You are on page 1of 4

Mark S.

Jallayu
H103 Draft Annotated Bibliography
10/15/15
Statement of Scope:

Introduction to your topic: I am researching the influence of private money in US Politics.


Since the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United vs. FEC) that money equals free
speech, Ive been wanting to see how that has been changing the American political landscape.
Particularly, the culture that it is creating and how that has changed the citizens view of
American Politics and its politicians.
Statement of what I intent to argue or analyze: I want to argue that with massive amount of
money in US politics, it is corrupting the political system that those who do not have much
cannot fairly engage and be represented by those they elect to serve them. In addition, I want to
argue and analyze that there is a clear correlation between those who get elected and those who
financed them, because the politicians, in spite of their political parties, represent the interest of
their campaign financier.
Preliminary conclusions: Based on preliminary research, I found that no matter how we vote,
money will always win. The American society is slowing moving towards an oligarchy, a system
in which a few wealthy people control the entire political system, while the poor and the middle
class have little or no say in what happens in their country. Also, I found that there are 250
millionaires in Congress; most of them are financed by wealthy donors and spend most of their
time campaigning. Finally, I found that Americans views on the influence of private money, vary,
quite significantly based on their party affiliation and their income level.

Bibliographic Entry:
CBS News (2015, June 2). Americans views on money in Politics: New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/02/us/politics/money-in-politics-poll.html?
_r=1
Descriptive Annotation
This is a poll conducted by the CBS News which wanted to see Americans views on money in
Politics. The approach of the source is that it asked question and posed subjects to the
respondent. First is Influence of Money on Elections, and then it asked several questions. Second
is need for reform and it asked several questions. It did that throughout the poll. The types of
evidence used is that it asked adults and people of both parties and Independents, and people of
different income levels.
Evaluative Annotation:
The survey is credible because it is by a credible new source: CBS NEWS. Also, it is credible
because it didnt ask people of one party or one income level; it asked people of both parties and
Independents and it asked people of different income level. This adds so much credible that this
survey wasnt biased.
I intend to use this source by showing Americans views on the influence of private money in US
politics. I also intent to use it by showing how Americans of different parties and income level
view people in the political process.

Edsall, Thomass (2015, September 16). Can anything be done about all the money in Politics?:
New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/opinion/can-anything-be-done-about-allthe-money-in-politics.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0


Descriptive Annotation:
This is a New York Times opinion piece by an OP-ED writer, Thomas B. Edsall. He offers a brief
history of money in US politics, dating from soft money to hard money and pre citizen united
era. Such a history helps me understand the influence money has had in US politics, because I
hadnt known about how much influence it had before the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens
United vs. FEC. He argued in his piece that money in being funneled around by Independent
committees (Superpacs), which has influence the politicians, all of which lacks accountability to
he people. Instead of this, he argued that money should be channeled to the both parties
committees, which will hold its member accountable, who will be accountable to the people.
Evaluative Annotation: This is a credible source because it is posted on the New York Times
page, one of the most respective newspaper company in the world. For an article to appear on a
website such as the New York Times, it needs to reach some high standards. Also, Edsall has
written numerous articles for the New York Times, ranging from American politics to inequality,
campaign strategic and demographics.
I intend to use this source by giving a general background about money in politics, from the soft
money era to the hard money era. Additionally, I hope to get my readers a better understanding
of the influence of private money in US politics, in regards to the Superpacs. More importantly, I
intend to speak on an alternative for campaign financing in US politics, so our political system
doesnt become corrupted to the point that a few, rich, and elite control the entire system and
marginalized the rest.

Younge, Gary (2012, January, 29). US elections: no matter who you vote for, money always
wins: theguardian. Retrived from
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politics-vote-money-wins
Descriptive Annotation: This article is about the fact that no matter how we vote, money will
always win. Our political system isnt much about debating now on political issues, but about
money, lots of money. It discussed how the Supreme Court ruling has open the gate for money in
US politics. To show such impact, the article took the case of the 2008 presidential election
where massive amount of money was spent, during which money raised a lot and came out
victorious. It also looked at the 2009 presidential election and how billions was poured into the
election.
Evaluative Annotation: This source is trustworthy because it is published by a respectful
newspaper organization: theguardian. It even indicted that it made a correction to the article; this
shows that they strive for truthfulness in their writing and reporting. Also, the article included
many sources that were easily accessible with a click. The sources backed up the claims made by
the author.

You might also like