Election's Finance Regulation
Government regulation entails the Government's ability to impose regulation laws on those under their rule. Federal government agencies and departments implement the various regulations to different bodies as instructed by Congress. Regulation of election finances is vital in a country to prevent massive loss of the government's revenues. The campaign finance laws help to control the sources, people receiving the money, the amount and the frequency of money donation for political campaigns. In 1971, The Federal Election Campaign Act, which required all campaign committees to produce reports on how they spend money. This paper analyzes the various ways South Dakota, Nebraska and Minnesota control their voting, campaigns, and election finances. Second, study some elected positions and their redistricting history in the last ten years, and, finally, how these redistricting affected the elections in those states.
Regulation of campaign, voting, and election finances is essential in any country. South Dakota put up, some measures to control campaign finances. First, all candidates must possess his or her campaign committee which helps them financially through contributions. The campaign committees must have a treasurer appointed by the candidate. The candidate can also occupy the position of the chair. It is against the Federal campaign law to form a committee to make contributions while the treasurer position is vacant. Second, every candidate is required to file a statement of Organization to the South Dakota Secretary of State before 15 days of becoming a candidate are over. A qualified candidate is one who raises and disburses contribution equating to $500 and has created a valid committee for election to public office. According to Malbin & Gais (1998), the government, in May 2015, prohibited Party Action Committee from giving donations to party committees and individual candidates. Individual candidates and political parties could contribute any amount to ballot measures.
Minnesota campaign limits are among the best in the best in the country. Unfortunately, some contributions are unlimited which allows some sources to contribute vast amounts of money into the campaign which leads to overspending. According to Malbin & Gais (1998), PACs limit contributions made by individuals, political committees and funds to election candidates to $2000 for governors every election year, $1000 for Attorney General and $500 for candidates for legislative office. During non-election years, the funds given to candidates are even more limited. Various sources prohibit individual candidates and political parties from collecting an excess amount of money
In Nebraska, all state candidates are subjects to the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act (NPADA). Federal government Candidates are not subjects to NPDA. A candidate should register the committee to the commission once he or she raises a total amount of $5000 in one year (Malbin & Gais, 1998). An individual candidate should raise $100 for Statement of Organization fee. It must also file periodic campaigns statement. Individual candidates and political parties can contribute to the ballot question committee without any limits.
South Dakota and its adjourning states have some similarities in their way of managing campaign finances. First, all the states are required to form campaign committees before the election commission considers the committee qualified. Second, all candidates should file campaign reports on how contributions are spent to prevent theft and corruption of money (Malbin & Gais, 1998). The states also require that prohibit ballot measures from contributing to election candidates and their campaign committees.
However, the states' regulation methods also differ. First, In Minnesota there are no contribution limits of the amounts contributed per elections, while in South Dakota, the commission is strict on contribution limits. According to Malbin & Gais (1998), the minimum quantity for qualification into the commission is $500 for every candidate while in Nebraska, the minimum amount candidates have to raise $5000.
Redistricting is the map drawing of district boundaries for America's congressional representatives or other elected local officials within a state. In 2012, South Dakota redistricted its legislature. Like every other state, South Dakota had to follow the constitution which stated that the state legislature should be populated as nearly equally, which is practicable. Redistricting was to ensure that the people of each boundary were well represented. Each district elected one state senator and two house member. In Minnesota, redistricting happens every ten years. The last redistricting occurred in 2010 where the new boundary lines would contain 30 members of the house and 16 senators. It would create 23 new positions; 15 in the house and eight seats in the Senate (Gelman & King, 1990). The country is planning on another redistricting in 2020. Also, section 5 of the Nebraska Constitution states that the, redistricting of state should happen after every federal decennial census. The constitution also provides context essential in knowing the questions to be asked in redistricting political subdivisions.
Redistricting usually has some effects on the elections. First, the redistricting process threatens democracy in a state. It makes people lose faith in the polls. In Minnesota, the politicians chose who will vote for them instead of voters electing their politicians. Political parties chose as many districts as possible which are in their support. The people go through "no choice" election of the city council and state officials. Minnesota's Common Cause Director sees technology as the force behind politician's abilities to divide districts in their favor (Malbin & Gais, 1998). Lack of opposition also makes the elections less competitive.
Also, while redistricting help to ensure all voters equality, it becomes a political duel because both the legislature and judiciary are fighting for votes. The states experience more competitive elections when courts and commissions are involved directly in the redistricting process than when elections happen through the regular state legislative process (Abramowitz, 1983). This conflict is not healthy for any state because both parties should be neutral.
Redistricting of states also makes government officials unresponsive to the voter's needs. 2 in 5 voters say that they do not feel that the state officials represent them well. Also, 65% of citizens are dissatisfied with the government's work. The damaging effects manipulating districts are becoming more evident on the federal level. According to Gelman & King (1990), many of the districts have given rise to a Republican member of Congress operating safely in rural communities which leaves them vulnerable to opposers in the Democratic Party.
Additionally, redistricting leads to wastage of the government funds spent on the added district members. The government requires qualified officials and resources to lead the process, to ensure the redistricting process in the states is successful. These officials need money as a reward for their services. Also, redistricting ends up adding more member to the Senate and the House of Representatives who will need money for their campaign committee. The new members also expect to be paid which lead to excess usage of the government election funds. Also, the government spends more money during the election process due to increased polling stations in the new districts. The redistricting process makes the marginalized members of the delegation weaker due to racial discrimination (Abramowitz, 1983). The most influential members and the natives gain from the process.
Lastly, the district lines enable politicians to predict the results in an election. The politician's aim of redistricting states is to get their stronghold districts together. The census figure did before redistricting process is used to draw lines of results. The greedy leaders take regions which are densely populated to retain more votes. Most politicians maintain their seat even when people insist on change. The retiring incumbents hold the other remaining open positions. 84% of the seats in 2010 remained in the hands of those who previously occupied them before the Election Day (Abramowitz, 1983).
In conclusion, Government regulations of campaign finances play an essential role in ensuring no wastage Government revenues through corrupt means. Regulating of candidate's contributions and expenditures helps to keep the leaders on toes knowing they have to report how they spend money. Redistricting of positions ensures all states are represented in the federal government thus promoting equality. However, the racial discrimination involved might bring more harm than good to these states. It increases tension as those discriminated races become overly sensitive because any move made by the government feels like an attack on them. When the government creates more seats in the national assembly, it means more money on campaign committees and polling stations during elections. It is therefore advisable for governments to avoid too much redistricting if government fund is to be regulated efficiently.
References
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1983. “Partisan Redistricting and the 1982 Congressional Elections.”
Journal of Politics 45:767–70.
Gelman, A., & King, G. (1990). Estimating the electoral consequences of legislative
redistricting. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(410), 274-282.
Malbin, M. J., & Gais, T. L. (1998). The day after reform: Sobering campaign finance lessons
from the American states. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Inst. Press.
Inserted: S
Deleted:s
