Citizens United (UC) is a political organization, who favors on to the conservative side. There chief purpose is limit the role of government in our day to day activities. According to their website:
Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.
This organization claims itself to be a 501(c)3 political (super) political action comities(PACs). This means they are tax exempt, the money is anonymous, they cannot lobby or donate directly to a political campaign. Within the organization, they also contain two 501(c)4, which almost the same as the 501(c)3s but can contribute directly to political campaigns. Both of these PACs donate there monies to conservative republican candidates in local, state, and national politics.
The FEC or Federal Elections Commission is responsible for keeping the elections of public offices fair and just. This independent regulatory agency was established under the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA), and is meant to enforce the values that this legislature laid down. They also are responsible for disclosing where and who the money donated to the campaigns come from and what that money is used for. This jurisdiction, when used for a presidential campaign falls under the Primary Matching Payment Act and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (PECFA).
Ci...
... middle of paper ...
...N.p., 13 May 2013. Web. 5 May 2014.
Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara. "Four Years After Citizens United: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Web log post. Brennen Center for Justice. New York University School of Law, 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 5 May 2014.
United States. The Legislative Chambers. Library of Congress. Campaign Finance Law the Supreme Court Upholds Key Provisions of BCRA in McConnell v. FEC. By L. Paige. Whitaker. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Information Service, Library of Congress, 2003. WorldCat. Web. 5 May 2014.
United States. White House. Government Accountability Office. Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates: Report to Congressional Committees. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003. Print. GAO-03-453.
"Who-We-Are." Who-We-Are. Citizens United, n.d. Web. 05 May 2014.
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.
every nation in the world belongs to the United Nations. The United Nations has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.The United Nations is not a world government though,and it does not make laws.
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.
The past few years, I’ve taken an interest into our constitution. As a result of this interest, I would at times sift through interesting Supreme Court cases. Tinker v. Des Moines and Johnson v. Texas would, to some, conflict with cases like Schenck v. United States. The line drawn on the issue of free speech to others may be blurry, but to me, it has always been crystal clear. So when Super PACs, Political Action Committees that can donate unlimited funds to an independent cause, arose, I concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to protect free speech. To most it seems, Super PACs are just evil PACs, and they, unlike regular PACs, ruin elections. They really only differ by their method, however, when discussing the movement of money. Super PACs are run “independently”, and PACs are usually partisan.
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.
Liptak and Carter, Adam and Bill. "Justices Take Case on Free TV." nytimes.com. The New York Times, January 10, 2014. Web. January 15, 2014.
What is the Constitution? The Constitution summarizes the laws of the United States of America and it founded the government that we use today. Although the Constitution is accepted today, anti-federalists opposed the Constitution in 1787, specifically because anti-federalists believe that the new government would have no power and the military would overpower. Federalists, or those that supported the Constitution, countered the arguments against the Constitution by stating that the new government would unite the United States of America and it would have power, and the military would not be overpowering.
The American Civil Liberties Union appeared as a reaction to the excess of the Palmer Raids in 1918 after authorities arbitrarily arrested over six thousand people. Roger Baldwin and others founded the National Civil Liberties Bureau which became the ACLU in 1920. Its mission is to preserve constitutional rights and to continue to conserve America's original civic values.
for the people and by the people. Candidates are allowed to discuss their policies for
Oshodi Professor Sherifian GOVT 2306-73011 05 April 2017 Lobbyists and Interest Groups in Texas Since “we the people” have little influence in decision making in terms of laws passed and rejected by the legislature, interest groups have always being our voice in the midst of the law-makers. These interest groups employ lobbyists to enter into the inner chambers of these law-makers to lobby them in order to bend laws towards the interest of what they stand for, which most of the time is what “we the people” also stand for. According to my research, lobbying involves spending money on entertaining the law-makers, their employees, and even their relatives. Recently, these lobbyists have failed to disclose who they lobbied with
Their mission is to “reverse Citizens United, Restore our Democracy, and Save the Republic” by “passing a much needed Free and Fair Elections Amendment to our Constitution.” (Uygur, n.d.) They want to end corporate personhood and return to public financing of elections. The way Wolf PAC plans to achieve this is goal is to excite the citizens across the nation to have a larger amount of people involved and passionate about this issue. Once there are enough Wolf PAC members to be spread throughout the country, the next step would to be having the members of Wolf PAC call their local state legislatures to discuss the influence of money in politics with them. Once a state is receptive enough of the PAC’s mission, they plant to work with state legislatures to call for a convention to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution, which is a 5th amendment right (Uygur, n.d.). This may seem like a difficult mission but so far New Jersey, Vermont, Illinois, and California have already passed the resolution that calls for the convention. New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Hawaii, and Connecticut all currently have pending bills relating to money in politics that are a result of Wolf PAC’s effort (The Young Turks, 2015). According to the 5th amendment, there needs to be at least 34 state legislatures to call for a convention regarding the same issue. Once they gather at the convention, they need to create an official amendment. That amendment would need to be ratified by 38 states to become part of the constitution. So far Wolf PAC is working with 10 states and they only need 38. They started this mission four years and one month ago, so imagine what they can do with more
as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, by a 5-to-4 vote,
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Light, Paul C., and Christine L. Nemacheck. "Chapter 7 Congress." Government by the People, Brief 2012 Election Edition, Books a La Carte New Mypoliscilab With Etext Access Card Package. By David B. Magleby. 2012 Election Edition ed. N.p.: Pearson College Div, 2013. N. pag. Print.
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that was formed after the Second World War. The main purpose of UN is to provide security and peace at the international level, resolve conflicts and protect human rights. The UN also promotes international co-operation by maintaining global social, political and economic conditions. However, it is difficult for many countries in the UN to partake in the decision-making because the UN is made up of different countries that have distinct political systems and ideologies. In the past, the UN has helped strengthen international law by developing treaties on human rights, global crime, and other topics of concern.