How Americans Influence Politics

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

FEC) limiting campaign spending on the basis that PACs (generated by corporations) where in fact individuals in their own right. As such, all individuals/citizens of the US have a right to spend their money as they see fit, whether that is making a political speech by funding certain campaigns. Therefore, forbidding corporate spending on elections is a clear limitation on freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some argue that not limiting the amount of money into politics will inevitably lead to corruption. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not built to protect man against himself but against, the government he created. This topic also brings to light the dilemma over what we, (the people and government), consider a citizen. Webster’s dictionary defines determines that the legal definition of a citizen is “1: a native or naturalized individual who owes allegiance to a government (as of a state or nation) and is entitled to the enjoyment of governmental protection and to the exercise of civil rights” and “2: a resident of a town or state who is also a U.S. native or was naturalized in the U.S.” Based on what a corporation is in that definition; a corporation does appear to meet all the requirements: it is considered an entity in itself that can indeed be based in the US, but does it pledge an alliance to our government? Can a corporation

Corporations make America the money-hungry place that is critiqued worldwide. Without the major corporations we see today, like Walmart, Target, and Mcdonald’s, 27 million people would be unemployed and they are very well aware of that (Zillman, Claire). If these giants embody what is wrong in America, why should they have the right to contribute to the candidate they want to help elect? The CEOs of these companies have personal interests they want to protect. These individuals have earned money on the backs of the 27 million people, we should be protecting Main Street, not Wall Street. The Federal Election Commission should reserve the right to limit and close the checkbooks of the people that believe they can buy anything they wish.

Huey Long never received credit for the government reforms that resulted from his “Share Our Wealth” movement. [4] Although he persisted in trying to end the failing economy, The Great Depression continued for six years after Long’s death. Many of today’s federal programs include ideas brought to light by Long. These include social security, veterans’ benefits, financial aid for colleges and schooling, labor rights, minimum wage and 40-hour work week standards, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps

In 2011, two sociologists named Erik Olin Wright and Joel Rogers identified five core American values: freedom, prosperity, efficiency, fairness, and democracy (Wright and Rogers). America’s numerous ideals inevitably cause these values to come into conflict each other. Such conflict characterizes the debate over the implications of modern campaign finance laws in America. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United v. FEC in 2010 undid former restrictions placed on how money can be spent on federal political campaigns. Prior restrictions like the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its amendments in 1974, placed limitations on political donations by Political Action Committees (PACs), political parties, and even individuals. Originally these restrictions were put in place to deter corruption that could undermine the democracy inherent in US values and elections. The Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 revolutionized the scene by declaring that independent expenditures are protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. They further asserted that for all intents and purposes corporations are legally viewed synonymous with people in terms of political spending. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized equality and freedom, but at what cost? Critics, like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, suggest at the cost of democracy, and ultimately corporate interests diminishing freedom in the long run. As a result of this case, more money is now

The topic of discussion on June 23 was whether or not the politics in America is successful. In addition, the central focus on that day was whether or not politics was completely broken. All in all, politics as a whole, matters; not voting in politics is a choice but voting matters in the long run.

It is difficult to be a politician in the United States today without accepting money from corporate interest. Democrats and Republicans accept money from groups like wall street, lobbyists, giant corporation, and the oil industry. These two parties claim that this money doesn't affect their policies or votes. A group named Wolf Pac was formed by citizens that believe this type of exchange is considered legal bribery. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) On January 21st, 2010 the United States supreme court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC authorized this type of exchange. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) Therefore, both parties can accept unregulated money and support from huge corporations and special interest in the form of Super Pacs. The CEO’s of these corporations that donate to candidates believe their corporations are individuals, and the money they donate is their freedom of speech.

When America began the social culture was founded on morals based on the Christian religion. Women stayed home, men worked, and African Americans were enslaved. Therefore, when America’s constitution and political structure were designed it was based off that typical idea. Women did not have the right to vote, slaves were ⅗ of a person and white-men had all the power. Social cultures in a country are a direct reflection to what the government is designed like. Hence, why I have come to the conclusion that cultural explanations have more persuasive impact on politics than economic or institutional explanations.

In a country where democracy is at the heart of all citizens, these citizens need to have a stronger voice when it comes to elections. This is why the implementation of an amendment that reforms the financing of campaigns is disputed greatly among scholars and political officials alike. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are entitled to first amendment rights, but the basis of this ruling is unclear. Unfortunately the overturning of such a ruling would not even guarantee a restored democracy to American elections. Some professionals see corporations and hefty donating figures as an essential part of the election process, while others believe the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee has taking many of the rights that the

Sadly, majority of Americans do not follow politics and who is running for presidency. Americans have become too comfortable with thinking that the world will become great on its own and that they are not needed in helping to extend life on Earth. Other democracies have higher turnouts because their voting days are generally held on weekends and the area expresses the concerns for voting. The problem is cultural and institutional. Culturally because Americans are greatly influenced by their peers and if their peers show a small interest in voting so, will they. An example is a parent that does not vote as they hold no interest; therefore, their child once reaching 18 will not want to do the same. Intuitionally because rules and laws are better

If I had five minutes to speak with the President, I would speak to him about the current national policy on voting. Our country runs on a system of representative democracy; the country votes for who they wish to represent their interests. However, some demographics are far more likely to vote in all kinds of elections. This is due to many different factors, but a large cause of this is voter suppression. This is when, typically state, government puts in certain rules and regulations that make it difficult for certain kinds of demographics to vote. One of the largest contributents to voter suppression of the lower class is photo ID laws. I would suggest the President implement a policy that states that no voting laws can be passed to inhibit a person's ability

Government is universal. It is the air we breathe, the food we eat, the places we venture. Wherever we seek, it's always there, watching us, and waiting for our next move. Moreover, it affects what kind of health care my family gets, how much they get paid at their jobs, and if they can even afford the most simple commodities. If the government were to take a deep breath and submerge into the dark, murky water, essentially disappearing into the night, the consequences would be tremendous. The first day would be strange; waking up with no taxes, no rules, no care in the world. And it would be a glorious day at that. But as the days drone on, people start to realize that there's no structure in their lives. No mother figure to encourage you into trying something new, or a firm and supporting hand from a watchful father. Furthermore, our institutions would crumple, monarchies and dictatorships would rise, eventually shrouding our small world into darkness. Government is a light, though harsh at times, that guides us through life with measures in place to keep us in check.

Corporations rely upon the interest groups to sway the laws of the land in their favor. This can only be done by shaking hands and greasing palms of those on capitol hill. This means that it is very important that their interest and their wealth be protected. It is equally important for political figures to maintain political power and stay in office. Conversely, the wealthy will do all that they can to acquire and maintain their wealth. To that end, the wealthy tend to be intimately involved in the political process. Therefore, the wealthy often will donate to candidates or parties that support the same their interest. Views of the less fortunate and low income often conflict with the upper class. Likewise, the two groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to political views. This causes a wide disparity in political views. An example of this are the markedly different opinions on the black lives matter movement. Supporters of the black lives matter movement typically are lower income and because of this their views are often underrepresented and lack the political strategy due to lack of funding. Therefore, a potential candidate who is a strong supporter of the movement would have a lesser chance than a candidate who strongly focuses on agendas that support big business. Ultimately, candidates who support the views of the upper class have a larger advantage because they receive more

Since the beginning of American history, those who are wealthy with, who have connections, and who are privileged, have the most control/influence over who gets elected into office. These people are the business owing, monopoly owning, type of people. These are the people who have thousands even millions to put into an election, in order to help candidates gain popularity points. No, this is not fair because not everybody has thousands or millions to waste on an election, but that is they things go. The way that we can unite, and come together as citizens is to go against these big businesses and business men.

As indicated in Figure 1, there has been a strong increase in ‘swing’ voters in UK general elections, particularly since 2001. When considered in the context of valence issues, this could suggest that since an increasing number of voters are likely to choose a different party from one election to another, it is possible that an increasing number of voters are likely to be influenced by the valence model of voting, that is, considering the competency of the different parties on the issues that are important to them. This would then imply that issues are having an increasingly large amount of influence on the way people vote, possibly to the extent that they have become more influential than social class.