PHI WEEK 3 ASSIGNEMNT

.docx

School

University Of Arizona *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

300

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

9

Uploaded by destinymarie6472

ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES 1 WEEK 3 ASSIGNEMNT Destiny Newberry PHI:103 INFORMAL LOGIC Brian Onishi 08/19/2022
2 INTRODUCTION Wealthy individuals or entities deliver anonymous campaign contributions to provide funding for political campaigns. The benefits of those contributions are highly controversial whether they benefit the general public or not. Campaign donations distributed anonymously have created a few serious outcomes in American politics that need to be brought to light. These anonymous campaign contributions have become the center focal point in recent Presidential Elections. Campaign contributions delivered anonymously can be argued "for" and "against" because of the controversy they bring. Understanding both sides of anonymous campaign contributions and their effects and benefits for the wealthy will be the focus of this paper. The question surrounding anonymous campaign contributions' use or lack thereof for rich people will be discussed, as well as an evaluation of both sides of the argument to ensure a deeper understanding of the topic. The argument that Wealthy People are Given an Advantage Premise 1: Anonymous campaign contributions are not anonymous to the political campaigner and the donor, only unknown to the public. Premise 2: Anonymity in campaign contributions allows politicians to work secretly for their donors to ensure the donations continue to be paid out. Premise 3: Large anonymous campaign contributions are not easily affordable to the public and only the wealthy. Conclusion: Anonymity from the public allows politicians to be influenced by wealthy campaign donors, giving the rich an unfair advantage in the political
3 space. Support for the Argument In a research paper written by a Professor at Yale Law School (Ayres, 2001), a discussion about the effects of Mandated disclosure or anonymity in Campaign Finance. Ayres explores the outcomes of mandated disclosure and mandated anonymity outcomes in state trials. Required disclosure and mandated anonymity in campaign finance prove to have contrasting effects through the various developments in state trials of different disclosure laws. Campaign contributions have been proven to lead to corruption in the political space (Ayres, 2001). In recent examples, Ride-share companies could buy a California law with the only barrier to entry being funds to launch that campaign. Ayres outlines an incredible way to mitigate influence from wealthy donors by placing funds in a blind trust. The blind trust would prevent the politician from knowing exactly who is donating to their campaign, leading to less influence from these wealthy donors in the political space. Wealthy contributors are also afforded valuable face time with politicians that directly affect the most affluent pockets only because of their contributions to their campaign (Ayres, 2001). Placing a mandate on campaign contributions to be paid through a blind trust and limiting the donor information to politicians could positively affect the influence the wealthiest pockets have in government. Presentation of an Opposing Argument An argument in defense of Political Anonymity highlights an opposite conclusion to the first argument. In defense of anonymous campaign donors, the article argues that the 'forced disclosure" of campaign contributions has led to harassment of donors to a particular political party (Smith, 2010). Premise 1: The Federal Election Campaign Act requires campaigns,
4 political parties, and certain citizen groups to disclose donor information. Premise 2: This requirement has led to the potential harassment of campaign contributors because of how easy it is to find information on donors. Premise 3: Forced disclosure of campaign contributions has led to "government enabled" invasions of privacy (Smith, 2001). Premise 4: The Federal Election Campaign act gave logging and disclosing campaign donations a uniform standard that has been contested as a violation of First Amendment Free Speech and anonymity. Premise 5: Revealing political activity is justified by "the public's right to know," but it is not, in fact, a public right; therefore, they should not know. Conclusion: Political anonymity should be preserved for the safety of the political contributors to ensure an actual First Amendment: Freedom of Speech Analysis of the Arguments The first argument and opposing arguments for anonymous campaign contributions both hold valuable viewpoints towards the discussion. In the "for" statement, I find that it speaks more on mitigating the damage that comes from anonymous campaign contributions. The "for" argument uses facts to present a potentially new way to contribute to campaigns, and I did not find any fallacies within the discussion. The premises of the debate are valid and lead to the conclusion efficiently. This argument could use more proof of the public's adverse effects due to wealthy donors in the political space to ensure a proper and fuller understanding of the necessity for true anonymity. The opposing argument uses an appeal to emotion fallacy because it is strictly conjecture. The idea states that anonymous campaign contributions should remain unknown to the public because of First Amendment rights but does not speak of solutions to prevent the wealthy's effect with
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help