More handpicked essays just for you.
Does the business have any social responsibility (over and above turning a profit) and if it does what should such a responsibility amount to
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I believe money should not be considered free speech or opinion. Money should not be considered free speech, because giving a politician money is not expressing any type of opinion. If a politician needs to be convinced of something to benefit a company than arrange for a meeting and try to convince him or her with reason, and if you still don't get his or her vote then, most likely, you don't deserve it. Bribing politicians ruins the entire purpose of having regulations for companies. Although regulations protect Americans and make company's products better, it isn't cost effective to make products, and if bribery were not allowed then many companies would need to change how they work and many will no longer survive. Without laws prohibiting
No assets of the Company may be used to bribe or influence any decision by and official, person or entity.
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to
Bribery has always been a controversial issue, especially in the business world. Many argue that bribes are a necessary cost of doing business while others view them with distain, claiming that they are antiquated and create an unfair advantage. In the late 90’s, the problem reached a boiling point. Although laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act made bribery illegal in the United States, it still remained an international issue. Numerous skeptics claimed that violators of the act slipped through loopholes and that the law was not properly enforced. This law only applied to the United States, but bribery had become a worldwide concern. In 1998, the International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act was enacted. The Act became law on November 10, 1998, however; it did not take effect until May 1, 1999.
Though campaign finance laws deal primarily with limitations on money expenditures, campaign finance is dealt with as a first amendment issue. Though it was argued in Buckley v. Valeo (which will be discussed in detail later on) that campaign donations should be considered conduct, comparable to burning a draft card, rather than speech. The Court claimed, however, that spending money makes communication possible. Often, this communication involves speech alone, not conduct. Furthermore, the Court recognized that virtually every means of communicating ideas requires money, pointing to several examples, such as the pr...
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
December of 2010, in a five to four vote, it was decided that corporate funding of independants in in elections was protected under the first Amendment. This opened the floodgate for the 2012 elections as the candidates took to many platforms to raise money for their campaigns. Mitt Romney along with the help of Spencer Zwick raised 6.5 million dollars simply through a call-a-thon. The secret weapon in this call-a-thon was a program called ComMITT. This program allowed the user to solicit donations from contacts in their email, and online social networking sites. Any donation made fed directly back into the campaign, giving a real-time tally of pledges. With all of this information, one can make a decision for or against campaign finance contributions. Personally, I have conflicting feelings about limitations on campaign finance. I feel as though there should not be a limit for campaign finance contributions, but there should be more qualifications for becoming president. I do not believe there should be a limit on campaign finance because technically it is covered under freedom of speech. It is covered under freedom of speech. This is because giving money is showing
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
Two ideas that were similar and that were shared by the sources are that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Source #3 and source #4 explain how they would harm innocent people and would accomplish nothing positive. Source #3 proves that it is good for us to have freedom to say what we want but that there should also be limits to what we have the right to say. Source #3 states, “ The First Amendment to the United States Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech. But what if a person were to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater when there was no fire at all ? The decision to do such a thing would put innocent people in a harm’s way while accomplishing nothing positive.” What is stated above shows that it would harm people by them assuming there is really fire and panic when there actually isn’t anything. Source #4 explains how all our freedoms are important and how we can hurt
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a protesting march Johnson burned an American flag. The research for this paper will allow the reader to examine some of the different ways that free speech can be expressed, to what extent it may or may not be expressed and possibly where free speech may or may not be prohibited.
What if people were punished, put in jail, or even killed, just for expressing their opinions?
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
One of the many perks of having a lot of money is being able to donate to political campaigns and/or politicians, most of the time they are in a position to make a policy or law. This can get them laws and bills passed to be in favor of them or their businesses. For example the top 1% was responsible for a quarter of all political donations in 2010, and in turn for all of that generosity they are essentially buying special favors. The wealthy business companies also send a lobbyist over to Washington to lobby or sway lawmakers in Washington to pass certain laws that could help their company make the most money possible. They would have more Factor X than the normal person or even business owner, who otherwise wouldn’t be able to affect the world in such a way or laws for that
Topic: Do you believe that free speech as proscribed under the first amendment of the constitution should be limited?