Campaign organization and financing have always been standout issues in politics. There is seemingly constant question involving illegal activities and reform. There are, as with any public issue, contrasting support from the public. The American public believes that the campaign finance system is broken. The vast majority of citizens feel that money threatens the basic fairness and integrity of American political system. Limits on how much someone wants to spend or contribute for political reasons is unconstitutional. What is more, many believe that the government should supply each candidate with an equal amount of money for their campaign, period. However, on the other side of the spectrum, there are people who support and participate in campaign financing. 10.2% of all Americans made a financial contribution to a candidate, political party, or political group.
Most of these contributors are better educated, earn higher incomes, and work in higher-status occupations. However, recently the number of individual contributors has decreased, while the group organizations are becoming bigger and bigger political contributors to candidates.
Some researchers believe the media has been the major cause for the dislike and distrust in the political financing system by the public. First of all, not to the fault of the present media, the media is the main reason why cash became such a growing necessity in campaign finance. The present media are consistently running articles and documentaries about the corruption in campaign finance. Included in that, is the constant attention that the need for reform receives.
Even if the information is not presented in a manner to give campaign financing negative attention, it is the negative aspects of it that are being presented, regardless of a bias or not. If all the public hears about are corruption and reform, than of course they would have negative feelings about campaign finance. Unless, the individual is one of the past contributors who would fall into the classification stated in the last paragraph, those with higher education and higher incomes.
Candidates have in recent times begun campaigning three to four years in advance for their presidential elections. Campaigns are greatly fueled by the media and candidates strive to get their names and views shown to everyone. A candidate is well aware that everything about his past and present being is going to be found out by the media.
The candidate, thus, has to have no skeletons in the closet. Because electoral votes determine the winner, presidential elections are really 51 separate battle for the electoral votes of each state and the District of Columbia. Presidential candidates, then, have to invent strategies and allocate resources across the states to produce a majority in the Electoral College. A candidate suspects he has a number of states that are a given victory, usually his home state and the most of the states that are heavily influenced by his party.
The candidates also know that states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Minnesota, and Hawaii are very influenced by Democratic Party. The candidates are aware that states of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, Utah, Montana, and Alaska are all truly influenced by Republican Party.
The other candidate must campaign hard in the other states if he hopes for any chance to win the battle there. Part of the campaign will include giving speeches, meeting people and touring those states that are potentially directed towards other candidate. The candidate knows that such states will either make or break him. A candidate must organize a very powerful and potent campaign in order to gain a necessary political advantage reflected in the future votes. In theory the Electoral College could show some very disturbing results. A candidate could win only 22% of the national vote and still win the presidential election. If there were three candidates one would only need 15% to win the election.