Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Rossian
Alexander Rossian
Professor Guenzel
20 April 2020
Rhetorical Analysis 2
My research project dives into the topic of campaign finance. Campaign finance is money
raised for the purpose of electing a particular candidate. Campaigns raise money through a
variety of methods, which include individual donations, and wealthy individuals and large
corporations who bypass the federally regulated donation limit by donating large sums to a
political action committee, PAC. Donating to a PAC, with few differences, is essentially
donating directly to the candidate, only doing so through a quasi-broker. Through my research, I
would like to expand my knowledge on the topic and analyze the varying opinions regarding our
system. My analysis revolves around a main quest to understand how the current campaign
finance system impacts politics, and what reform proposals, if any, would further strengthen the
The 2016 presidential campaign ended up being the costliest political race cycle in
American history costing 2.4 billion dollars. The principal American political race was held in
1788 under the newly confirmed constitution. The founding fathers would've never envisioned,
or bolstered, a framework that burns through billions of dollars, quite a bit of which originates
from affluent people, enterprises, and normal Americans the same. Does that mean our
framework is broken? Or then again is our framework successful and versatile to the present
occasions? This issue of campaign finance, and its enveloping laws, is a profoundly discussed
2
Rossian
subject within our political system. Given that battling for a political race requires extraordinary
The Heritage Foundation is one America's largest political policy think tanks. They lean
more to the conservative spectrum but make it clear that their main priorities are “advancing the
values, and a strong national defense.” Regardless of one's personal politics, the Heritage
Foundation is a well-respected think tank with over 100 policy experts that exert substantial
influence in the American political system. The University of Pennsylvania listed The Heritage
Foundation as the think tank that is most impactful regarding public policy. James Bopp, the
author of my selected text Campaign Finance Reform: The Good, The Bad and the
Unconstitutional, is an American attorney who, according to the National Law Journal, has been
considered one of this country’s most influential attorneys. He is best acknowledged for his
studies and research regarding my research project: campaign finance and election laws. Bopp
has litigated, and won, the Supreme Court case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission,
which involved the limits regarding how much an individual can donate to a campaign/party. He
is also well known for defending Susan B. Anthony, and Citizens United in the Supreme Court
case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Regarding my research, Bopp’s 24-page
analysis serves my project incredibly well as it not only elevates varying opinions and facts
regarding the topic, but it’s also written by a person who is considered to be one of the top
experts regarding campaign finance. Although I disagree with much of what Bopp asserts, I
didn’t want to use a source that I fully agree with, rather I wanted to give myself a fair
opportunity to evaluate varying sides of the debate to be able to ultimately form a more educated
fact certain protection acts would lessen the politician’s receptiveness to citizens opinions and
beliefs. He adds a quote from former House Majority Whip Tom Delay stating what some of his
fellow congressmen have been discussing: "Some politicians have remarked that many of their
colleagues "feel threatened by negative advertisements and want to control what is said during
campaigns". Bopp continues in his analysis and asserts that in his view the problem with
campaign finance isn't what most reformers argue, which is that there is too much money in
politics. He argues the contrary that considering the large scope and size of the U.S government,
there isn't enough money being spent on politics. He argues not only to reduce the size and scope
of the government, but also that congress shouldn't attempt to enact regulations that would
reduce the amount of money allowed to be used in political campaigns. Furthermore, he believes
that eliminating various of the current laws would only strengthen the way the American citizen
can participate and fulfill their civic duty in the process. He then goes on to point out various
believes congress should take a look at. These concerns that he asserts are constitutionally
binding are as follows "the distortions and evasions caused by complex laws, the lack of
transparency in political contributions that result from such distortions, and the almost constant
need for public officials to engage in raising a large number of small contributions." One
substantial argument in this analysis is the First Amendment protection of campaign advocacy.
Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo is mentioned to great extent as it ruled on certain limits to
contributions and measures to prevent quid pro quos. Furthermore, the case also ruled to limit the
scope of political speech consisting of express advocacy and issue advocacy. These two types of
advocacy compare what a candidate can say regarding their election or defeat and the
4
Rossian
constitutional protections regarding them. Soft money vs hard money is also closely analyzed in
this piece comparing what is deemed to be necessary expenditures that need not be upheld by
regulations compared to hard money which is money that just be declared and subject to
regulations.
arguments that have been prevalent for so many years and showed me a different perspective that
I've never seen. Although, I don't agree with many conclusions or opinions that Bopp makes, I
chose to use this piece because I despise arguing or analyzing information that I agree with as I
feel like I do not learn as much as when I analyze opposing views. My research project will
focus on three different perspectives. Them being: 1. The argument that asserts that our system
should maintain the status quo regarding campaign financing. 2. The argument that we should
strongly regulate campaign financing to limit donations radically. 3. The argument suggests that
we should remove more restrictions and regulations regarding campaign finance because those
laws and regulations limit American’s First Amendment right to free speech and association. I
will be able to very appropriately use Bopp’s analysis for perspectives 1 and 3. Although Bopp
does argue perspective 3 at certain points in his analysis, he also makes a strong case for
maintaining the status quo. Regardless, due to the length and scope of his piece, I have made use
of a large amount of his research to get a better idea of the disagreements and suggestions from
Works Cited
heritage/impact.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bopp.
Bopp, James. “Campaign Finance ‘Reform’: The Good, The Bad and the Unconstitutional.” The
finance-reform-the-good-the-bad-and-the-unconstitutional.