How does the cost of running a successful campaign affects special interest groups and party membership?
928644
Candidates need money in order to campaign. They obtain this money in two ways: 1) raising it through various functions, 2) donations. Interest groups donate money to candidates in hopes that that candidate will then be sympathetic to the group's cause if he/she gets elected. In effect, the group is buying influence. This happens ALL THE TIME in nearly every elected political/ judicial office you can imagine. \nCampaign costs affect party membership because campaign funding is often one of the many benefits political parties offer their incumbents. Incumbency is the fact that once a person is in office, it is easier for them to stay in office because of a variety of benefits. Because of this, politicians often vote according to their political party's majority view, regardless of their own inclinations, in order to avoid risking the benefits they receive from their party which will help them get re-elected in the next election.\n\nHope that helped!!
858683
All citizens but especially politicians get to say they want to run for president.\n\nTheir parties get to decide who they want to support.\n\nOnce the parties decide which one candidate (or more) they want to support, they then go through the process of nominating them \n\n(Remember, there are more than one party-- and citizens get to run too, but they must get petitions saying so many thousands support them)\n\nThen there is a whole process of funding the run for presidency, the ads, travel and speeches and such.\n\nThen there is a primary to narrow each party down to one candidate.\n\nThen the people vote.\n\nThat's Democracy in a nutshell
1146933
That's interesting. Really.\nI didn't look through the whole site.  So government funding advertising and campaign, with no private donations or little if using a match system.  It may work, but there are possible problems.  \nHow much money\nCould any candidate qualify with signatures, I'm not trying to be totally exclusive, but I also don't want any moron with a few signatures using taxpayers money to run a stupid campaign that endorses some stupid agenda, like wicans or something.\nAnd there's an extra commission or committee every year to determine equity in the funding.\nAnd it is kind of socialist.  Just kind of, don't get mad.\nI'm not trying to be negative, just thinking of pitfalls.\n\nIt is something to think about.
907138
Campaign advertising follows the same rules as regular advertising. Advertising seeks to move a target audience to action. The action is usually to vote or otherwise support/oppose a particular candidate or  referendum.\n\nThe sender can be a individual, political party or a special interest group.  The target audience can vary.\n\nThe below sources may not answer your question, but I think that have some import comments on political ads.
1047711
If you raise between $2 and $2.5 million you can hire a company that will get it done for you.  They get the legal wording done right, and then get the proper amount of signatures necessary to get on the ballot - I forgot the number needed but it hasn't changed much in the last few years even though the state has grown - which makes it easier.
1099311
It is different with each organization. Yet, that should not be what you are basing the orgainzation you are interested on. \n\nRemember costs go towards various items, not just back into the chapter. There are fees that must be paid to the Nationals/Grand Chapter and then chapter fees and such. It ranges from chapter to chapter and org to org. If you get a bid from  an organization you will find out information on things you need. If the organization wants to inform you on the fees then you can ask, but that may not be the greatest idea if you are truly interested in the org.
934634
It is very effective in the short term, which is why so many politicians do it.  It actually does not change that many votes, however; it just keeps the opponent's supporters home on Election Day.\n\nSuppose I was a candidate for the "Republi-crat" party.  Slinging mud at my opponent, the "Demo-can," would not make many other Demo-cans support me.  Instead, they would not vote at all or not vote for either one of us.  And that's almost as good as getting them to switch.  \n\nFor example, if there are 1,000 registered voters, half Republi-crats and half Demo-cans,  and all of them turn up to vote, I would need 501 votes to get elected.  But if I can make 200 people decide to stay home, I only need to get 401 votes (half of the 800 people who do vote).  So my supporters will turn up, and the Demo-cans won't, and I win.  \n\nWhat is so terrible about negative campaigning, however, is the same thing that makes it work.  People stop voting, because they become unhappy with all of the candidates and all the people who are elected.  That's why it seems like we can't get anything done, because everyone is out to find a "Got'cha" moment.  \n\nAnd democracy simply cannot survive in a society that doesn't support the electoral process and the legitimacy of those who are elected.  So, the short term effects of negative campaigning benefit those who ultimately get elected that way, but they hurt the nation overall.  We have too many politicians in office, and fewer and fewer statesmen.\n\nGood luck!! (We all need it, especially today.)
869382
a hundred dollars or more... enough to make driving to the voter registration place worthwhile. but even if i changed my party affiliation, it wouldnt mean i couldnt vote for whatever party i wanted, it would just mean i got some extra cash from someone to change. i dont vote by the party anyway.
530156
Simple is the answer people who have some money have access to people with even more money and it takes alot of money to get elected.a politician cant upset the apple cart and get elected ross perrot had alot of money but wasnt able to get elected.you must remain true to what works for big business without rasing taxes or cutting entitlments to the people.its a tricky rollacoaster ride for most politicians it takes money to get elected but it takes the people who got you there to keep you there the media supports candidates at all levels and are owned by a wealthy group of americans and forigners whos profits are tied directly to the political influence they control in congress and apponties abroad look at the people who come with the canidates to see who they are owned by most are run by large multinational corps. with profit as the agenda a candidate who has people support can often be ruined in the press unfit .to lead whatever that means usually liberal wanting to give back to much to the workers of america and protect the enviroment and force business to assume responcibility for there workers and the enviroment around them. so you see it is simple.
538857
I'd look at measuring your activity, so for PR it would be col inches of covereage. For email, no of opens, no of click thru's, number of people asking for a meeting/buying. etc. Then you can work out ROI (return on investment) which divides the cost to do the marketing comms by these results.\n\nIts tempting to focus on only the high ROI but in reality you need to do most of then (you cant make someone buy until they show interest - e.g. so if your marketing campaign was to sell to them before influencing then to be ready to buy it wouldnt work!).\n\nMostly your competitor had probably played catch-up to get to your level, now you need to overcome that by doing something different - dunno your industry but organise a party, get your best clients to tell your prospects how great you are (youd better be!) - get case studies, show and tell what youve done. Or last case get a marketing consultant or marketing agency to help you.\nrobert
434778
You need to target big money contributors.  Forget about the small campaign contributions and get the big spenders who will donate the maximum amounts they can.  Go for businesses, PACs, and 527s.\n\nThose should be the main target of fundraising.  You will need to spend time on the individual voters, but do not expect them to fund your race, you will never make it.\n\nAlso, don't expect to win the first time.  And if you are facing an opponent who has a ton more money than you, don't be scared off.  People actually do vote for the person who will do the best job, but you do have to have enough money to inform them about yourself.
555777
GET THE MOST VOTES.\n\nBut seriously, there are different stategies for a primary vs a general. \nIn a primary, you are usually aiming towards the core voters in your party, who tend to be more extreme than the general electorate. You need to spell out the differences rather shaprly with your opponent, even though you may not differ all that much on key issues. A primary campaign is more of a "red meat" campaign, where you probably throw more punches toward your opponent.\n\nGeneral elections - You have to appeal to a broader group of people, and you have to be likable. People do not vote for someone they do not like (Aside from Nixon).\nYou still have to spell out differences with your opponent, but blunt your hard edges.\n\nThe key thing, sad to say, is MONEY. About 90 percent of the time, the candidate with more cash is the candidate who wins. More money equals more media, more staff, mor everything.\n\nWell, those are some basic ideas without knowing what office you're running for in which party.
931343
It isn't. They run candidates. They just don't get many votes.
966381
The pros of special interest groups are that they can persuade politicians to legislate favorably for what they believe in. They may also bring certain problems to the awareness of the Senate. The cons are that special interest groups have a one track mind and they seldom look at their opinions from all angles. That is why a two or more party system is better for everyone. If one group were to be in complete power think of all the groups that would be shut out. Special interest groups biggest flaw is that their opinions tend to be biased.
323316
It would depend on your local States requirements as far as signatures on petitions are concerned as well as the office running for.  The populous state of California may have a higher number of signatures required than say North Dakota or Wyoming.  There is also a filing fee, in which for some offices is one charge with petitions and another without, however in the case of Federal Offices I am sure there is something a little more standardized than you will find for more local elections.  You must also have someone selected as treasurer or a responsible party for reporting all contributions to your campaign and how the money is spent, what is left over or how much debt the campaign has.  Best of luck with your paper.  You can contact your local county election office or the state in which you reside for more detailed information.
37852
Maybe because of Neo Conservative theories that your party follows.\nAfter all war insn't such a bad thing if you see it from different perspective, it can make lots of money ;)
1021733
Your question is pretty broad, so forgive me if the answer is equally so. First, I'm assuming you mean the US government and US politics. Government spending is enormously influenced by political values. Keep in mind some general (and not always true) precepts: that it is a traditionally Democratic value to have a big federal government that is heavily involved in lives. It is a typically Republican stance to have a small federal government, with minimal involvement in citizen's affairs. \n\nNow, let's take the issues you mentioned:\n\nHealth care: liberal politicians tend to believe that increased spending in this area is a good idea (recall Clinton's government funded universal health care plan that died in congress). Conservatives tend to think private industry is the best way to give health care to citizens, by giving big businesses tax breaks for providing health plans. Note that each supports public funds for this issue, but have different ways of providing that money. Democrats counter that the Republican's idea only benefits more affluent workers who's employers provide health care. Republican's criticize Democrats for turing the government into an HMO.\n\nDefense: Both Democrats and Republicans LOVE spending on defense. Defense contractors are huge lobby groups that get to engage in business ventures with almost unlimited budgets.  There's no secret that the US spends about half its entire budget on new military toys (hundreds of billions). The radical left believes that if we spent less on defense and more on international community-building, the need for a strong military would disappear.\n\nEducation: Both parties say they favor education spending, but neither really does much about it. This is mostly because schools aren't big lobby groups, so unless congress can make a PR issue out of an education bill, there's little incentive to make one. To the extent that the parties do favor education spending, again, keep in mind the fundamental party differences. Dems would prefer to invest directly in school programs, whil Reps don't want to be in the business of running state public schools. They would prefer to offer things like vouchers and tax breaks to encourage schools and families to find their own solutions to education issues.\n\nScarcity: I'm not sure what you're asking for here; if you mean how does the concept of scarcity (of money) AFFECT this, then I think I've already answered your question, at least partially. The government has limited money to spend and it spends it according who lobbies it to be spent a certain way and the ideological differences of the parties. \n\nThe basic diffence is this. Republicans would prefer to keep money in the hands of individuals, because they believe individuals know the best way to keep their commuties running. Democrats believe that the best way to make sure everyone has a share of the pie is to expand government programs that allocate the slices. Who's right? I guess that's for you to decide.