More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversies of the first amendment
Controversies of the first amendment
The importance of the 1st amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversies of the first amendment
Critics indicate that Super PACs have the influence to buy elections and override the average voter’s opinions in a participatory democracy. In the same context, they will also argue that the wealthy minority of donors to a Super PAC dictate over the views of the majority, which will eventually lead to corrupt politics and diminish democracy in the process. Many will argue in justification of Super PACs, asserting they are perfectly democratic under the Constitution’s First Amendment. An example of one of these arguments is made by a Joel M. Gora, a political professor at the Brooklyn Law School (Gora, 2013). Gora’s article is primarily a defense of Super PACs and of the First Amendment principles and imperatives they embody and reflect. In
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 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.
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
It’s hard to imagine a period in American political history that hasn’t been dominated by a duopoly of political parties. Even though resistance from the founding fathers on the issue of political parties is well documented, the two-party system we are well accustomed to developed shortly after the emergence of the United States as an independent nation. Whether it was the Federalist/Democratic-Republican system in the late 18th and early 19th centuries or the Democratic/Republican system we know today, two ideologically opposite parties have always maintained dominant control of the American political system. The existence of third parties and independent candidates, therefore, complicates the political system that we have used for centuries. Steven Rosenstone contends that the existence of our current two-party system is due, in part, to the ability of the two major parties to provide benefits in exchange for voter support. What then occurs when either of the major parties fails in its responsibility to be accountable to the public? While several options exist, including the demand for change within major parties, third parties and independent candidates become a viable option to restore a sense of accountability among American politicians. Even though third parties and independent candidates might seem attractive to voters, they often are unable to find success in any major elections. This lack of success can be attributed to many different factors, including constitutional and electoral barriers, as well as deficiencies born from the general lack of knowledge about third parties. Why then do third parties and independent candidates continue to exist in American politics? The ability of a third party to influence the policy p...
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.
By establishing this relationship, the interest groups are indirectly helping the executive agencies get their funds and the interest groups gains favorable regulations and contracts from these agencies in exchange. (429) Although some critics argue that interest groups can result to Corruption such as the case with Jack Abramoff (438), Demosclerosis that slows down government functions (439), and Inequality by tilting democracy to the wealthy and powerful since they are the ones who can afford lobbying services (440), I believe that Interest groups are good for democracy. We define democracy as a government in which the people rule and make decisions for themselves, and through interest groups the people are given the chance to be better represented and become actively involve in decision-making. Interest groups represent the people specially the minority, arguably expand the range of perspectives that government officials hear, facilitate a two-way communication between the people and the government by conveying citizen views to government officials and providing information about government activities to the people, encourage
Congress ratified several pieces of legislation in the years following to limit the contribution of individual donors, whether they are PACs or individuals. Unfortunately, groups found ways to circumvent these statutes, ushering in the era of Super PACs. Prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United, the FEC permitted PACs to donate up to $2,500 for a given election. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that PACs can spend an unlimited amount of money on a candidate’s campaign so long as no collusion between the PAC and the candidate occurs. The implications of this decision include the following: corporations and labor unions can endorse any candidate without a spending limit and apply for tax-exempt status, individual contributions to campaigns will most likely constitute a much smaller portion of the total campaign funds, and that money will drive campaign
During the 2004 election for the North Carolina Fifth District, a politician had earned the support of an influential lobbyist. Jay Helvey appealed to the conservative heart, concerned soul, and the empty wallet of North Carolinians. Due to the entrancing values held by this man, he was able to sway the support of a powerful campaign official. His influence over my life during the following months was profound to the point of causing me to speak out. However, contrary my political beliefs may be to some in this country, these ideas have brought me a small amount of fame.
"Whether the issue is consumer privacy, a Patients' Bill of Rights, environmental pollution, or a prescription drug benefit for older Americans, soft money donors will get their opinions heard on Capitol Hill and at the White House. Soft money is drowning out the voices of average Americans -- it is time to put an end to the corrupt soft money system"
Along with Obama, Vogel mentions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as critics of large donors, who then also were leading in super PAC fundraisers. Though Vogel mentions many people and events, he never goes into great detail about any of it. Even with the immense amount of information that is left to the reader to decipher and research, one must ask themselves this question, “what are the effects of big money on modern politics.”
Pennies seem to have been used from the beginning of time, but now, some people are wondering if the penny really plays an useful role in government. Should pennies really be abolished and removed from the government? Many say yes, many say no. The penny does cost more to make and mint than its actual worth, and many don’t care about pennies. Contrarily, the economy has been doing fine with pennies around, and eliminating them would a true hassle. Pennies might not really be worth eliminating, but they are pretty much worthless to the economy, and they could potentially bring the economy down.
The moment I received the prompt to explore just war theory, the first controversial topic containing strong arguments on both sides that interested me was that of drone warfare. As tensions rise between countries and technology improves, the possibility of advanced warfare among nations seems imminent as drones are deployed in replacement of soldiers. The purposes of these unmanned drones in present day are primarily intel collection and target acquisition, which usually leads to extermination of known and presumed threats to the dispatcher. In the United States, when it comes to the topic of using drones within foreign countries, most of the citizens will agree that it is an efficient way to remotely deal with immediate threats to the country.
Warning, this paper contains controversial topics that may trigger or disturb young or sensitive readers. That was a trigger warning, a statement right before certain material saying that some may be affected negatively by seeing the material. This warning first began to be used in 2002 on story sharing and message board sites. Trigger warnings began to become more popular in the mid 2000’s. In 2014, many started demanding to bring trigger warnings into the classroom before going over possibly sensitive material. There are some people who believe that trigger warnings are necessary in the classroom, while others believe it’s a waste of time. Trigger warnings are necessary for the emotional protection of sensitive people. This is because trigger warnings are helpful for students, trigger warnings are just another form of some things that most support today, and the absence of trigger warnings is harmful to students.
What We Don’t Know About Campaign Finance Does Hurt Us. “No matter what your social issue, if you want to solve it get the money out of politics. Only then will lawmakers vote for their people rather than their pocketbooks.” Jack E. Lohman. Money corrupts politics, and when contributions are being made to candidates it is not in the best interest of the American people. Campaign Finance is out of control in today’s political races. Candidates are taking money from wherever and whoever they can get it. Soft money is flowing through elections without care or caution. People who make these contributions do not share the views of the average citizen, so politicians end up representing the wrong people. Money decides races, sometimes leaving the better man but lighter spender out of a position. Candidates make decisions based on what will help them financially that what is better for the people. Contributions by industry are made not in the interest of the people, sometimes hurting them in ways they don’t even know. No matter what the opposition may say campaign finance reform is needed urgently to keep our democracy as our founders intended it. People and corporations that make the largest donations to campaigns do not share views with the general population. Politicians will listen to those who give them money so that they can depend on that money being there again when it is time for reelection. Yet individual donors making a $200 dollar or more contribution make up only .33% of the population. This extremely small percentage of mostly wealthy individuals gain the power to influence politicians to their liking. The idea that these people should have power to affect government more than those with less money goes against the concept of equality for all, which is what made this country great. People who make large donations do not share the same views on most issues as the general population. Robert L. Borosage and Ruy Teixeira report that while 53 percent of voters want stricter regulations on businesses and corporations, to give workers a fair salary and working conditions, 58 percent of campaign donors want to see less control over the businesses and corporations of America. Donors also want less government spending with lower taxes, while the majority of citizens want a larger, more powerful government. A very tiny part of our populat...
Politics is one of the most debated topics in the country today. With the wide variety of values present in America, it is bound to be a difficult topic to discuss. I’ve grown up in a family of democrats with religiously republican grandparents. Considering myself an Independent leaning democratic, I can usually calmly talk politics with my family. This year’s election has made any conversation surrounding politics toxic to my family and creates a large argument of one side or the other and no in between.
Unlike many other forms of government rule, democracy does not discriminate against political affiliation or ideology. My personal experiences with constituents on the phone, both for and against various bills in the State Assembly, underline how highly involved and engaged the demos are in local political affairs. Constituents, as a collective, have the power and will to affect the passage or denial of a bill in the Senate or Assembly simply by voicing their opinion as a group. Personalized e-mails and letters to the Assemblyman on issues ranging from animal rights to after-school programs are examples of the democratic process working in conjunction with majority consent. Democracy permits citizens to voice their opinions and offer concern or support for legislation. In addition, constituents will voice their concerns or co...