Since Americas founding in 1776 and the eventual writing of the constitution in 1787 there has always been and will always be differences and divisions concerning the country is run. This nationwide division has evolved into two major parties that are now commonly known as democrats and republicans. Both parties have seen major changes over their many years of existence including, financial growth, governmental progression, and entire belief/platform changes. Through all this the main goal of both these parties was to be the best representation for the majority of the American people. This idea of the people first has been lost and in many cases never truly been displayed by either of these parties resulting into a party first mentality. Many factors have caused this party first mentality, most notably financial influence, societal standings, gerrymandering, legislative rules and lobbying to not only out any other third parties in elections but to uphold their political power at the expense of the American people’s best interest. There is nothing wrong with the American public agreeing with a major party’s values and stances with issues that effect the American people however when these parties and candidates get influenced by money and value staying in positions of governmental power over being an actual catalyst for productive legislative change they discredit themselves as well as the party they represent. These influences of money and the desire of power are a strong sign for some type of regulation regarding election processes, fair voting districts and an attempt at reducing the amount of candidate corruption from outside influences. 

To understand these how the two major parties have been able to dominate election processes there first should be an understanding of how the parties evolved into what they are today. During the first term of George Washington in 1791 political parties emerged between Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party and eventually the creation of the Anti-Federalist party or the Democratic-Republicans under Thomas Jefferson (Dennis). George Washington was even fearful of the creation of political parties as he felt it would only serve to undermine the publics best interests and only create division. “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism… But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.” (The Founding Fathers). He warranted that though political parties could be founded in just and beneficial causes in the end they would only end up serving themselves in the purely representative that the United States is. While political parties are no actual governmental or legislative component in the Constitution they have proven to be the final decision that all Americans make, weather Democratic or Republican, to elect officials who create laws that influence our everyday lives.

With this increase in power these political parties have been able to change the entire voting and election playing field with multiple tactics. Political parties will use vast amounts of money to sway voter opinion in favor of the candidate they want in office or the candidate they want to stay in office. Even though the supreme court has put regulations on donations that political parties and candidates can receive, there are political action committees that declare independence from the parties and candidates they represent. These independent political action committees, also known as Super PAC’s receive an unlimited amount of money from various donors that wish to see their candidate of interest win positions in government. Since these Super PAC’s cant directly give to candidates or parties they get around this by creating advertisements and pushing their candidates into the front of voter eyes swaying voters who are not strictly democratic or republican. These advertisements can even include the candidates also allowing for the candidates to influence the scripts of these advertisements(Backer). This is counterproductive because this may increase voter participation during elections but this also creates less competition from other parties or candidates who don’t have a large influx of money to be used for advertisement. This also creates more candidate vs candidate conflict where candidates use ad hominem attacks against candidates personally rather than argue their positions on topics that effect the country. Every candidate should have a level playing field when it comes to publicity and leave it to the American people to do their own research about candidates and pick the one they feel is the best for the certain position in government.   

Another issue regarding money within the two major parties and their candidates is the heavy influence of direct donations from corporations and organizations that want to have an impact in certain legislation and regulations passed by congress. An example of this was back in 1995 congress decided that they would stop production of the B-2 bomber planes which were $439 million at that time. The pentagon had also declared that they did not require any more B-2 bombers and did not want any more. However, in 1996 congress voted for funding for another B-2 bomber plane. This was undoubtedly due to the $320,775 donated to members of congress from the manufacturing company Grumman who manufactured the planes. This change of plans by our US congress members shows that there is a deep seed of corruption and persuasion by organizations that seek to sway legislation in their favor. This amount of money was double the amount given by the Grumman in 1993 and 1994 combined. When a bill was put forward to again eliminate funding for the B-2 bombers once again in 1996, the Grumman company donated $75,200 to help the campaigns of members of congress (Choo). Who’s holding congress accountable for this misuse of taxpayer money. A more recent example of congress disregarding the input of the national defense because of personal and political gain was in 2014, when the defense budget allotted $120 million for the army to have Abrams tank upgrades. Even though national defense had been attempting to cease tank production as well as upgrades years prior to this and keep production open through foreign sales. Even an analyst from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment stated it was questionable as to why the Army and Marine Corps needed to increase upon there already 9,000 tank inventory (Sisk). To understand why this was done you have to know where the politicians who passed the bill are representatives from as well as why they would see interest into continuing funding for something that seemed to be unnecessary. The Representative Mike Turner from Ohio was quoted saying “Congress recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."(Sisk). Mike Turner is not only a representative from the state where the only American made tanks are manufactured, Ohio, but he also heads the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. These would all be reasons why he would want to keep the manufacturer in business this is not only good for his representative state but also his position in the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee in the house. Everything politicians do has a personal or financial gain behind their actions.

Dealing with contracts and legislation between the government and corporations or organizations, lobbying plays a large role in how politicians and governmental officials are swayed into changing laws. 

 