Sunday, October 23, 2016
Campaign Finance helps a candidate to achieve their goals when it comes to spreading their ideas and their names to win. Sometimes money circulates and private donors contribute without exposing their names in order to unbalance the campaign. Some argue that being a private donor is their first amendment right, which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, and therefore they think it is their freedom to do so. In the documentary, Big Sky, Big Money, the same argument was stated, as many of the people involved took sides of the argument and their opinion of Citizens United. First of all, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971 had a set of requirements for candidates and parties, but the finance laws were hard to enforce. Then amendments were made in the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme court case, in which had limitations on expenditures and had limitations on contribution for a candidate. It set limit to the amount of money to spend on a campaign. Another set of amendments was McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law (aka Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) in which it was prohibited to spend non-federal funds in which is known as "soft money" and would not allow the issue ads in the public. The case Citizens United v. FEC, it was ruled that private companies should be able to support their candidate as they wish to do so under the first amendment, and therefore influence the campaign. They might not directly give the money to the candidate but they would influence the public by their ads, etc. The arguments for is that the private company, under the first amendment, has its every right to support the candidate they want. They should use their money to help the candidate in any way possible. The argument against includes the fact that money should be restricted and that the private companies create bias ideas about the other candidate they do not want to support, changing the view of the public.In my opinion, the private donors should state who they are in order to make the campaign finance more fair. They should not allow the "soft money" to be around and there should not be the false advertisements that were shown in the documentary Big Sky, Big Money and there should a better way of spending money. Donors should be known to the public and they should not just be a mailbox at a UPS store in Pennsylvania. These private companies that are donating to candidates influence the campaign greatly in just a few days, as we saw in the documentary, but with stricter laws the country can control the bias in campaigns. There should be limited amount of money to spend on a campaign because the campaign would be more fair. Citizens United v FEC was the created problem and should be fixed to allow our country to have its fair democracy.