Despite several attempts to regulate campaign finance, money increasingly dominates the US electoral process

In recent years the increase in money poured into US picks has created a realisemingly money dominated choice with some arguing success relies on the highest level of campaign funding. As a result of the Watergate scandal The Federal Election Campaign typify of 1974 judgeed to make a number of material changes. However with the change magnitude regulations there have been increased loopholes and some(prenominal) ways to get or so these regulations, many donating thumping sums of money argue they are not the al virtually important part of the campaign and the significance still lies with the Candidates strength and skills. but as the 2008 and 2012 hugely exceeded the expenditure of any previous election it is understandably to see money is biddinging an increasingly real function. FECA of 1974 aimed to reduce aspects belief on a few(prenominal) wealthy donors and equalise money spent by the major parties. This law was merely weakened by the Supreme hook in the Buckl ey v Valeo ruling that limitations on what individuals or PACs could spend infringed the world-class amendment. In a similar case the 2010 Citizens united v FEC finding restrictions on corporations was removed leading to Super PACs.These played a strong role in the fundraising and spending in the 2012 presidential election. Supporters see them as a positive consequence of issue speech, however many see that they are yet another forthlet for unlimited money in electoral politics. It is evident to see that money is the arguably the nearly significant part of the election process due. Barack Obama has taken part is the two approximately expensive elections, with 1. 1 billion being raised by Obama in 2012, raising much than Romney and subsequently won the presidential election.The increasing size of itableness of finance has been shown by Obamas actions in 2008, when he rejected federal funding in order to avoid restrictions on his spending, aware of the profit of large fund raising support. Indeed in 2012, incomplete Romney nor Obama took twin(a) bills and neither did any of Romneys rivals in the Republican primaries suggesting an end to the era of matching funds. Campaign finance has not been sufficiently regulated this is partly wherefore it is increasingly dominate in the electoral process.As the campaign increases in length, and the apparent non-stop run of US politics, with the invisible primaries, primaries and mid-term elections it is increasingly essential that nominees stupefy financial support and the need for bigger and earlier funds to compete in all rounds of the election process. The need to campaign through increasingly expensive TV adverts is ever the more important, as these target a large audience and can be very effective in building up own support or knocking an oppositions support. funds is also the about important factor due to the diversity and size of the American electorate. Many interests need to be targeted and this relies on different angles of campaigning with different emphasises on differing policies for individual groups of the electorate. For example Obama in 2012 gained a significant proportion of Latin ballotrs a +44% advantage over Romney and targeted these voters with breeding about immigration. The need to reach out to such a large demographic of voters further puts strains on the costing of elections.Many states require visits and this insures large travel costs for each of the candidates as they go on election tours and rallys. Obama in 2012 visited 4 states in one day in November unsanded Hampshire, Florida, Ohio and Colorado. As the elections become ever closer swing states also play a high significance and winning these states have a higher impact on the outcome of the election, visiting these is of primary importance and more money in advertising is require for these states due to the difference undefendable voters can make.As the campaign extends and increases more po litical advisers are typically hired by candidates, Romney in 2012 had 24 Foreign Policy advisors operative with him throughout the campaign. However, although money plays a part in the campaign, especially from an administrative point of view it is not the main deciding factor in a candidates success. Despite the spending of Bush in 2004 he would have most likely won despite this funding, and Romney is 2008 was the highest spendthrift in the Republican primaries but was not the eventual winner.The use of the free media by candidates is limited and this requires to be bought supporting the argument of the significance of finance, however commercials can backfire and if the candidate is not a strong candidate with wide support this can cost them an election e. g. Bush and Willie Horton. The mildew adverts has shown a higher significance media has rather than money being most dominant. This can be supported by the Presidential TV debates, where communicatory errors can be costly an d have proved difficult for many candidates for example Mondale in 1984.Elections can be won or want due to the outcome of these debates, debates often do more to confirm what voters already feel about candidates and can challenge and influence de-aligned voters and can change passive audiences. However the significance of these can be questioned, very few debates have been controversial or change the course of election events out of 30 debates that have taken place. Media today allows for 24hr news on pedigree and network TV.Radio, websites, social media and smart phones also play an increasingly role with many crediting Obamas success among younger voters to the influence of social media. The media quite a little the agenda, amplify debate and frame debates and messages. The role of policy and a candidates personal strengths can be said to play the most significant part. Opinions on key issues such as the economy in 2012, views and actions to tackle these key issues are likely to change voters minds and capture clear voters.For example the swing voters play a large impact on deciding who wins an election, many in 2012 believe Obamas Latin vote advantage won him the election over Mitt Romney, and in a Reuters poll 61% of mothers felt the country was on the wrong rails favouring their vote against the incumbent president. In conclusion, money does not guarantee electoral success but it is increasingly difficult to win without large funds due to the financial demands of the elongated campaigns and reliance on advertising.It is capturing the vote of most Americans that is most essential and significant in the election, and although this can be easier through with(p) with financial backing, finance does not necessarily affect peoples opinions presidential candidates and key issues. But as elections get increasingly expensive the dominance of money may lead to a situation whereby alone wealthy candidates are able to mount a successful attempt at winning th e presidential election.