Abbie Voorhies
Essay 2
Essay 2
There are three contemporary factors that continue to deprive the core principles of our democracy. The elections seem to be more about “winning the game” than the actual issues and ideals. Each factor plays a major influence on how the American politics are run today. There has been many Amendments that have been published to stop voter discrimination. A few are the fifteenth Amendment, in which it states, “Race no Bar to Vote. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridge by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (Janda). The Twenty-third Amendment gave “limited voting rights to the residents of Washington
…show more content…
Billions of dollars are spent each year in attempt to wow over the audience of America. The money flows through the “U.S. politics, Corporations, industry groups, union labors, and single issued organizations in which all work together to attempt the end goal of persuasion.
The precedent case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has resulted in fewer restrictions on campaign spending. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act regulates the “big money” campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). The act limits and restricts “electioneering communications” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). From the article read from Ozey it states, “Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Section 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). In the current case the District court held that The Movie was a representation on “express advocacy,” as it tried to persuade voters that Senator Clinton was not the right fit to run for office (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). The communication was not authorized nor supported Clinton. The problem with putting restriction on campaign spending is in some cases seem to get into the area of First Amendment in which the
Campaign Finance has developed numerous changes to our society today due to the many cases, and newborn restrictions in the past. Campaign Finance is a term that refers to the efforts to regulate political campaign in terms of funding. This funding is well identified as the spending to support political candidates and their chance campaigns. The support they receive helps them become a more promoted candidate as well as increasing their campaign. In the case Buckley v. Valeo (1976), James Buckley, a conservative New York senator felt that many new restrictions brought upon the Presidential campaign finance were unconstitutional. These restrictions involved new restrictions to federal funding, meaning that candidates were limited on what
From the early 1840s to the present day, a democracy can be described as a flawed establishment which has been shaped by the power of wealth and control, complex social relations, and most importantly the people’s desire to live a fulfilling life. Throughout this time period the principles of democracy, such as equality, protection of the people’s interest, and promotion of human rights were shifting in order to increase the democracy efficiency. Therefore the continued importance of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution remain significant since, in American today, democracy is a system that is continuously being shaped by the people within it.
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.
In this Supreme Court 5-4 decision, the Court states that the First Amendment protects corporate and union funding of independent political broadcasts in elections. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” Or as the Court says, the
The issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush’s response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that money is
The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".
There were several landmark supreme court cases and laws before Citizens United that attempted to regulate campaign contributions. Political corruption can easily be caused by increased amounts of funds going to a candidate. A candidate will be more likely to benefit corporate interests because that will allow them to get more money later to help in reelection efforts. This becomes problematic because average citizens do not have the ability to donate large sums of money to a candidate. This makes the speech of large corporations worth far more than the average citizen. This can have a drastic impact on the marketplace of ideas. John Stuart Mills in his book, On Liberty, creates the marketplace of ideas. This marketplace consists of all speech being able to have equal weight and face
One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that
No one knows how much of that money came from corporate treasures. The courts five to four decision said that is it OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The courts decision also stated that the first amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.
The main constitutional question within the case of Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 regarded whether sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act infringed upon the free speech clause granted to the people through the First Amendment. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) instituted in 2002 controlled how political campaigns could be financed. The act criminalized ads produced by corporations that expressly advocate for or against candidates within sixty days of general elections and thirty days of primary elections. A claim was made that in preventing funding of political campaigning by certain corporations, the government was essentially preventing them from demonstrating free political speech and breaching
In June of 1915, the United States is fighting World War One in Europe, while women, including Anna Howard Shaw, continue to fight for suffrage rights at home. As the war rages on, women commit to their suffrage movements by giving speeches and marching in parades. On June 21, Shaw persuasively speaks to the people of New York at an equal suffrage campaign as they prepare to vote on a law concerning women’s suffrage rights. She intends to give evidence to her listeners and persuade them to support the women of New York and eventually all of the women in America, to vote. Shaw uses “The Fundamental Principles of a Republic” to prove the true purpose of the women 's suffrage movement, expose the illogical arguments of her opposition, and to convince all of her listeners (the male voters of New York) to vote for women’s right to vote through logical and rational arguments.
The Supreme Court also sited in that same ruling that, “In a free society by our Constitution, it is not the government, but the people-individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees-who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign” (Keena 6). While it may be a violation of freedom of speech to limit television ads, many of today’s candidates have made a mockery of the existing legislature regarding campaign financing. Ex-president Bill Clinton bent the rules and laws more than possibly any elected official ever, and certainly farther than anyone since Richard Nixon. Thad Cochran, a veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, stated, “Clinton used his own party and had it operated out of the campaign office, which was the White House, to coordinate expenditures by the Democratic Party and his election campaign in an unlimited amount, using soft money to pay for the ads, with his own chief-of-staff making the decisions about the kind of advertising, and Clinton himself was involved in writing some of the ads that were actually run by the Democratic Party using soft money” (Williams 10). No elected official had ever gone so far as to run soft money ads out of his own office, let alone rewrite the ads himself. It is cases such as this one that are prime examples for why there is such a need for new laws to govern campaign financing.
The Supreme Court years ago defined monetary campaign contributions as a form of speech and allowed them to be limited because of fears that corporate money corrupts elections. (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) The ruling upheld limits on contributions to individual candidates and on contributions to multiple candidates by persons or groups.
We live in this country for the land, and the for the free as Americans we rely on many attributes in this world in order for us to live our lives. Our government has supplied us with many great things for us to be proud of. Our government is “the institutions and processes though which public policies are made for society.” (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry, p. 7). With all these institutions which includes the President, Congress, the courts and all the federal administrative agencies. These are the institutions that make up public policies for us, and to shape the way we live as Americans. The way this system has been operating through all the years has been
To combat too much political influence from advertising, the federal government passed a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) or as it’s more commonly known, the McCain-Feingold Act. The BCRA sought to expand disclosure on soft money and changed some limits on hard money. The key piece of this legislation is the electioneering communications statute, or section 203. This piece of BCRA was intended to limit the influence of PACs by restricting their ability to air advertisements right before elections. McCain-Feingold prevented corporations and PACs from showing political commercials sixty days before an election and thirty days before a primary (FEC BCRA 90).