 |
| Current Court Members |
Oct 8, 2013 6:00am
WASHINGTON — The issue of campaign finance returns to the Supreme Court today in a case brought by an Alabama businessman who wanted to contribute more money during the last election cycle.
“This case is about freedom of speech,” says businessman Shaun McCutcheon. “It’s about my right to make contributions to the candidates I choose.”
In the 2012 election cycle, McCutcheon contributed a total of $33,088 in congressional races across the nation. He abided by the base limits set by federal law. Currently individuals may contribute $2,600 per election to a particular candidate committee and $32,400 to a national party committee.
But McCutcheon wanted to give money to more candidates and was blocked from doing so by aggregate campaign contribution limits set by federal law.
Those limits in a two-year cycle are $48,600 to a candidate committee and $74,600 to a non candidate committee.
“I am a conservative activist and I want to support candidates and committees that agree with my views,” McCutcheon says. He says he is happy to stay within the base limits, but “as a donor, I don’t think I should have to stay up all night seeing if I have hit an aggregate limit. I’m just a donor practicing my free speech under the First Amendment.”
In the last cycle McCutcheon had settled on the number $1,776. That’s the amount he would have given to 12 other candidates for Congress, if he hadn’t been stopped by the aggregate contribution limits.
Joined by the RNC, McCutcheon argues that that the cumulative contribution limits impose an unconstitutional burden on core First Amendment activity.
He says that an individual should not be limited in how many candidates, parties or PACS he can contribute to within the base limits.
Jones Day attorney Michael Carvin agrees.
“The rationale of the cap makes no sense,” he says. “If I can give 10 $2,500 contributions without corrupting anybody, what difference does it make if I make a hundred $2,500 contributions?”
In the area of campaign finance, the Supreme Court has distinguished between limits on expenditures and limits on contributions. In the Citizens United case, the Court struck down independent spending limits for corporations and unions, but it has — so far — consistently upheld federal contribution limits.
“For more than 70 years, federal law has generally limited the amounts that individuals may contribute to political candidates, political-party committees, and non-party political committees for the purpose of influencing elections for federal office,” writes Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. in briefs defending the aggregate contribution limits. “Both Congress and this court have recognized that such limits are an important tool in combating corruption and the appearance of corruption in federal politics.”
Verrilli argues that rich donors like McCutcheon are not prohibited from contributing to as many candidates, parties and other committees as they want. If McCutcheon chooses to support more candidates, he just has to give less to each.
Campaign finance reform advocates are fearful that the Roberts Court might limit or overturn precedent regarding individual contribution limits. They argue that without aggregate limits, some individuals might try to circumvent the base limits and pour money into the system.
“Without aggregate contribution limits, individuals would be free to cut million-dollar checks to candidates and their parties via joint-fundraising committees,” says Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
She says she fears the Court will take a step backward.
“It was huge contributions of this sort during the Watergate-era that led to the passage of the challenged federal campaign finance laws in the first place,” she says.
by going on the web page and typing McCutcheon into the search engine you can see the questions of law as posed.
This assignment is due on Friday October 11th.
by allowing "no limits" on campaign contributions it is possible that a small minority of the US population may have too big a percentage of political power and that could have the affect of depriving the majority of their freedoms. Should the rights of the many be restricted due too their wealth or lack of wealth???
ReplyDeleteI believe that limits should be placed on the amount single individuals can be allowed to contribute to a campaign. Although yes, it is likely that many donors will simply give to an organization who supports the candidate and thus would not be directly giving to a candidates campaign, i still believe limits should be set. Why should it be that the candidate who has the more wealthy supporters, not the candidate with the most overall supporters, wins? I believe that by placing limits, it enables those with lesser money to also feel like they have made a more noticeable impact on the campaign, because their donation is not outdone by one that is hundreds thousands of dollars more. For those who say it violates freedom of speech, they can go get out of their fancy desk chairs at the heads of corporations and stand on the corner outside of their office with signs bearing the name of the candidate they support, and a bullhorn announcing their support and reasoning for why doing so. Generally, the Republican party has been blessed with the wealthier donors, which in essence could very well be the reason why many campaigns were won (or lost for the Democrats). An election should be fair, based on the number of unbiased voters, not by the few voters who practically pay for your vote. Its a democracy, not a eBay bidding war. Extreme financial support should not be the reason why candidates win (or lose) their elections.
ReplyDelete~ Roy Faigenbaum
There should be limits on the amount of money individuals can contribute to campaigns. This week, in Mr. Gappa’s AP Government class, we are learning about the money spent in election campaigns and where it goes. Large amounts of money are often spent in the media sector of the campaign such as television ads, Internet ads, and radio. Mr. Gappa showed us a breakdown of the money spent in each realm for the Obama-Romney race and the class was shocked. Obama’s campaign spent over a billion dollars in all of their campaign causes, Romney closely trailing him. Campaigning nowadays has become money-orientated and based on popularity. I believe that all of this money is poorly spent. It could be funding non-profit organizations or simply benefitting the population that makes up the base income of America. However, this idea is not completely realistic. One way of getting at this issue is to limit contributions. This could cut funding and avoid making money absolutely essential to winning support. By allowing no limits on contributions, the majority of people are deprived of their freedoms just because they cannot keep up with the abundance of wealth spent by individuals in campaigns. Therefore by limiting these contributions, there will be more majority say and less polarization.
ReplyDelete~Pete Warsinske
Within the United States Constitution no article prohibits the amount of money someone is able to donate to a specific campaign. The Elastic clause (Article 1 Section 8) gives congress the power to establish laws that may have not been applicable at that time of the origin of the Constitution. But does this the amount of money a single person chooses to donate to a campaign affect the outcome of the election? We as citizens of the United States are granted freedoms that give us the opportunity to vote for who we believe will carry out their duties more preeminent. When a person donates a large amount of money to a campaign, it only gives the candidate the power to advertise more. The candidate running though is not the only one receiving donations, it usually is mutual, both parties receiving contributions. The citizens of the US are divided by their social class, some more wealthy, some in the middle, and some with little wealth. Though, this is how our country prospers even though some people may work hard and not get paid as much as the next , our economy would not function if trade jobs did not exist. So if the wealthy may choose to donate large amounts of money to the campaign they favor, they still only have one vote, the vote that a person working at a fast food restaurant would have. Votes are how a person is elected, not by the money spent on campaigns and to put a limit on the amount one can donate violates our freedom as citizens of the United States. If congress can put a limit of this, next could be our schools.
ReplyDelete-Austin Zaepfel
I believe that limits on donations to campaigns are needed. Limits should be placed onto donations because if they're no limits than whoever donates the most money will be able to control the campaign. Without limits on campaign donations there is discrimination towards the people who cannot afford to put thousands of dollars into a political campaign. I believe a limit for one single campaign is necessary but not for different campaigns. If the limit to donate to a campaign as an example was 100 dollars a person can only donate to a specific campaign up to 100 dollars. They can donate money to any other campaign up to the limit but only 100 to each. Another idea on the limit should be that the amount of money should be reasonable for all parties whether you are rich or poor. It should be enough money where people of all economic classes are heard and effect campaigns the same. With this type of limit on campaign donations the government will be able to attend to issues affects people across the country and not problems that just pertain to one percent of the population who have enough monthat limits on donations to campaigns are needed.
ReplyDelete- Stephen DePietto
I do not believe that their should be a limit on donations to campaigns. I believe that if people have money they should be able to spend it on what they want. If someone really wants a candidate to win an election, they should be able to support by funding for their preferred candidates campaign. I do not think that it is discriminating against people who can not donate money into funding campaigns, that would be similar to saying it is discriminating to buy a car, because not everyone can afford it. If their were to be a donation cap, I think that their should be an equation created that takes into account annual income and assets of a person that would allow for them to donate a certain percentage of their income and assets.. The limit should not be a specific monetary value, if needed it should be a specific percentage.
ReplyDelete-James F.
I think that there should be limits on campaign contributions. If there are no limits on campaigns contributions then people will take advantage of their wealth to get what they want. Who donates this money in the first place? Campaigners depend on the wealthier people in America to support them. However, only 1% of people have the most money in America. That means that only 1% of the American peoples voices are being heard. What about the other 99%? If there were a limit on campaign contributions then campaigners wouldn’t have to depend so much on the wealthier people. A campaigner could easily raise they money that they need from middle class families that are able to spare a few 100$ and then their voices will be heard as well. Although this seems like the right and fair thing to do, can the government tell people how to spend their own hard earned money? Whether someone wants to donate 1 million dollars to an orphanage or 1 million dollars to a campaign, they have the right to do so because it’s their money not the government’s money.
ReplyDelete~ Olivia Smith
While it is an unfortunate truth that politicians seem to think that the more money they spend on a campaign the better, who’s to say that is an issue? In a current Presidential election, aren’t both sides spending vast quantities of money, perhaps unequally, but so much, that millions of dollars in difference can be disregarded. It’s because both sides are receiving so much money that I feel there is no need to take a way an individual’s freedom to donate to a cause they support. If one person decides to be bold and donate millions of dollars to support the person who they believe will help them the most, who is the government to tell them they can’t do that. While allowing a small percentage of people to give up their wealth to try and govern the course of a political campaign may seem unfair, it would be unlawful, to say that they couldn't.
ReplyDelete-Chris Zaffanella
The government has no right to regulate how much money one can donate to a
ReplyDeletecampaign and there are two points to this opinion.
The first is that the government should not be deciding how Americans spend their
money and, when this issue is broken down simply, this is what is happening.
Whether someone makes millions or makes eight dollars an hour, if he believes in a
campaign and would like to donate as much as he can, then he has every right to.
Should the government regulate how much money one can donate to a non-profit
for that non-profit may grow to be bigger than others, or should the government
regulate how much money one can spend on groceries because he might take more
than someone else? If one man would like to buy three new sports cars for himself
and his neighbor cannot afford such a thing, there should not be a law saying that
he cannot spend his money that he has earned as he pleases. Spending is a driving
force in capitalism; the economy grew substantially from the 1930's to the1970's
thanks to the citizens' spending. The economy is suffering and once the government
starts regulating spending, which this new law could very well be a prelude to, it
will get worse.
The argument of the issue is that those who spend a substantial amount of money
donating to a campaign will have a larger influence on the campaign. This is not the
donors’ fault and the donor should not be punished for his hard work and for his
earned money by regulating his spending. The influence that large donors may
have is, in fact, the congressmen's fault. It is the congressmen's responsibility, their
DUTY, to hear everyone. They must chose to take everyone's calls, the million-dollar
donors and the ten-dollar donors, or hear no one's calls. One's financial status has
no part in how intelligent he is, how educated on the current status of the
government he is, and how much he believes in a campaign. Again, with the car
analogy: a congressmen may see a man who has three fancy sports cars and one
many with an old truck, both donors to, and believers in, his campaign, and it is his
responsibility to hear both of their ideas or neither. The man in the truck could have
the secret to saving the nation! It is the congressmen's responsibility to see that and react to that by changing how THEY operate, not by changing how the people operate and how the people spend their hard earned money.
-Maureen McCarthy
Limits on donations to campaigns would even the playing field between economic classes. Current politics rely on mass publicity to gain followers. We have clearly discovered that the campaign with the most money has the upper hand in advertisement and power. A T.V. commercial for Wal-Mart falls under the same category as a T.V. commercial for a political party. The sole purpose of a commercial or advertisement is to get some message across to as many people as possible. If a political ad on T.V. or on a billboard wasn't meant to persuade people to do something, then why was it made at all? I believe that political races are not decided by who is better fit to lead. Instead, no matter who runs, the campaign with the most amounts of publicity and money, to support their mass media, will be victorious. This clearly brings up controversy between the different levels of wealth in America and the amount of people in each level. The wealthy level of America, which is a tiny minority, currently has serious pull in political out comes. This small percentage of wealthy people now has more power than the other majority of people in the United States. I think setting a limit for the amount money a private citizen can donate effortlessly solves a problem politics, in general, has been struggling with for a while. Unbalanced power in politics is due to the unbalanced economic classes. The lower middle class substantially out numbers the upper class. Yet, the upper class yields more power strictly due to the amount of money. Not only is there an uneven balance between classes, the upper class pulls strings to get certain people elected. These peoples sole purpose is to maintain laws that pump more money into the wealthy minorities pockets, which in turn creates a larger gap between economics classes. With a law in place to limit donations to campaigns, corruption as well as warped holdings of power, may come to rest.
ReplyDelete- Sam Lewis
Personally, I believe that limiting campaign contributions is entirely justified, and in no way deprives citizens of their freedoms. However, I do not believe in limiting the number of people that one can support, as it directly violates our freedom of speech. The media has corrupted modern elections, and it has only promoted war between the two candidates. Funding only encourages a battle over who can get the most recognition through advertisement, and who can uncover the deadliest scandal to sabotage the other candidate. And therefore, I believe that campaign donors should support their candidates with their vote and not with their money. However, the idea of eliminating campaign donations entirely is unrealistic, and I believe that donors often have the good intention of supporting the candidate that they want to see become president. And therefore I think campaign contributions are entirely justified, but should be limited. These limits will not only prevent media warfare, but also prevent the balance of two political parties from becoming lopsided. One side should not have an advantage over the other by simply having more funding from upper class citizens that can provide larger donations. Additionally, I believe that any citizen of the United States should have the ability to support any number of candidates that sustain their beliefs. This limitation obstructs ones freedom of speech, and prevents them from promoting the candidates that they belief will uphold and carry out their beliefs.
ReplyDelete-Peter Hoover
I believe that there should be a limit on the amount of money individuals may donate to campaigns. Not only could this money have a better use, but it also gives an unfair advantage to those who cannot afford to spend millions of dollars on a campaign. There are many ways this money could be better spent. One idea would be to donate this money to the under privileged children around the world who need to be educated. There are so many people without the chance to get educated that if this money was donated towards funding schools for them the world, and the US, would be better off. Secondly, because only multi-millionaires are the ones donating money towards campaigns, it gives them an unfair advantage over those who cannot afford to do this. These people donate so much money that they nearly control the party, allowing them to have much more say in the elections than someone who cannot afford to donate. By limiting the amount of money one can spend on advertising a campaign, these people now are not given an unfair advantage over those who cannot afford to do so; but they are also donating their money in other ways that are greatly needed.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, I see this case as pretty cut and dry. By placing any sort of limit on how much money a person can donate to a particular campaign is a direct violation of their first amendment. If anyone is being discriminated against, it’s the person trying to donate that money. If someone wants to take their money and give it to a cause of their choice, I'm not stopping them. Giving that money is their way of voicing their opinion and to limit that right on the basis that they block out the voices of others is just wrong. Donating that money does nothing to limit the freedom of speech of any person, and it sure doesn't win an election. Sure it helps but at the end of the day, the "99%" that supposedly lost their voice are the people that actually elect the person running for office because last time I checked "1%" is not a majority. If people are so upset about this than they need to step up and work together because the only reason that the “1%” is in control is because everyone lets them be. If the rest of the people in this country rally together and decided to vote the best candidate into office, no amount of money can stop them. Unfortunately, people don’t seem to care enough to educate themselves or others to find and elect the person we need as a country and instead they sit back and watch as others do. It is not constitutional to make laws that limit people’s freedom of speech just because people forgot that a democracy only works when every person is educated on the people running for office and the issues that need to be solved.
ReplyDeleteJay Allen
When it comes to individual donations to political campaigns, I believe there should be a limit on how much a private citizen can donate. I believe this because it is important that all citizens who are able to vote are also able to express their beliefs and be heard just as loud as any other person. In the Constitution of the United States of America it says that “people” have the right to freedom of speech. I believe the word people in the Constitution does not favor those with a higher income, nor does it discriminate the voices of the less wealthy, however I do believe it recognizes every persons voice equally. If money is dictating the outcome of current day elections, I think the country has a big problem they need to address. Like Mr. Gullotta said in class, if a great president like FDR were to run today, he would not win because of his physical appearance, and lack of support from those who would question his health status. Unfortunately presidential candidates rely heavily on donations and their campaigns to boost their chances of winning the election, opposed to letting their plans for the country, beliefs and good presidential characteristics speak for them. Also if one candidate has much more money than the other, he is more likely to be seen by that citizen who is not too involved in politics but still may vote. This is also misrepresentation of a single persons voice, being that candidate with less money. If both candidates have about an equal amount of money for campaigning then the presidential election will be more based off of the candidate’s plans opposed to their national recognition through campaigning.
ReplyDelete-Troy Pierre-Louis
Limitations on how much money people are able to spend on campaigning are unconstitutional. Running for office does not mean that the richer candidate wins the position; it means that one of the candidates will have an easier time because his or her ideas are able to be shared more because he or she is paying for television commercials and other forms of advertising. The candidate with less money will have a harder time, but if that candidate really has what it takes to come into office, then that candidate should be able to win using his or her own strengths. In order to get his or her point across, the candidate must be able to connect to the people using creativity and hard work. The United States government should be made up of more men and women like who are able to maintain that connection. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… or abridging the freedom of speech,” so if citizens want to spend thousands of dollars advertising for a candidate, then they have every right to do so.
ReplyDelete~Emily Barclay
Limitations on how much money people can donate is morally justified, however, creating such limitations would be in direct violation of the Constitution. Our country's second president, John Adams, already tried to take away our first amendment right by trying to keep us out of war. Though his morals were in the right place by taking away the freedom of speech to vote for war, just like limiting the amount of money people can donate will give the poor equal opportunity, it was in direct violation of our Constitution and created serious backlash. If financially, people have the means to make a large donation in order to support their candidate they should have that power, due to Act 1 of the constitution, they have that freedom. Although it would be all warm and fuzzy to create restrictions on the amount of money you can pay so that everyone has equal opportunity financially to support their candidate, it is not Constitutional. If Congress felt it was necessary to the process and created an unfair advantage for a candidate, they would have created a law for it. However, even with the power to do so, Congress has decided it is not vital to amend the constitution to create limitations. Therefore, we cannot create that limitation. Although morally I agree the rights of people should not depend on their social status and everyone should have equal opportunity, due to the Constitution, and our freedoms, we cannot place limitations on the amount of money we can donate. It's unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete-Charlie Corcoran
I feel that placing limitations on donations for a particular political campaign does not violate the first amendment or a citizen's freedom of speech. Personally, I hardly consider giving large amounts of money to a politician so they are more in favor of winning an election a just form of freedom of speech, but as a clear pathway to corruption. As society has seen in the past, and why there should be limitations on campaign donations, incidents like the Watergate Scandal have happened in the absence of restrictions. In order to stop corruption in government, limitations must be put in place in order to secure the safety of fairness. Money should not be able to buy everything as well, including the voice of the American political system. By placing limitations on donations, it insures that all of society has been justly and fairly heard. Without these, the American political system is run by those who can afford to donate towards their interests and lobbyist who will continue to corrupt Washington, versus those individuals who may care deeply about a candidate, but do not have the money to support their interests. Furthermore, I think the nation should not be run by wealth, but by the choice of the American population as a whole. America should not be run by the riches of certain individuals, but by the opinion of all its citizens, including the poor, middle, and upper class.
ReplyDeleteSarah Rogers
We as a country should have limitations on the amount one donor can give to a campaign. Because we are a capitalistic society, money is not an issue for some, where as it is for others. People with money have been donating far more to the candidate they want than people without money creating a discrepancy in our political system. With more campaign money, these candidates are getting their name out better, and winning more elections. This means that the rich have more power in the government because they give more money. If we limit the amount they can give, it will become a more even and fair race where the people of America’s views can be represented equally no matter what economic class you come from. Limitations are necessary so that our government can function how it was created to, by the people, for the people.
ReplyDelete-Troy
I understand the thinking for a limit to be placed on the amount of money a single private citizen can donate to a campaign. However, this is technically violating the first Amendment of the Constitution by taking away the freedom of speech. A private citizen supplying money to a campaign is a way for that citizen to voice their opinion, and because they are financially capable to do so, they should not have to worry about a cap on how much they can give. Furthermore, can the government control how people want to use their money? These are not taxes, it is a private citizen's personal money and they should be able to spend it how they would like. It is still arguable, that the middle and lower class will feel unheard and excluded, and most importantly discouraged from voicing their own opinion, because it may seem that the wealthy have complete control. There becomes an imbalance in power and an unfair advantage to a campaign through it's monetary donations, if they are supported by the 1%. So, I believe it is in the best interest of the country, to monitor the amount of money a private citizen can donate to a favoured campaign should, solely based upon creating a level playing field among the people as well as the candidates.
ReplyDelete-M.Denton
**omit "should"
Delete-M.D.
There should be no limits on the amount of money a private citizen can donate to a political campaign. Despite how unfair it may seem to the middle and lower class citizens who cannot afford to donate a significant amount, a citizen still has their right protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Supreme Court rules based off the Constitution, not subjectivity, a citizen should not be restricted on the amount of money they can donate.
ReplyDeleteEveryone wants his or her opinion to be heard. Unfortunately, it is easier for wealthy citizens to do so by donating money. However, it is not their fault that others do not have to money to donate. Those wealthy citizens should not be limited by whether or not other citizens have the money to donate against them.
A citizen should be able to spend their money freely however he or she chooses to do so, whether others are in favor or not. The Supreme Court should not be able to diminish that citizen’s right to their own wealth; it is their free will. It is sole the responsibility of the money-holder to regulate their wealth, not anyone else’s, including the Supreme Court.
- Nicky Friedman
I think that setting a limit to the amount of money one person can contribute to a political campaign is unconstitutional. Like the article said it directly violates the rights of the people and it is for the most part against the capitalist beliefs of the nation. Technically if any person wants to contribute money, they should be able to give as much money as they want according the rights set forth by the constitution. If looking solely at the constitution one could figure that by capping the amount of money a single person can contribute is a direct violation of the constitution. But with that being said, I think morally it is very wrong. By allowing people to contribute as much money as they want, those people can theoretically dictate the election. If this cap was eliminated, it could potentially create an influx of corruption, since politicians could be taking great amounts of money and potentially changing their views based on the donor’s wishes. It could also hurt the candidate that might side more with the less wealthy. In which case the candidate supporting the more wealthy will most likely get more funding from supporters and potentially dictate the election by donating a great deal of money. So I think for the good of a generally fair election the constitution must be ignored and a cap must be set for individual money contributions.
ReplyDelete-Kevin O’Neill
As citizens of the US, we have a right to voice our opinions and beliefs. Donating money to a political campaign, is simply another way of expressing what our belief is. Although the amount of money a candidate has is very influential in the presentation of a campaign, both parties are receiving these same benefits from various donations. Therefore, there should not be a set limitation on the amount a private citizen donates to a political campaign since there is no certain advantage. The amount of money a candidate receives only allows that candidate to advertise themselves more, it does not effect the changes and policies that he/she are promising to bring to their voters. Voters vote for the candidate that is most suitable for their lifestyle and beliefs, not the amount of money that potential candidate is waisting to receive more support. Donations are a form of support, and citizens have the right to support whoever they desire in what ever way they feel is most appropriate to explicitly express themselves, as long as it does not harm the well-being of another individual. The government has no right to take away a person's freedom of belief because it is not inflicting any threat to anyone.
ReplyDelete- Isiah
This case is clearly very conflicting. Personally, I think the major difficulty regarding it, is the Supreme Court having to make a decision that does not limit the plaintiff’s rights or the right’s of the average voting people. If one were to regard the plaintiff side of the case, it seems reasonable to assume that the limitation on the donation of money for a campaign does somewhat affect his freedoms, since it limits what McCutcheon can or can not do with his money. On the other hand, if there were to have no limitations, a small wealthy minority would hold a lot of political power. Massive political campaigns have great influence over undecided voters. Therefore, even though each person still gets only one vote, the average voting people who don’t have as much money as McCutcheon would have their power over the fate of elections reduced. Would not then having no limits also infringe on the constitutional rights of equality voting? Hence, the Supreme Court has the tough task to make a decision that least ignores the American citizens constitutional rights. So, a possible solution might be to extend the limited amount of donations in a rate that does not drastically unbalance the current the distribution of political power in the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteAna Alvarenga
Setting limits on campaign contributions is absolutely necessary. People should have the right to support as many candidates as they want, but there has to be limits on the amount they can donate. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans has nearly 94 percent of the money in the United States. This minority of extremely wealthy individuals will be able to dictate the outcome of elections if they are able to give as much money as they want. Without limits there will be a great deal of corruption in the government because the candidates that receive large donations from business corporations will return their favors by putting in place policies that benefit their companies. If the top 1 percent can give as much money as they want, the power of the majority will be greatly diminished and there votes won’t really matter. The country as a whole should have the decision and it is unfair to give that much power to such a small portion of our nation. Large business corporations have too much control over the government and this will continue if there are no limits on campaign contributions.
ReplyDeleteBen Key-Comis
It is easy to see why many people find it necessary to set limitations on campaign funding. Most of the wealth of our nation is made up by only 1% of the people. This makes it very easy for the wealthy to play a role in campaigns. But, what I find to be most important is what it says in the Constitution of The United States of America. The bill of rights gives us, the people, the power to do as we please with our money. I find this to be the most important aspect of the issue at hand. After all, shouldn't we be electing people based on their personal qualities and ideas? Money shouldn't be able to determine the outcome of elections. The wealthy shouldn't be punished for having the money they have. It is there right to do whatever they would like with their money. I believe limiting peoples rights is a far greater concern than generous campaign donations. Though it may not seem like a big deal, if we are to let limitations decide how much we can spend on campaigns than what will come next? In my opinion, I think campaign donations ultimately can help a campaign tremendously, but I believe it is more important to take advantage of the freedoms we are given as a American citizens. Therefore, campaign limitations should not exist.
ReplyDeleteJake Sontag
"act 1" should be "first amendment" .
ReplyDelete-Charlie Corcoran