you would be dissappionted in all the time that they have invested into you
When running from president, much money is needed to get your name out to the public and persuade them to like you. There are goods and bads to this. A postives that comes out of this is that in order to have money, one must be knowedgeable. Thus, limitting the amount of non educated canidates. However this is a negitive towards the people who do not have the amount of money needed to run for presidentcy but are well infromed and educated.
The amount of funding that an individual needs to run a successful campain is really more negative than positive. basically, it means that whoever supplies the most funding, gains influence in government. this influence could possibly be good, but is more often, being used by large corporations, in one way or another, to gain back their contribution a few times over.
i guess one positive could be that when a candidate does have a lot of money, it means that they gained it through doing things that have made people so happy that they just give them money
One good reason having to raise a large amount of money to become a presidential candidate is that it shows that the person running for president is responsible with money. To run a campaign costs an absurd sum, and being able to accumulate that much wealth shows that the runner has been through a profitable career (generally involving going through an extensive education), or has handled their money very well. If one bases their campaign off of fundraisers, it shows some of the same skills, and in some cases is harder. Although some come into money, it isn't enough to be nominated as a candidate alone. So there should be no reason for a candidate to be in the running because of wealth alone.
Post a Comment