Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social inequality in the united states
Social inequality usa
Social inequality in the community of USA
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social inequality in the united states
While an imbalance has always been prevalent in the classes of American society, recent decisions in the Supreme Court favoring less campaign finance control have disregarded the growing gap between the upper echelon and the lower class. The U.S. Supreme Court has fully given way to elitist rule, allowing the wealthy to wield their natural tenacities to grow dollar bills from rocks and plant them kindly into the pockets of political candidates that would support their hidden agendas of clandestine rule and continued hegemonification of the lower class. As recent as April 2, 2014 in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme court released the contribution limits placed on the wealthy under the pretense of free speech as provided by the first amendment. In order to prevent further dissemination to the balance of equality amongst the classes within the United States, it is imperative for Congress to start the implementation of a detailed Constitutional Amendment defining strict regulations regarding funding towards political campaigns, as well as a clear definition to the inherent differences between an individual and a corporate entity or “faction.” Reformation on the funding of political campaigns has been an ongoing battle between trying to create an equal and democratic balance of representation for the people and the rich and powerful who have succeeded in using the media to control those people. With The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972 and the establishment of the Federal Election Commission in 1975, steps were taken to hold the wealthy and public officials accountable for corruption and to try and prevent it. Though the act could be viewed as a positive sign of peaceful evolution in the direction o... ... middle of paper ... ...4. Gilpatrick, Breanne. “Removing Corporate Campaign Finance Restrictions in Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. CT. 876 (2010).” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34.1 (2011): 405-420. Legal Collection. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1980. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. 572 U.S. ___ (2014). U.S. Supreme Court. 2014. . 1-43. Print. Orelus, Pierre W. Rethinking Race, Class, Language, and Gender: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky and Other Leading Scholars. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Ebook Library. Web. 05 Apr. 2014. Smith, Bradley. “The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform.” National Affairs. Issue 2 (2010): 9 pp. 30 March 2014 < http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-myth-of- campaign-finance-reform>.
Introduction In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in.elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape. Campaign Finance in the United States During the Gilded Age—a period that began in the 1870s wherein the United States experienced tremendous economic growth—affluent industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie exercised, owing in large part to their wealth, enormous influence over the direction of American politics. Though left unaddressed during the Gilded Age, the issue of corporate involvement in political affairs was eventually identified as a corrosive problem in President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address.
in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to
The 22nd Amendment is to prevent the United States of America from turning into a dictatorship by cutting down the terms you can serve to two four year terms and to limit the power one person can receive. The 22nd is an amendment that protects not only the U.S. but the people that reside there as well. It’s the story of how the constitution had no term limit for the president to run for to how it came to be two term set by the example of the first president.
“In a meaningful democracy, the people’s voice must be clear and loud – clear so that policy makers understand citizen concerns and loud so that they have an incentive to pay attention. (Verba)” There is no doubt there exists a severe inequality in the participation of the American political process. Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba and Henry Brady, a trio of university professors, set out to explain that it is not about how many people participate in our democratic process, it is about who is taking part. In the article: “The Big Tilt: Participatory Inequality in America,” published in the liberal non-profit magazine The American Prospect, the authors conclude that political participation is not equal amongst the social and economical classes in America. Verba, Schlozman and Brady begin building credibility by referencing their own book while also citing
Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing
Sayers, Anthony M., and Lisa Young. "Election Campaign and Party Financing in Canada." Australian Democratic Audit. Canberra: Australian National University (2004).
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
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.
The Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This timeless phrase, the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution, is an enduring example of the principles and ideals that our country was founded on. With this statement, the founders of this country explicitly and perpetually guaranteed the American individual the right to keep and bear arms. An incomparably crucial element of this country‘s origins, the Second Amendment and the rights it guarantees have proved vital to the growth and success of our nation. The Second Amendment has often been the subject of debate, and over the years varying speculations and interpretations of its intended meaning have forced this significant phrase into a controversial spotlight.
The United States constitution has an amendment process that has been included in the Bill of Rights. The amendment allows Americans to make changes on the September 17, 1789 United States Constitution was ratified and made law. The amendment of the Bill of rights has made America to continue growing in prosperity through the years and to become one of the most powerful nations in the world. The United States constitution was created with an amendment in Article V. This amendment process allows the constitution to adapt to the changes in the American society. The amendment process has made it possible for the constitution to change moderately, than being overhauled, and it has been changed to adhere to the current times and changes.
People always tell you that there are two subjects never to bring up at a dinner party, one is religion and the other is politics. Why is that? It is because both subjects invoke very strong emotions. Rather than saying something inappropriate, most people avoid talking about religion altogether. But get those same people in a room and ask their political opinions, that is a different story. For many reasons, people are vocal about their political beliefs (Bentz, 2013). Unfortunately, individuals will judge people by their political beliefs first, without notice to other important aspects of their lives. And that is the reason that politics is not brought up in dinner parties.
At first when seeing Electoral College in high school, I thought it was a place that you go to school. Silly me, I didn’t know anything about the government and how it was ran or what makes up the government. I really didn’t start learning about the government until the 10th grade, when I took American Government with Mr. Evans. If he never did anything else, he made sure that we knew about the government and how and why it was ran the way it was ran.
Consider the candidates. Bill and Hillary Clinton have made $141 million over the past 8 years and have paid $43 million in taxes. Jeb Bush has already received $103 billion for his campaign. The election system has destroyed the playing field for almost every ordinary citizen. Contrary to the contemporary view of politics as a rat’s nest of paltry swindling, Niccolò Machiavelli, the fifteenth-century courtier and political theorist, rates it as the most worthy of human endeavors when supported by a citizenry possessed of the will to act rather than the wish to be cared for.
The Constitution is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as “the basic written set of principles and precedents of federal government in the US, which came into operation in 1789 and has since has been modified by twenty-seven amendments”. The Constitution was originally drafted in Philadelphia in 1787, a year later it was ratified, and in 1789 was put into working order and referred to as the new government. However some states did not conform as quickly and felt there was a “lack of specific guarantees of personal liberty” (Silberdick Feinberg, 2015). To address these concerns government representatives from state and federal legislature met to develop better transparency on the limitations of federal government and protection
Over the past few years, a number of occurrences have displayed the growing economic and political inequality of the United States. The currently dissipated Occupy Movement did draw the general public’s attention to the ridiculous strides made by the rich, whose incomes have skyrocketed within the past four decades. Those pertaining to the middle-income and poor have sadly had their incomes stagnate. According to Caroline Fairchild from the Huffington Post the middle class incomes steadily is on the decline. In 1968 the middle class earned about 53.2 percent of national income in 1968. This number has now fallen to 45.7 percent. Super PACs became a concern as more individual donors willingly wrote up enormous checks to support their particular candidates. As a result, this gave prominence to the growing political inequality, as well as highlighting the rich’s ability to have their words have much more weight over the average citizen in America.