{"id":5765,"date":"2015-10-11T12:58:32","date_gmt":"2015-10-11T16:58:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/?p=5765"},"modified":"2015-10-11T12:58:32","modified_gmt":"2015-10-11T16:58:32","slug":"revised-paper-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/2015\/10\/11\/revised-paper-proposal\/","title":{"rendered":"Revised Paper Proposal"},"content":{"rendered":"

SCOPE:<\/strong> I want to examine the effects corporate, or \u201cbig,\u201d money has on United States politics. Ever since the Citizens United <\/em>Supreme Court case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on campaign contributions are unconstitutional, large corporations and political action committees (\u201cPACs\u201d) have had significant impacts on election cycles. The decision in that case set the precedent that \u201ccorporations are people\u201d and that the more money someone has, the more say he or she has in politics. As a result, billionaires like the Koch brothers are able to donate millions to specific candidates and influence their views on certain political issues without restrictions. These unrestricted donations have caused fundraising competition among candidates during election season, with campaign costs increasing in recent years. In the preface of his book Big Money: 2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious Vehicle, and a Pimp \u2013 on the trail of the Ultra-Rich Hijacking American Politics, <\/em>Kenneth Vogel includes a quote by Barack Obama during campaign season in 2012: \u201cIn this election, I will be able to hopefully match whatever check the Koch brothers want to write\u201d (Vogel, viii). The Founding Fathers envisioned a governmental system in which the people are represented by politicians who share their concerns and are public servants, not<\/em> one in which a select few had the most say about in which direction American politics goes. Those in support of big money\u2019s influence on politics might claim that it demonstrates how the U.S. gives people the opportunity to influence politics, unlike in other countries. This belief, however, further supports the Supreme Court\u2019s decision that money equals speech, a philosophy not concurrent with America\u2019s political foundation. Others may argue that the United States political system has always included a significant influence from big money, but the problem arises when restrictions on this influence are cut off. The massive contributions from PACs and billionaires in today’s\u00a0<\/em>political scene will only increase. The question then becomes “How will this change the system in the future?”\u00a0I will also examine statistics showing the rates at which money\u2019s role in politics has increased and how those rates correlate with the public\u2019s perception of politics. I will examine the idea that the more influence these extremely rich individuals and corporations have on politics, the more discouraged the general American electorate is about participating.<\/p>\n

VALUE: <\/strong>The basis of American politics is democratic republicanism. The founders, having fresh memories of being ruled by a monarch, wanted a political society in which the people were fairly represented. Big money\u2019s influence in politics today has been the subject of many grievances about United States politics, especially among the general public. People do not seem to think they have as much of a say in which legislation is passed or in who is elected, some even saying that their vote does not count. How, then, should the United States progress when a very small group of individuals with a lot of money are able to push and pull the political agenda as they please? Is the country\u2019s structure really as it should be under the founders\u2019 standards if the people do not want to participate in government as much anymore? Does big money have that<\/em> much of an effect on politics at all? Are there ways to increase the electorate\u2019s political efficacy? Would overturning Citizens United<\/em> be a positive step towards reaching increased political efficacy or would it not change the United States\u2019 political landscape at all? By learning more about big money\u2019s influence in politics, the American electorate can more effectively demand change, a tactic the Nick Penniman writes in his article \u201cRotten to the core\u201d is one of the only ways to change the system.<\/p>\n

ORIGINALITY: <\/strong>Several political scientists have written books and articles discussing the role big money has in today\u2019s political scene. For example, I found Kenneth Vogel\u2019s book, which even in the preface addresses my topic extensively. Articles Nick Penniman\u2019s \u201cRotten to the core: with political integrity drowning in big money, it\u2019s too late for small tweaks. The whole system needs a reboot\u201d discuss the problems associated with having big money in the American political system and its implications. Although there is plenty of research regarding the problem <\/em>of big money in politics, I also want to bring in research from the other side that believes wealthier influences in politics are beneficial. Database articles like the one I found from CQ Researcher<\/em> have opinions from both sides of the debate, which will add to my research even more.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

PRACTICALITY: <\/strong>There are multiple books, scholarly journal articles, periodical articles, and database articles covering my topic that go into extensive detail about it. I will use the book and articles I mentioned above as well as other articles I found online to prove my points. In addition to these secondary sources, I will try to find raw statistical data showing the rates at which corporate money\u2019s influence has increased. I may also include information about Citizens United<\/em> and why it is important to my topic. Unfortunately, I had to request some of the articles I found because they are not in the library and Vogel\u2019s book is online only. I will try to find physical books that cover my topic to make it easier to do research.<\/p>\n

BIBLIOGRAPHY<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Borosage, Robert L. and Ruy Teixiera. \u201cThe Politics of Money.\u201d Nation<\/em> 263 no. 12 (1996): 21-23.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. Demaris, Ovid, Dirty business; the corporate-political money-power game<\/em> (New<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      York: Harper\u2019s Magazine Press, 1974).<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Jost, Kenneth. \u201cCampaign Finance Debates: Should regulations be loosened further?\u201d CQ Researcher<\/em>, 20 no. 20. (2010): 457-480.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \n
        1. Penniman, Nick and Ken Davis. \u201cRotten to the core: with political integrity drowning<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          in money, it\u2019s too late for small tweaks. The whole system needs a reboot.\u201d Sojourners Magazine<\/em> 41, no. 8 (2012): 16-20, 22.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Kenneth Vogel, Big Money: 2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious Vehicle, and a Pimp<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            \u2013 on the Trail of the Ultra-rich Hijacking American Politics <\/em>(New York: PublicAffairs, 2014).<\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            SCOPE: I want to examine the effects corporate, or \u201cbig,\u201d money has on United States politics. Ever since the Citizens United Supreme Court case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on campaign contributions are unconstitutional, large corporations and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2781,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37387],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fys"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5765","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2781"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5765\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/quallsk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}