Discuss the role of money in US federal elections,with reference to either the congressional or presidential vote,and give reasons for its influence

Role of Money in US Federal Elections with regards to Presidential Vote
Student’s Name
Course
Tutor’s Name
Date

Introduction
The United States federal election involves a lot of spending in regards to the campaigns and attack advertisements. The presidential vote, particularly, involves intense competition among the candidates from different parties. Therefore, money plays a significant role in making the candidates run and remain in the race for some period. Money is used for the political campaign to spread the information about the agenda and other issues of the candidates in different regions of the nation. It influences the outcomes of the presidential elections and also determines the possibility of an aspirant to drop out of the race or continue. It is also important to identify the sources of finance and whether the federal laws restrict the amount of money spent on the political campaign by different candidates. The paper argues that money acts as a determinant for a candidate to run and remain in the U.S. presidential election or vote.
Role of Money in the U.S. Federal Election
Money has played a significant role in the U.S. Presidential votes. Some of the candidates have been able to fund themselves while others rely much on the Super PACs to aid their race for the election or party nomination. Different candidates from different parties raise and spend money in a different manner from their competitors. The presidential election involves the use of a huge amount of money during the campaigns and political advertisements.

Exploring the role and influence of money in the presidential votes is vital to getting a deep understanding of the process and system of presidential elections. Election spending is not restricted on the money gathered and spent by political parties and contenders. The Super Political Action Committees (PACs) are organizations created to collect and use the money to aid or compete against candidates. The PACs can raise large amounts of money from unions, corporations, business, individuals, and associations, then use the large sums to overtly endorse or oppose political aspirants. It has to submit information with the Federal Election Commission. Although parties and presidential candidates have to file comprehensive spending summaries, independent bodies and association do not have to do the same. These organizations contribute a mounting portion of all political expenditures. For example, in the 2012 presidential votes, just nearly 40 percent of the PACs’ federal expenditure was completely revealed. Both the Republican and Democrat candidates spend significant sums of money when vying for the presidency. These sums of money are raised by the respective political parties, campaigns, and Super PACs. Overall, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the 2014 midterm elections spent approximately $3.67 billion. However, not all of these amounts were spent on the 2014 federal elections.
Furthermore, the increased use of money in the federal election has influenced how the campaigns are held in different regions of the country. The spending has led to more negative campaigns and attack political advertisements at the federal level. The political candidates use money both the local and state levels to spread the information about the issues and aspirants in regards to the political and party agendas.
The Super PACs, which come into existence when the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United resolution came into practice, can receive unlimited contributions from rich people and businesses. The new structure of the Super PACs allows groups not associated with an aspirant to spend huge sums of money on ads to promote the contender. 75 percent of the Americans want to see transparency by arguing that the groups not linked to an aspirant that provides money when conducting political campaigns should be called upon to publicly reveal their donor.
The Role of PACs and Super PACs
The political Action Committees developed and managed by companies, labor groups, membership institutes or trade organizations. It is a union that spends funds on an election, yet it is not operated by an individual aspirant or party. Nevertheless, the PACs can release funds to aspirants or parties of their support. They play a role of accumulating money from people linked with the company, also called the Separate Segregated Funds, or from any persons wishing to supply the committee with some funds, also called the Non-connected PACs. The money from the individuals contributing funds to the committee are independent in regards to the finance and pay for their own through the contributions they accumulate. The Separated Segregated Funds are financed by the entities with which they are linked. On the other hand, the Super PACs can also take indefinite contributions and use an unrestricted value assisting or conflicting federal election aspirant, yet they are unable to directly give the federal aspirants or parties.
Money also influences the presidential election in many ways. The 2016 presidential race is not an exception of the influence of money on the presidential votes. Firstly, the aspirants who withdraw from an election normally do so due to their drying up of their financing sources. Funding sources diminish when contributors perceive that the possibility of winning the election is almost zero. For instance, Scott Walker, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, and Martin O’Malley noticed that their sources of money are drying out and, as a result, they chose to drop out of the presidential race. The financial supporters can also shift their candidates whenever they notice any possibility of losing the election by a candidate.
Moreover, money also influences the candidates themselves. Some aspirants are seen not to be feasible and typically cannot raise sufficient funds to build credible political campaigns. Besides, money also influences presidential vote because of the Citizen’s United and simplicity of developing and financing Super PACs. The two elements have encouraged more candidates to participate in the presidential race and remain in the competition for an extended period. Nevertheless, the traditional aspirant campaign teams encounter a substantial obstacle in the sum of money they can gather from people, groups, unions, and parties. These systems allow the individual to strictly contribute $2,700 per round, to the campaign teams or committees. In comparison, the Super PACs can allow unlimited contributions, which enable them to be financed by a handful of large contributors or donors. An unanticipated impact is that more aspirants vie and remain in the race for a longer time as they can depend on selected Super PACs to aid their political campaigns. The accessibility of campaign financing for a wide range of aspirant led to the free-for-all for the nomination of the Republican candidates. It can be noted that in the cases where the Super PAC is basically the funding instrument of one benefactor or a restricted number of sponsors, the funds diminishes gradually, enabling aspirants to continue spending funds on floundering campaigns. The fact is that a large portion of the Super PAC expenditure is misused on contenders who are perceived not to win the presidential elections.
Furthermore, the exponential rise in campaign expenditure over the last many presidential election cycles has caused some observers to be concerned about the buying of the 2016 presidential elections. The reason for this is that the sponsors have their preferred aspirants that they want to support. The notion that the donors, united in their favorites, could determine the presidential election results by regulating the movement of money to aspirants just operates if they mostly come into consensus about the best aspirants and the country’s orientation. However, it is argued that it is minimal or no agreement among the supporters concerning the preferred candidates.
Ultimately, money is important for the presidential votes or elections since the process of campaigns much expensive in the United States. They candidates have to conduct the attack ads on the television. The spending of the presidential elections has been influenced by different rules that attempt to control and limit the sums of money used in the campaigns. Also, money is crucial to the proper running of elections and democracy. Nevertheless, the structure of funding is significant in determining whether the political system and elections in general guarantees equality of contribution, integrity, and transparency, or not. There is a tradeoff between the principles, such as the freedom of expression of an individual and the equitable political race when structuring an effective system of presidential election funding.
2016 Presidential Campaigns and the Influence of Money on the Vote
It was approximated that about $12 billion will be spent on the 201 6 election round on political adverts to create an impact on the vote. The funds will be spent on the radio, Internet corporations, and broadcast TV. The PACs are permitted to either oppose or support aspirant, and they run autonomously, without any link with the aspirant or his or her campaign. The money spent by the PACs frequently surpasses the aspirants’ individual expenditure. A total of $23.3 million was spent on the presidential election, as $20 million accumulated to campaign versus the Republicans. The Center for Responsive Politics reported that nearly $ 60 million was financed by unrevealed donators. It can be noted that the 201 6 presidential campaign was also very expensive with almost twice the amount spent on the 2012 campaign. For example, Hillary Clinton was expected to accumulate and use nearly half of the $ 6 million to remain in the race after the nominations. The party donations as of January 2016 were $265m by Republicans and $ 229m by Democrats. The influence of money on the vote can be linked to the public reach out through the social media and other broadcasting methods. The candidates who spend huge sums of money are most likely to win because they can reach many people and spread the information against the other contestants. Thus, money can influence the outcome of the election, with the winner most probably being the one who spends the biggest sums of money. However, the influence is not feasible in the cases where the policies of the candidates or the party do not suit the expectations of the voters or the overall economy.
Generally, presidential campaign funding remains to serve a vital or may be determining role in the presidential votes and, specifically, the 2016 presidential elections and campaigns. It influences who chooses to participate in the race and their potential to contest in early primaries and capacity to remain in the competition for a long time. Candidates cannot remain in the race without the financial support. The unrestricted political campaign expenditure in the corporate sphere cannot make the voters commit to ideologies of a candidate they do not like. Some candidates, such as Donald Trump, who are surely able to support themselves with their private money, can sustain much of their presidential campaigns, but money is still considered an influential factor in the success of the presidential elections. The funds might not buy the presidential votes, but one cannot be in the race without the money.
Why the U.S. Elections so Expensive
American elections are very expensive as America is a rich, large nation. Reaching 314 million people must cost too much, especially in competitive broadcasting marketplaces, such as Florida and New York. Again, every election cycle has thousands of competitions in which people aggressively contest for the local posts in the nation. Another reason for the expensive elections is the commencement of the Citizens United. The Citizens United is a Supreme Court rule in 2010 that relived companies and labor unions from expenditure restrictions on the autonomous political transmissions. The decision resulted in a significant rise in expenditure in the 2012 US election cycle.
Conclusion
Money is useful in the U.S. federal elections with regards to the presidential vote. It enables a candidate to remain in the presidential race by sustaining his or her campaigns and attack ads on the TV. While it is argued that money cannot buy the presidential vote or election, a candidate cannot run the presidency without having sufficient amounts of the same. The influence of the money on the presidential vote is due to the expenditures required by the candidates to increase their likelihood of realizing success in the election. The sources of the financial support and how money is spent depends on the personal wealth and the preference of the donors. The Super PACs provide the financial assistance to the candidates that they are sure might win the election. In sum, money acts as a determinant for a candidate to run and remain in the U.S. presidential election or vote.

Bibliography
Brown, Adam R. “Does Money buy Votes? The Case of Self-Financed Gubernatorial Candidates, 1998–2008.” Political Behavior 35, No. 1 (2013): 21-41.
Cigler, Allan J., Burdett A. Loomis, and Anthony J. Nownes, eds. Interest Group Politics. CQ Press, 2015.
Corrado, Anthony. “Money and politics: A History of Federal Campaign Finance Law.” New Campaign Finance Sourcebook 7 (2005): 34.
rAndon HersHey, MArjorie, and Paul Allen Beck. “Party Politics in America.” (2015).
Norris, Pippa, and Andrea Abel van Es. “The Lessons for Political Finance Reform.” Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective (2016): 257.