501c 3 Essay

The public purse this has the potential to limit the likelihood of them feeling the need to accept “interested money” from donors who want to influence their policies, rhetoric or voting behavior in the legislature (“Parties and Candidates,” 2012). With public funding, the State can encourage or demand changes and use public funds to level the playing field and encourage (or force) political parties to undertake reforms, hold internal elections or field a certain number of women candidates, youth or persons from an ethnic minority on their ballots(“Parties and Candidates,”

Citizens United is an organization that wants to restore citizen control of the United States government. They want to restore the America back to a free nation that has a limited government. The way that they achieve this is to produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films. In 2009, Citizen United sued the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United stated that it was illegal to limit a corporation from spending its treasury money to support or attack candidates in presidential elections. This led to outside groups such as the Super PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money. Super PACs are an independent political action committee. They could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, and other individuals.

These types of ads, also known as attack ads, target the opponent's flaws and weakness in an unethical manner. As shown in Document D, negative ads only include the negative points about a candidate’s opponent. One example of this is in George Bush’s attack ad, “Tank Ride”. “[Michael Dukakis] has opposed virtually every defense system we developed...And now he wants to be our Commander-in-Chief. America can’t afford that risk.” While most people would think that these negatively-skewed ads would turn away voters, according to data, this has actually proved to be an extremely effective strategy. Although attack ads have proved their effectiveness, they are not particularly informative or even ethical, as they are disrespectful to the

What is Citizens United? While it is also a type of political action committee, it became part of a Supreme Court case in 2010, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United is a political action committee, a type of organization that donates contributions to campaign for or against candidates in the United States. Citizens United is a problem in United States politics because it allows giant corporations and millionaires to donate large sums of money to get their candidate elected. The Supreme Court made a decision about political spending that has ever since affected the business of politics in the United States (Levy).

He feels that disclosure laws keep people from participating in politics, and that in order to protect them 501c4s should be able to avoid disclosing who they get their financial backing from. Bopp started his political involvement in the 1970s with the Right to Life movement, where he discovered that campaign finance laws were apparently keeping conservative groups from spreading their messages. After this, Bopp continued to challenge over 150 campaign finance laws. In fact, according to Reclaim Democracy, Jim Bopp sued the Federal Election Commission to eliminate restrictions on “independent political spending” by corporations and unions in the Citizens United v FEC

Respondent voters filed a complaint to the petitioner, Federal Election Commision (FEC), alleging that AIPAC, an organization which lobbies elected officials, and provides information about federal officeholders and potential candidates, omitted registering as a political committee. The respondents requested that AIPAC make public disclosures regarding its membership, contributions, and expenditures, since such actions are required under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which defines a political committee as any organization or other group that receives contributions or makes expenditures to influence federal elections in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year (2 U.S.C. 431(4)(A)). Petitioner dismissed the respondent's request,

Hundreds of millions of dollars are raised and spent on elections every year in the United States of America. The 2012 election season is recorded to be the most expensive in history thus far. Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire that runs Las Vegas Sands (America’s largest casino company) reportedly contributed $150 million dollars to 2012 campaigns. According to Huffington Post, “He plans to double his political investments in 2016” (qtd in Mogulescu). Donors of campaign money play a huge part in presidential elections and where there is money being raised there is money being spent.

To begin, according to Kay J. Maxwell, the average citizen should have the same impacts and influences in the government as a corporation does. Today with more than 6 billion dollars spent on the presidential elections, where the money came from is of concern (Berr). Because of the Citizens United v. FEC supreme court case decision, corporations are considered to be people when it comes to political free speech (Mock). Since the court decision concluded that donating money to campaigns is a

The ruling does not encourage the majority of citizens, the middle and lower class, to become involved in politics. Once corporations can donate to their heart’s desires, regular citizens will not be the main focus of politicians. Such can be seen in the way congressional members call donors for hours in the Congressional Call Centers. Congressmen and women are not calling the average citizen, but rather they are calling people who can give them a large lump sum of money. During a talk, Senator Chris Murphy addresses money in politics, and he explains how awful the process of gathering re-election campaign finances is: “For a senate race I’m not calling anybody who doesn 't have the chance of giving me at least one thousand dollars… so you got to imagine that the people I 'm calling are the folk that are making a half million to a million dollars and they have fundamentally different problems than everyone else” (“Opening Address”). The Senator openly talks about how awful the fundraising processes in and how many members of congress walk away because of this. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case only increased the amount of time congressmen and women spend away from their duties as legislators and increases the time they are sitting in cubicles calling their donors.

The purpose of all ads, regardless of their content is to sell something to the reader. Whether it is a billboard for a Hollywood blockbuster, or an antismoking ad on the back of a buss, they both are meant to make the reader want to buy a product or an idea. In the cause of the billboard the product is a ticket to the movie, while the item being sold by the antismoking ad is the idea that smoking is unhealthy. Political ads are no different; they are also created to sell a product or an idea. Their product is the candidate they want to win, while the idea is that candidate is the right choice or his opponent is the wrong choice. This is most noticeable during

Citizens United is a conservative non-profit group that sought to challenge Michael Moore’s movie Ferienheit 9/11 through section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act. Citizens United called into question Moore’s movie citing the motive behind the film was to advocate the defeat of President Bush and that it was

Below is a tally of the money raised and spent through September by the presidential candidates, the national party committees and the primary “super PACs” whose sole purpose is to support a candidate. Contribution and spending totals do not include money raised or held by each candidate’s “victory fund,” a joint fund-raising committee that will distribute funds to the campaigns and party committees. In addition to these committees, nonprofit groups that do not have to file with the Federal Election Commission and other super PACs have spent at least $65 million more on television advertising, almost all of it against President Obama or in support of Mitt

In the article “What Strategies Promote Fair Political Campaigns?” from the book Political Campaigns, Darrell M. West, a correspondent from CNN, states that when negative attack ads are deceptive, they undermine the political process. West acknowledges that attack ads that focus on the issues are appropriate and inevitable. Though, West adds that misleading ads that twist the truth, lie about candidates, or take statements out of context, threaten the electoral system. “ Attack ads . . . have twisted the truth, lied about personal background, taken statements out of context, and clearly sought out to manipulate voter sentiments,” says West. Numerous arguments exist if attack ads should be commonplace in the political process.

candidate in that district. Feeling that they can not steal the seat from the other party, the

It is that time again were the people of America buckle down and prepare for the upcoming elections, which are not till next year. Every fourth year Americans can expect months and in some politicians cases a year or two of campaigning. This has aided to the negative response regarding the elections. With the campaigns well in full blast for the 2016 elections, most are already annoyed with all the slandering from the opponents. Soon enough while people are attempting to enjoy evening television the regular commercials will be replaced with political propaganda. Instead of “Flo” trying to convince the audience to try Progressive’s “Name Your Price Tool” some soft spoken, innocent sounding woman will mention all the evils that a certain candidate has committed. Not only are these commercials annoying and help to create a negative connotation for the campaigning time, but give the people a false interpretation of different candidates. Most of these are not paid for by the prospective candidates but rather Super PACs that support the candidate “without other motives.”