Question

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of the $3.7 billion spent in the 2014 congressional midterms, super PACs, nonprofits and other outside spenders made up around $560 million, or roughly 15 percent. In contrast, $1.5 billion, or 42 percent, was spent by candidates themselves, with the rest left to party committees.The hard money chase marinates our elected representatives in the mindsets of the wealthy and special interests — and takes them away from doing the job we voters A. describe the authors' claim B. In the context of this scenario, explain how the evidence provided supports the claim described in part A In the context of this scenario, explain how the funding situation affects the effectiveness of the political party as a linkage institution.

A. Describe the authors' claim

B. In the context of this scenario, explain how the funding situation affects the effectiveness of the political party as a linkage institution

C. In the context of this scenario, explain how the evidence provided supports the claim described in Part A.

Answer 1

Step-by-step explanation:

A. The author's claim is that the high cost of political campaigns, and the disproportionate amount of money spent by wealthy donors and special interests, erodes the effectiveness of political parties as a means of representing the interests of voters.

B. In the context of this scenario, the funding situation affects the effectiveness of political parties as a linkage institution by creating a dependence on wealthy donors and special interests that can distort the priorities of elected representatives and limit their responsiveness to the needs of voters. Parties must increasingly rely on large donations from wealthy donors and special interests to fund their campaigns, which can create conflicts of interest and limit their ability to represent the broader interests of their constituents.

• C. The evidence provided supports the claim described in Part A by demonstrating the extent to which outside groups and wealthy oors are able to influence the political process through their donations. The fact that super PACs, nonprofits, and other outside spenders made up 15 percent of the total spending in the 2014 congressional midterms, while candidates themselves made up only 42 percent, suggests that wealthy donors and special interests have a disproportionate influence on the political process. This, in turn, supports the claim that the high cost of political campaigns and the influence of wealthy donors and special interests erode the effectiveness of political parties as a means of representing the interests of voters.