Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

PACs In 2010, the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case resulted in interest groups being largely unregulated in the way they could raise and spend money to advocate or oppose federal candidates. Super PACs were legitimized by the FEC in the aftermath of the Citizens United ruling (Franz, 2014). The role played by Super PACs and interest groups since 2010 has excedded anything observed in previous elections. The Citizens United case revolved around a 2008 documentry produced

political career. Although faith and family have ultimately come first in my life, my utmost desire to maintain the principles that this country was bravely founded upon has been a key motivator in my career. Therefore, I used this devotion throughout my election for

ignorance, it is natural to not know information once a person is born; this is sometime referred to as the age of innocence.  Ignorance becomes unacceptable through education; if a student does not know, a student does not pass.  Being a well-informed citizen in a complex society can be overwhelming with today's stifled and persuasive media, yet there is no report card to fail adults, often no penalty to pay and seemingly no consequences for being ignorant as an adult.  There is a large amount of power

making them grow. Speaking of democracy, we Americans think that we have the greatest democracy in the world. I think what we have is plutocracy, a political system influenced and run by wealthy in-dividuals and corporations. By its decision on Citizens United v.

In the United States, elections can be the deciding factor in ones political career. In recent times, congressional elections have not only become increasingly important, but also more expensive. The expense is often considered a result of modern times, however it results in many people being unable to run for a political position. This begs the question of who might be running for a political position if the price wasn 't so high, would it be a more common person who relates more to the people.

campaign costs millions of dollars to ”[remind citizens] of their ultimate power—the vote [which is involved in campaigns]” (USHISTORY.ORG, 2016). Financial donations cause the “cost of American campaigns to increase [and has had] an important implication for strategy ” (Sides, et al, 2015, p. 83). The monetary aspects of financing campaigns have impacted the decisions of political candidates, and the representation of the people as a whole. The United States is heading in the wrong direction when

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA

The United States government today is ran by the rich and powerful because of the most influential item in the world, money. Politicians and Presidential candidates today are receiving donations in the millions of dollars from huge corporations and Super pacs. The problem with this is that politicians or presidents will change their vote on a topic because of the donations and the solution is to eliminate or decrease the amount super pacs or people can donate. One of the problems is the donations

Florida v. Harris 568 U.S. 2012 (2013) Procedural History: The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable

So now we have the churches in partnership with the government so they can receive 501(c)(3) status and govt. control. The govt. dictates the requirements for the exempt status and thereby endorses those religions, breaking down the wall between church and state. The govt. dictates to small businesses that they have to do business with customers, even if in conflict with their conscience or religious beliefs, ignoring the civil rights of the business owner. Are the businesses that refuse service