Howard Zinn Argumentative Analysis

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

The demons of a misinterpreted judicial review have corrupted the legislature, the courts, and our political process. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional. The landmark Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision ruled that political spending is a form of free speech and corporations have license to contribute exorbitant amounts to politicians. Citizens United ensures denies the voices of citizens as representatives are beholden to outside interests rather than their constituency. I, Justice John B. Gibson, hold that the power of judicial review is too widely interpreted and, to keep government officials accountable, must be vested in the masses to rediscover some twinge of our once budding representative democracy.

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

“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.

During local, state, or federal election there is a limited amount of time and information that a voter has to help him/her decide for which candidate he or she wants to vote. Before the ruling in Citizens United v FEC, private donations from voters were needed to provide candidates with financial means to create commercials, billboards, etc. In turn, this gave the voters a voice in who is to lead their government. Corporations were limited in the amount they could provide to their candidate of choice. After the ruling, corporations can now match every private donation and contribute an unlimited amount on top of that in order to support their candidate. This creates a problem because a corporation can potentially suffocate voters with campaign ads without the other candidates' ads being heard. Therefore creating an uneven debate and platform for Democracy to work.

In the first five chapters of Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States, Zinn provides an overview of American History by providing examples and detailed accounts of Columbus’s arrival, the experience of the Native Americans after European arrival, slavery, the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the invisibility of women through early American history. In writing this book, Zinn’s purpose was to write more than another history book, just listing events and giving the traditional point of view, but to provide a balanced viewpoint. Zinn believes that, “The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks)-the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress…[is an

One of the most well known parts of American history is how Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean in 1492 and evidently discovered the Americas. Where some historians view Christopher Columbus as a heroic adventurer who forever changed history, some view Christopher Columbus as a conqueror who was responsible for one of the world’s worst genocides. These two theories help prove that in history historians tend to use subjective history. Subjective history is w hen history is shown from an opinionated or emotional stand point rather than what actually occurred. Additionally subjective history is something all historians use to some degree considering it’s nearly impossible to record history with hundred percent accuracy. One example of subjective

The case “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” was to regulate the spendings of candidates campaign, but it failed to succeed. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Bentley, 2017) The case was ruled in favor of big business donating private funds to campaigns. They argued because the first amendment protects the right to speak of many corporations and unions, whether or not people see them as human, therefore the are aloud to donate money to a candidate. (Bentley, 2017) In the academic journal written by Bentley, he States the Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued, " although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis." This meaning the government cannot enforce spending limits on private donors due to the government not being able to identify the big businesses as "corrupted". Since the government cannot label an organization as corrupt or unjust, therefore the donor can continue to assist the candidate. The main problem is the United States of America seems to avoid this. There is a clear problem with Citizens United being able to continue donating money to candidates without giving them so much power. This can be stopped through a constitutional amendment to strip away the corporations of their rights. (Bentley, 2017) By doing this, there will be a very successful campaign for future candidates due to there being an equal amount of money being distributed to them

Since the era of Watergate, limits to monetary contributions to campaigns have yielded a debate regarding the degradation of First Amendment rights and the fight against corrupt politics. Many of the most significant Supreme Court cases of the twenty first century such as, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, have dealt with the controversial topic of campaign finance reform and citizens’ most basic freedoms (Federal Election Commission 2015). Landmark cases regarding campaign finance reform and implications on First Amendment rights have become a controversial issue in American politics that will continue to have a vast impact on monetary

Eliminating this restriction meant that corporations could now reach the electorate during a crucial time; the days in which most people talked about elections and seriously considered candidates. It is no secret that candidates do fundraisers because money buys television and radio airtime, billboards along the highways and Internet advertisements among other means to reach voters. Also, the lay person is usually not fully informed of all the goals and plans of presidential or nomination candidates. In this fast paced economy lay people are more concerned about daily errands and responsibilities than doing independent research about candidates. Most of people’s knowledge about candidates comes from television and radio broadcasts as well as the Internet. Further, as with any other major event in the United States, many people follow developments in the election trail more closely toward the end of it. Therefore, even if the Supreme Court did not technically allow the wealthy to spend more money on elections, it certainly created an incentive to do so. This incentive is the opportunity to reach the electorate during a time in which they pay more attention to radio, television and Internet election

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

Perfectly summarized in one sentence, the words “And in a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners” uttered by Howard Zinn in the first chapter of A People’s History of the United States demonstrate the influence of voice in not only America but in society as well. In unity there is strength, a well-known proverb states, and there is one constant among famous quotes in that they can be applied to almost any situation, event, or idea, for that they are always true. This particular idea should not be excluded from that notion, considering Zinn’s quote is muchly similar to the proverb’s main idea, only worded differently. His

Within the pro-choice world there are many issues that are discussed like abortion, the instant where life begins and the use of contraceptives. This article will focus on not only the issue of using of contraceptives, but specifically the distribution of oral contraceptives (“the pill”) to teenage girls without their parent’s consent.

With this most recent party alignment we are experiencing, political institutions and agencies are having a more difficult time to addressing campaign finance regulations; thus, exposing loopholes and flaws in the system. Some of these lawsuits have been brought to the courts to dispute campaign regulations on a basis of constitutionality, such as infringing on 1st and 14th Amendment rights. This unfortunately allows the Supreme Court and its jurisprudence to try and make decisions based on their own interpretations regarding campaign finance.

Waite and Gallagher also discuss the benefits that marriage gives to couples. Including the financial benefits, in that through specialization and by sharing incomes getting married boosts standard of living by thirty percent and this benefit is not incurred by cohabitating, as those who cohabitate do not share as much and are less committed to the wellbeing of their partner. In addition to the financial benefits, they also discuss the emotional benefits of knowing you have someone who loves you and who would take care of you. Children similarly benefit from having married parents as there are more financial resources available to help take care of them and they get to spend more time with at least one parent.