Campaign Reform/ Primaries

Have new rules concerning primaries accidently affected the way people vote and think in America? I believe its a resounding yes. On one hand, primaries exhibit democracy at its fullest: enabling every available voter to sound off on which candidate has the best chance of winning. Also, the simplicity of the system is a definate bonus in determining the right candidate. But, as a lot of things in the political world, what are the unintended consequences of primaries? I believe a major argument against the primary machine is the act of front-loading. Early primaries, such as Iowa, now hold a huge influence on the potential fate of how votes are cast. I think a perfect example of this can be found in 04 campaign for the Democratic ticket. Dick Gephardt was the leading candidate in the polls leading up to the Iowa primary, but John Kerry recognized the influence that Iowa can have by pouring millions of dollars into the state to swing voters to an eventually win. Gephardt's campaign lost a lot of steam, while Kerry went on to the Democratic convention. Iowa set the tone for the race, probably perseuding undecisive voters in other states to vote for the leading vote getter after the first primary. A 2nd point to consider is the affect of campaign finance reform has over the nomination and election of candidates in the primaries. According to OpenSecrets.org, "These groups represent a variety of positions on a variety of issues, but they have one thing in common: they influence how you look at the candidates." Groups, such as 527's, PAC's, and other advocacy groups, wield a powerful influence over voters that may not be the most informed: using this finance sways the independent vote towards the candidate they want in office, influencing perception against reality on the American voter mind, using voter mobilization, and cunning ads.

Can factions be eliminated freom American elections? If Madison got his wish, this would be a reality, but in the grand scheme of a national election, is it even possible? Madison stated that the effect of one faction cannot be overly negative to undermine the political system. Is this possible in todays age for one faction to essentially control both parties in their influence? I believe that to control both wings of the political spectrum is a long shot, but to control one party can be a possibilty. According to OpenSecrets.com, the rebuplican party received 75% of 26 million from Oil and Gas advocacy groups. How will these groups see payback? Legislative sentiment, tax refunds, or deregulation are just some of the ways that Oil and Gas groups can see returns on their investments. American factions are here to stay; as long as the money flows from these groups into campaigning, the comprimising of legislative empathy will live on.