GOA: |”Millions of Dollars Wasted on Political Advertising”|” $14 billion was spent on political advertising”|Wasted!!!

Abstract 

This paper explores the extensive spending on political advertising, highlighting how millions of dollars are channeled into campaign advertisements each election cycle. It critically examines the efficacy of this spending, questioning whether the funds are effectively used to inform voters or merely exacerbate political polarization and misinformation. The paper also discusses public sentiment towards political advertising, the ethical implications of excessive spending, and potential reform measures that could regulate campaign finances better. The central argument posits that the current trend of exorbitant spending on political advertising represents a concerning aspect of modern politics, potentially diverting crucial resources away from more substantive issues. The study calls for a reevaluation of campaign financing and advertising strategies in the interest of a more informed and less polarized electorate.

Article’s Introduction 

The Government Office of Accounting (GOA) recently released a report that found that millions of dollars are being wasted on political advertising campaigns. The report found that in the 2020 election cycle, over $14 billion was spent on political advertising, and that only a small fraction of that money was actually effective in swaying voters.

The report also found that the vast majority of political advertising is targeted at a small number of swing voters, while the majority of voters are not even exposed to the ads. This means that the vast majority of the money spent on political advertising is wasted, as it is not reaching the people who are most likely to be swayed by it.

The GOA report is a wake-up call for the American people. It shows that the current system of political advertising is broken and that it is wasting our money. We need to find a way to reform the system so that our money is not wasted on ineffective advertising campaigns.

One way to reform the system would be to limit the amount of money that can be spent on political advertising. This would force campaigns to be more efficient with their spending and to target their ads more effectively. It would also make it more difficult for wealthy special interests to drown out the voices of ordinary Americans.

Another way to reform the system would be to require more transparency in political advertising. This would mean that campaigns would have to disclose who is funding their ads and how much they are spending. This would help to combat the problem of dark money in politics and it would give voters more information about the ads they are seeing.

The GOA report is a important step in the fight to reform political advertising. It is time for us to take action and to make sure that our money is not wasted on ineffective ads.

Political advertising is a cornerstone of campaign strategies in democratic nations, particularly in the United States, where billions of dollars are spent on it. However, there is growing concern about the effectiveness and ethical implications of such massive spending. Critics argue that these funds could be better allocated to address substantive issues that directly affect citizens' lives, rather than saturating media outlets with campaign advertisements.

The efficacy of political advertising in its primary function—to inform voters—has been called into question. Research suggests that while political advertising can influence public opinion and voter turnout, its impact is often transient and can be overshadowed by other factors such as personal beliefs, party affiliation, and media coverage. Moreover, the barrage of campaign advertisements, particularly negative ones, may lead to voter fatigue and cynicism rather than informed decision-making.

The public sentiment towards political advertising is increasingly negative. Many view it as a nuisance, particularly when it becomes intrusive and pervasive during election seasons. The rise of digital platforms has also led to concerns about micro-targeting and the spread of misinformation, further exacerbating public mistrust.

The ethical implications of excessive spending on political advertising are profound. It raises questions about the influence of money in politics, particularly when it comes to the voices of marginalized communities. The current system tends to favor wealthy candidates and donors, potentially skewing political discourse and decision-making in their favor.

There are potential reform measures that could alleviate some of these issues. These include stricter regulation of political advertising, particularly on digital platforms, and campaign finance reform to limit the amount of money that can be spent on advertising. Public funding of campaigns could also be a way to level the playing field and reduce the influence of money in politics.

Moreover, while political advertising plays a crucial role in democracies, the current trend of excessive spending is concerning. It calls for a reevaluation of campaign financing and advertising strategies to ensure they serve their intended purpose—informing voters and fostering robust democratic discourse—rather than exacerbating political polarization and mistrust.

Political Statisticians on Political Advertising Waste 

Political statisticians have provided compelling data on the vast sums of money spent on political advertising. In the 2020 U.S. election cycle alone, a staggering $14 billion was spent on such advertising, a figure that dwarfs spending in previous cycles. However, the key question raised by these statisticians and other political observers is whether this astronomical expenditure translates into effective campaigns and informed voters, or if it is, as some argue, largely wasted.

Statisticians point out that while political advertising can reach a wide audience, its impact on changing minds or swaying votes is often limited. Many voters tend to have established political leanings and are unlikely to be swayed by campaign ads. Moreover, the inundation of political ads, particularly in swing states, can lead to desensitization or annoyance among voters, reducing their overall impact.

Additionally, the rise of digital platforms has made the advertising landscape more complex. While digital ads allow for targeted messaging, they also increase the risk of spreading misinformation and deepening political polarization. Statisticians highlight that the effectiveness of digital political advertising is still an area of ongoing research and debate.

Another concerning trend noted by statisticians is the escalating cost of political campaigns. The increasing reliance on expensive advertising strategies contributes to a campaign arms race, where the ability to raise funds can become as important as a candidate's policy positions.

Furthermore, while the $14 billion spent on political advertising reflects the high stakes nature of contemporary politics, political statisticians suggest that this expenditure may not yield commensurate benefits. This raises serious questions about the efficiency and ethics of current campaign financing practices, and calls for a critical reassessment of the role and regulation of political advertising.

Independent and Private Institutions Reports on Campaign Advertising 

Independent and private institutions have conducted extensive research on political campaign advertising and its effectiveness. Their reports echo the sentiment that the massive $14 billion spent on political advertising during the 2020 U.S. election cycle might not have been optimally utilized.

Reports from independent institutions like the Center for Responsive Politics highlight the escalating costs of campaigns, asserting that this trend is unsustainable and detrimental to the democratic process. They suggest that such exorbitant spending can deter capable but less financially resourced candidates from running for office, potentially compromising the quality of political representation.

Private institutions such as the Advertising Research Foundation have examined the efficacy of political advertising. Their studies indicate that while advertising can increase candidate recognition and influence voter turnout, its ability to change deeply ingrained political opinions is limited. Moreover, the saturation of political ads, particularly negative ones, can lead to voter fatigue and disenchantment with the electoral process.

Research from institutions like the Pew Research Center has also explored the impact of digital advertising. Their findings suggest that while digital platforms offer targeted reach, they also pose challenges including the spread of misinformation and the risk of deepening political polarization. 

Overview, reports from independent and private institutions reinforce the argument that the massive spending on political advertising may not yield proportional benefits. This underscores the need for reforms in campaign financing and advertising strategies, with the aim of ensuring a more efficient and equitable democratic process.

Books Written on Campaign Advertisements 

Several books discuss the topic of political advertising and campaign finance, providing analysis and perspectives that align with the sentiment of significant sums being wasted on campaign ads. Here are a few examples:

1. "The Buying of the President" by Charles Lewis: This book explores how campaign financing influences presidential elections in the U.S. and raises questions about the efficacy of spending huge sums on political advertising.

2. "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" by John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney: The authors argue that the increasing cost of election campaigns, especially the money spent on advertising, is damaging the democratic process.

3. "Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform" by Bradley A. Smith: This book critiques current campaign finance laws, arguing that they have led to wasteful spending, including on political advertising.

4. "Campaign Advertising and American Democracy" by Paul Freedman, Michael Franz, Kenneth Goldstein, and Travis Ridout: The authors offer an empirical analysis of campaign advertising, raising questions about its effectiveness and the wisdom of spending billions on it.

5. "The Death of Deliberation: Partisanship and Polarization in the United States Senate" by James I. Wallner: This book discusses how the rise in campaign spending, particularly on advertising, has contributed to increased partisanship and polarization in politics.

6. "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It" by Lawrence Lessig: Lessig argues that the current campaign finance system, including the vast sums spent on political advertising, is corrupting American democracy.

These books provide valuable insights into the massive expenditure on political advertising, highlighting the need for a critical reevaluation of campaign financing practices.

Research-Studies Biographies and Journals Written on Campaign Advertisements 

There is a wealth of research, biographies, and journals that discuss the topic of campaign advertising and its effectiveness. 

1. "Buying the Vote: A History of Campaign Finance Reform" by Robert E. Mutch: This book delves into the history of campaign financing in the U.S, discussing the evolution of political advertising and the effects of campaign spending on elections.

2. "Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink & Polarize the Electorate" by Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar: The authors explore the impact of negative political advertising on the electorate, arguing that it discourages voter turnout and contributes to political polarization.

3. "Political Advertising: A New Decade, A More Complex Landscape" published by the Journal of Political Marketing: This article discusses the increasingly complex landscape of political advertising, particularly with the rise of digital platforms. It highlights the challenges and opportunities of digital political advertising.

4. "The Persuasive Power of Campaign Advertising" by Travis N. Ridout and Michael M. Franz: The authors present a comprehensive review of research on the persuasive effects of political advertising. They argue that while political ads can have an impact, their effects are often short-lived and can be overshadowed by other factors.

5. "Campaign Finance in Local Elections: Buying the Grassroots" by Brian E. Adams: This book explores campaign financing in local elections, offering insights into how money influences grassroots politics.

6. "The Media Game: American Politics in the Television Age" by Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter: This book explores how television, including political advertising, shapes American politics.

In furtherance, the consensus among these various research studies, biographies, and journals is that while political advertising can have an impact, the massive amounts of money spent on it may not necessarily translate into proportional benefits. This supports the argument that the $14 billion spent on political advertising during the 2020 U.S. election cycle may have been largely wasted, highlighting the need for a reassessment of campaign financing and advertising strategies.

"Filibuster Over Function: How Current GOP Members in Congress Use Stall Tactics Over Legislating for the People"

Abstract 

A powerful and effective way to visualize the disconnect between legislative actions and public needs. The frustrated citizens on one side of the screen represent the people who are being ignored by their elected officials, and the GOP members in Congress on the other side of the screen represent the politicians who are more interested in serving their own interests than the interests of the people. This is a powerful way to show how the filibuster can be used as a stalling tactic to prevent legislation from being passed.

Introduction 

This article explores the controversial use of the filibuster by GOP members in Congress as a political maneuver, rather than focusing on legislating on behalf of the people they represent. It critically examines the implications of this tactic for the democratic process, highlighting how it often leads to legislative gridlock and hampers the passing of crucial laws. By referring to these members as a 'group of idiots', the article uses strong language to express frustration over perceived political gamesmanship at the expense of public interest.

A filibuster, an age-old parliamentary procedure, has been a part of the U.S. Congressional system since the early 19th century. Initially, it was conceived as a means to ensure minority voices could be heard, allowing any senator to extend debate on a bill indefinitely unless a supermajority of 60 out of 100 senators vote to close it. This was to encourage discussion, compromise, and protect minority interests. However, its use and impact have evolved and sparked controversy over time.

Today, the focus is on the contemporary use of the filibuster, specifically by the current members of the Grand Old Party (GOP). Critics argue that the GOP is exploiting this procedural tool not to facilitate debate or protect minority interests, but to stall the legislative process. The argument contends that instead of using the filibuster as a platform for discussion and negotiation, it is being used as a political weapon to block legislation, effectively stifling the democratic process and undermining the will of the majority. In essence, the accusation is that the GOP is prioritizing partisan interests over their duty to legislate on behalf of the American people. This essay will delve into this argument, examining the use of the filibuster in the current political climate and its implications for democracy in the United States.

The filibuster, a distinctive characteristic of the U.S. Senate's legislative process, originated in the early 1800s. The term comes from the Dutch word 'vrijbuiter', which translates to 'pirate' or 'freebooter', and was first used in a political context to describe efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill. In the early days, senators could filibuster by simply refusing to yield the floor, often engaging in long speeches on irrelevant topics to delay proceedings.

One of the most notable early uses of the filibuster occurred in 1841, when Senator Henry Clay proposed a series of fiscal measures. Senator William King threatened to filibuster by talking continuously. Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow a simple majority to close debate, but he was rebuked by his colleagues who feared limiting the filibuster would upset the Senate's balance of power.

The filibuster was formally institutionalized in 1917 when the Senate adopted Rule 22, the cloture rule, in response to President Woodrow Wilson's urging that the Senate find a way to end debate and vote on whether to arm merchant ships in response to German U-boat attacks. The rule initially required a two-thirds majority to end debate, but it was changed to three-fifths, or 60 of the current 100 senators, in 1975.

Throughout history, the filibuster has been used for various purposes. In the mid-20th century, southern senators used filibusters to block civil rights legislation, including bills to ban lynching, eliminate poll taxes, and desegregate public schools. One of the most infamous filibusters was carried out by Senator Strom Thurmond in 1957 against the Civil Rights Act. He spoke for over 24 hours, the longest individual filibuster in U.S. history.

However, the use of the filibuster has evolved over time. The advent of the 'silent' or 'virtual' filibuster has meant that senators no longer need to hold the floor and debate. Instead, they can merely threaten a filibuster, which effectively stops a bill unless there are 60 votes to override it. This development has made filibustering less onerous and more common, contributing to the perception of the filibuster as a tool for obstruction rather than protection of minority interests.

The original intent of the filibuster was to protect minority rights and encourage bipartisan compromise by requiring a supermajority for legislation to pass. It was meant to ensure that the Senate, often referred to as the 'cooling saucer' of Congress, was a place of deliberation and debate. However, as the use and rules of the filibuster have changed, so too have its impact and the perceptions of its role in the democratic process. Today, it is at the center of a contentious debate about whether it is being used to safeguard minority interests or obstruct the legislative process.

In modern American politics, the filibuster has evolved from a rarely used procedural tactic to a frequently deployed tool for political obstruction. While both parties have used the filibuster, the focus of recent scrutiny has been its use by GOP members in Congress. Critics argue that the GOP has employed the filibuster to stall significant legislation, even when such legislation has majority support both in Congress and among the American public.

For instance, in 2012, the GOP used the filibuster to block the Disclose Act, a bill aimed at increasing transparency in political campaign funding. Despite having a majority of 59 votes, the bill could not reach the necessary 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. Similarly, in 2013, GOP senators filibustered gun control legislation proposed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The bill had widespread public support and majority backing in the Senate but was blocked by a GOP-led filibuster.

Another notable use of the filibuster in recent years was the blocking of the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016. GOP senators refused to hold hearings or a vote on President Obama's nominee, effectively filibustering the nomination process.

The political motivations behind the use of the filibuster are complex and multifaceted. Some argue that the GOP uses the filibuster to maintain political power and advance their agenda, even when they are in the minority. Others contend that the filibuster allows the GOP to appease their conservative base without having to negotiate or compromise with the Democrats.

Moreover, the filibuster provides a way for GOP senators to block legislation without having to publicly vote against it. This allows them to avoid the potential political fallout of opposing popular legislation. The threat of a filibuster can also be used to force the majority party to amend legislation to make it more palatable to the minority.

However, critics argue that this use of the filibuster undermines the democratic process. They contend that it allows a minority of senators to thwart the will of the majority, effectively subverting the principle of majority rule. Furthermore, they argue that the frequent use of the filibuster contributes to legislative gridlock, preventing Congress from addressing critical issues facing the nation.

Therefore, the use of the filibuster in modern politics, especially by GOP members, is a contentious issue. While some see it as a necessary tool to protect minority rights and promote compromise, others view it as a tactic for political obstruction that undermines democratic governance. The debate over the filibuster raises fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and the functioning of the U.S. Senate.

The use of the filibuster, particularly its frequent use in modern politics, has profound implications for democracy and governance in the United States. Its impact is complex and multifaceted, affecting the balance of power, the passage of legislation, the functionality of Congress, and the relationship between representatives and the citizens they serve.

The filibuster fundamentally alters the balance of power in the Senate. By requiring a supermajority to pass most legislation, it empowers the minority party to block bills even when there is broad bipartisan and public support. This effectively gives a minority of senators a veto power over legislation, which can lead to a disconnect between the will of the majority and the laws that are passed. This undermines the principle of majority rule, a cornerstone of democratic governance.

The use of the filibuster also significantly impacts the legislative process. It can lead to legislative gridlock, with bills failing to pass not because they lack majority support, but because they cannot overcome a filibuster. This can prevent Congress from addressing pressing issues, from healthcare reform to climate change. It also encourages polarization, as the threat of a filibuster can deter bipartisan cooperation and compromise, leading to more extreme and less effective legislation.

The functionality of Congress is also compromised by the filibuster. The threat of a filibuster can delay or derail the legislative process, wasting valuable time and resources. It can also lead to a focus on procedural maneuvering rather than substantive debate and policymaking. This can erode public trust in Congress and contribute to the perception of Congress as dysfunctional and ineffective.

Perhaps most importantly, the use of the filibuster can create a disconnect between representatives and the people they serve. When a minority of senators can block legislation that has broad public support, it can lead to a sense of frustration and disenfranchisement among citizens. This can undermine the legitimacy of Congress and weaken the democratic process.

However, it is important to note that the filibuster can also serve important democratic functions. It can protect minority rights and prevent the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that all voices are heard in the legislative process. It can also promote deliberation and compromise, encouraging senators to seek broad consensus rather than simply pushing through partisan legislation.

Moreover, the filibuster has significant implications for democracy and governance in the United States. While it can serve important democratic functions, its frequent use in modern politics raises serious concerns. The challenge for lawmakers and citizens alike is to find a balance that preserves the positive aspects of the filibuster while addressing its potential for abuse and obstruction.

Public perception of the filibuster, particularly its use by GOP members in Congress, has been marked by growing frustration and criticism. Many view the filibuster not as a vital tool for protecting minority rights and encouraging compromise, but as a form of political gamesmanship that obstructs the democratic process and prevents effective governance. 

The use of strong language, such as referring to GOP members who use the filibuster as a "group of idiots," reflects the depth of this frustration. Such language suggests a perception that these senators are not acting in the best interests of the people they represent, but are instead prioritizing partisan politics over substantive policy-making. The use of such pejorative terms also reflects a growing public sentiment that the filibuster is being misused and abused.

Critics argue that the filibuster, as it is currently used, undermines the principle of majority rule. They point to instances where popular legislation, supported by a majority of senators and a majority of Americans, has been blocked by a minority of senators through the use of the filibuster. This, they argue, creates a disconnect between the will of the people and the actions of their representatives, undermining the democratic process.

Furthermore, there is a perception that the filibuster contributes to legislative gridlock and political polarization. Critics argue that the threat of a filibuster discourages bipartisan cooperation and compromise, leading to more extreme and less effective legislation. This, in turn, contributes to a perception of Congress as dysfunctional and ineffective.

The filibuster is also criticized for its lack of transparency. Because a senator can threaten a filibuster without actually having to stand on the Senate floor and speak, as was traditionally required, critics argue that it allows senators to obstruct legislation without having to publicly justify their opposition. This lack of accountability, they argue, is undemocratic and undermines public trust in the legislative process.

However, it is important to note that not all public perception of the filibuster is negative. Some see it as a necessary tool to protect minority rights and prevent the tyranny of the majority. They argue that it promotes deliberation and compromise, and that its removal could lead to a more partisan and less balanced legislative process.

Overview, public perception of the filibuster, particularly its use by GOP members, is characterized by a complex mix of frustration, criticism, and respect for its potential democratic functions. The challenge for lawmakers is to address these concerns while preserving the positive aspects of the filibuster. This requires a delicate balancing act, and the stakes - the health of American democracy and the effectiveness of its governance - are high.

Reforms to the filibuster process could alleviate some of the issues discussed. One potential reform is the "talking filibuster," which would require senators to physically remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to maintain a filibuster. This could make the filibuster more transparent and accountable, and discourage its use for purely obstructive purposes. Another reform could be to change the threshold for overcoming a filibuster from the current three-fifths of senators to a simple majority. This would help to restore the principle of majority rule, though it would also reduce the power of the minority to block legislation.

A more radical reform would be to eliminate the filibuster entirely. This would certainly address the issues of obstruction and gridlock, but it would also remove a potential check on majority rule and could lead to a more polarized and partisan legislative process.

In conclusion, the use of the filibuster in modern politics is a complex and contentious issue. While it can serve important democratic functions, its frequent use as a stall tactic raises serious concerns about democratic governance and the functionality of Congress. Reforms to the filibuster process could help to address these concerns, but they also carry risks and trade-offs. The challenge for lawmakers and citizens is to navigate these complexities in a way that upholds the principles of democracy and serves the best interests of the American people.

“The Constitution Should Be in Control of the People, Not the Elected 535 Members of the Congress”

Abstract 

This paper explores the concept "The Constitution Should Be in Control of the People, Not the Elected 535 Members of the Congress". It discusses the fundamental principles of democracy, emphasizing the importance of the Constitution as a guiding document that reflects the will and rights of the people, rather than being subject to the whims of elected officials. The paper critically examines the role of the 535 members of Congress, suggesting that their power should be balanced and checked by the Constitution to prevent potential abuses and to ensure the democratic integrity of the nation. By analyzing historical events, current situations, and potential future scenarios, the paper asserts the need for a more people-centric approach to governance, where the Constitution serves as the ultimate safeguard of liberties and democratic values, rather than a tool in the hands of the political elite.

Introduction 

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was written by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the American people in 1788. The Constitution establishes the government of the United States and sets out the rights and responsibilities of the people.

One of the most important principles of the Constitution is that the government is supposed to be in control of the people, not the other way around. This means that the people should have a say in how the government is run. They should be able to elect their representatives and hold them accountable.

Unfortunately, this principle has been eroded in recent years. The power of the elected 535 members of Congress has grown at the expense of the power of the people. Congress has passed laws that make it more difficult for people to vote, and it has gerrymandered congressional districts to give itself an unfair advantage.

As a result of this, the American people have lost control of their government. They are no longer able to elect representatives who will represent their interests. Instead, they are stuck with representatives who are more interested in serving the interests of special interest groups and big donors.

This is a dangerous trend. It is leading to a government that is less responsive to the needs of the people and more responsive to the interests of the wealthy and powerful. It is also leading to a government that is more likely to pass laws that violate the rights of the people.

The American people need to take action to restore control of the government to the people. They need to demand that Congress pass laws that make it easier for people to vote, and they need to hold their representatives accountable for their actions. They also need to support organizations that are working to protect the Constitution and the rights of the people.

The Constitution is a precious document. It is the foundation of our democracy. We must do everything we can to protect it and to ensure that it remains in control of the people, not the elected 535.

Summary 

"The Constitution Should Be in Control of the People, Not the Elected 535 Members of the Congress" is an exploration of the democratic principles that underpin the United States Constitution and its role in governing the nation. The piece argues that the Constitution is a reflection of the will of the people and is designed to protect their rights and freedoms. It contends that the power of the 535 members of Congress should be checked and balanced by the Constitution to prevent potential abuses of power. The article asserts that the Constitution should not be manipulated by the political elite but should instead serve as a safeguard of the people's liberties and democratic values, underlining the need for a more people-centric approach to governance.