Saturday, October 22, 2016
Less Strict Campaign Finance Laws:
The 1st Amendment allows people the freedom to press, assembly, and petition and limiting such issues is unconstitutional. In this sense, not allowing citizens to contribute to parties is like not permitting them to participate in the government and be part of their system. The case between Buckley vs.Valeo tried to limit the donating money from a specific individual but allowed corporates to donate from their treasuries to candidates wanting to be part of the political system in the United States of America. Many people may not be part of a corporate and therefore can not donate and can be seen as restricting a person's right to do what they want with their money. Because of this, the Biprstan Campaign Reform Act was created in order to regulate the financing of political campaigns that is viewed as a barrier for a person that wants to donate out of the kindness of their heart. This measure increased drastically the making of advocacy ads since the regulation of money being spent to directly aid a political party. People felt like this was not right, which in many ways it was, and the Citizens vs. FEC court case arouse stating the 1st Amendment is broken when corporations are limited on spending on candidates of their choosing. In the document called Big Sky, Big Money describes private non-profit organizations as bad and not just people willing to stand up for what they believe in a peaceful manner and with resources they earned.
More Strict Campaign Finance Laws:
Money has really dictated over whose voice is heard and whose is not. Overall, those with more money tend to be listened to and their ideas put on display despite major opposition. The case of Buckley vs. Valeo highlights how its limits on individuals with more than enough money to donate to specific candidates that they feel will represent the people as a whole better without keeping in mind that many others may disagree greatly. Even though the case only limits individuals, it does not limit big corporations that have more money than an individual that is seen as rich. Allowing such specific companies creates a bias on who really represents the people and not these individual monopolies. This issue was further brought to light during the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act went on the regulate the financing of political campaigns. This step was very good in creating a better and fairer playing field for those trying to run as an advocate of the people of its state. Finally, this has led to the Citizens United versus the FEC case has caused a non-profit organization to continue to donate undocumented money because it is seen as going against the first Amendment of freedom of speech. The freedom of speech should just allow that, and not a form of writing off money going to support and facilitate inequality in the political system. An example of how unfair the money of outside sources causes for the chance of a person to be elected can be seen in the document called Big Sky, Big Money.
I believe that as elections go for any type of leadership position should be given based on who and how a person is and their own drive to do well for those he or she will represent. I do not think that big corporations that may have no involvement at all with the individuals in the certain area should be allowed to aid with money that is only benefitting a candidate they want. The candidate that is getting no financial assistance is running against someone who has more by receiving handouts that they did not earn and in many ways did not want. The political system and how it runs has already had many issues were it seen as corrupt and invalid, this only reveals why it is thought as that way. Stricter Campaign Finance Laws will only demonstrate how truly a person is willing to run to become a leader with good intentions and keep in mind the overall good of the people and thier voice and opinions.