Ahead of 2018 midterms, many progressive candidates are choosing to pledge not to take corporate PAC money. They are doing this to prove to their constituents that they will support the interests of the people they represent, and not the interests of massive corporations. This pledge may win the support of some voters, but it will lose the candidate at least tens of thousands of dollars. Is making this pledge worth it for a candidate, and how do you think this move will impact the culture of money in politics?
Aung Myo Htun ( Kelly)
Sep 1, 2018
Discussion
We can say that it is called political finance instead of money in politics. Its purpose is mainly used in political affairs and to raise up promoting a party or an individual. It is all about political contest like citizen voting process, election campaigns and other similar events of politics. It is mainly caused by : election campaigns by a party or an individual that run by candidates or interest groups, nomination or re-selection of parliamentary members, conducting the awareness program that is related with political and citizens' rights to vote and participate in politics. The political finance is supported or sponsored by someone or interest groups, annual party members fees, government funds and other business funds. Thanks, Kelly
This is an interesting and strategic move for progressive candidates to make. I think that the super PAC money that they lose from corporate companies will eventually be offset by the number of constituents they are able to attract because of their transparency. I can definitely see how campaigns would run into a lot of financial issues, at least initially. However, if this is a decision that a large bloc of candidates are considering and it becomes more common, it will have a very beneficial impact on American politics: it will revive the idea of what a congressperson is supposed to do -- represent their people accurately and fairly in government, as opposed to pandering a specific group of people to milk money or privileges.