More handpicked essays just for you.
Freedom of speech and what it entails america
Why freedom of speech is important in america
The importance of freedom of speech in America
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Freedom of speech and what it entails america
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. …show more content…
The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this point in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, commonly referred to as plain “Citizens United”, in the majority opinion. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, wrote that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,” (Kennedy). Basically, he is saying that if free speech means anything, it must apply to the case of campaign contributions. Where Citizens United failed, however, was its cap on independent expenditures that corporations could make. It let corporations influence elections but limited money spent. SpeechNow.org v. FEC solved that issue. It ruled against the cap of donations on Super PACs (Forget Citizens United). In conjunction with the Citizens United decision, Super PACs were finally able to use their free speech. This paved a path for free speech in the election
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.
As Super Tuesday fast approaches, record numbers of early voters in several states have many candidates and their campaigns excited about their chances of winning. Republicans have held their last debate and are busy on the campaign trail to try and garner any support that might still be unpledged. The Democrats have just finished their primary in South Carolina and are pouring over the data to see what it might suggest for the major contests that loom overhead. All the while, millions of dollars have been spent on television ads in states such as Texas, Virginia, and Georgia to try and sway voters before the polls and caucus sites open for voters on Super Tuesday. These are just a few of the countless tasks that have to be done in order to come out with a victory on Super Tuesday. The only question that remains is, who will win? To find out, let’s begin with the Democrats.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas...
It is obvious the Republican Party has no brains. If they elect Donald Trump to run for president, they are going to lose big time. They can blame themselves for being so stupid. The establishment runs the Republican Party. They are the ones who lose major elections. The leadership of the Republican Party shifts the blame to conservative wing of the Republican Party; however, it is the moderate wing of the Republican Party who loses elections. Does John McClain ring a bell? If the Republican Party hopes to win the presidency, they must run a conservative or face another trouncing in the next election. It is that simple. Therefore, the Republicans had better wake up fast if they want to
The Federal Election Campaign Act, despite being backed by 75 percent of House Republicans, and 41 percent of Senate Republicans, caused immense controversy in Washington. Senator James Buckley sued the secretary of the senate Frances Valeo on the Constitutionality of FECA. In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United.
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing
Social security was designed to assist constituents during financial hardship. The program insured non-Negroes who needed unemployment compensation, met retirement age requirements, or child welfare prevention programs. Despite its forward objective, critics’ perception of the social security program was depicted as legal thievery. M.A.’s candid retort to the government’s evasive program was simply to rape the pocket’s of the people. M.A. as well as others primarily prepared for retirement or a rainy day from stock returns. Contrarily, the social security program stimulated other economic restructures, which included limited full-time workers. The shift in the economy and Roosevelt’s failed promises created a wedge between the people and the government. For instance, Mrs. OM voices her views of President Roosevelt’s campaign as a misleading trick. She further explained
We all have heard the quote “Life, Liberty, Land, and the Pursuit to Happiness” and that is the promise of a life here in America. As Americans we pride ourselves on these freedoms that allow us to live everyday. We are one of the only countries that have this promise and it is what draws people from all of over the world to come here. Our founding fathers of the United States of America wrote these words, having no idea the impact that they would have for the rest of this countries history. Those words were the foundation for government, and it wasn’t perfect at first but slowly it matured into what we have today, strong and powerful. To other nations America is seen as the World Power, and a somewhat perfect nation to live in. Unfortunately corruption, scandals and controversies have tainted our once golden glow, and other nations are weary of watching their steps. One of the most controversial elements to our government is the NSA. Hidden in the shadows from American and global knowledge is what the NSA is actually doing and watching out for. Only very recently has the NSA been ripped from the shadows and brought to light what exactly is going on inside those walls. They are “spying” on not only America’s personal data, but foreign leaders as well. The NSA says it’s for the safety for everyone against terrorism and attacks. However, it has gone way to far and violates a constitutional right, privacy. The NSA has overstepped their boundaries, and spying doesn’t seem to make a difference in safety.
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.
The original intention for creating social security was to act as a safety net for retirees, but as time past, there seems to be a great deal of economic issues relating to the program. Social security was created to help benefit retired workers, spouse and children of deceased workers, as well as workers who have become disabled before retirement. This insurance program provides retirees with a steady income once they retire. President Roosevelt signed the program into law on August 14,1935. Since then, social security has been beneficial for many workers and retirees. In fact, social security has become the main source of income for many retirees.
While an imbalance has always been prevalent in the classes of American society, recent decisions in the Supreme Court favoring less campaign finance control have disregarded the growing gap between the upper echelon and the lower class. The U.S. Supreme Court has fully given way to elitist rule, allowing the wealthy to wield their natural tenacities to grow dollar bills from rocks and plant them kindly into the pockets of political candidates that would support their hidden agendas of clandestine rule and continued hegemonification of the lower class. As recent as April 2, 2014 in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme court released the contribution limits placed on the wealthy under the pretense of free speech as provided by the first amendment. In order to prevent further dissemination to the balance of equality amongst the classes within the United States, it is imperative for Congress to start the implementation of a detailed Constitutional Amendment defining strict regulations regarding funding towards political campaigns, as well as a clear definition to the inherent differences between an individual and a corporate entity or “faction.”
December of 2010, in a five to four vote, it was decided that corporate funding of independants in in elections was protected under the first Amendment. This opened the floodgate for the 2012 elections as the candidates took to many platforms to raise money for their campaigns. Mitt Romney along with the help of Spencer Zwick raised 6.5 million dollars simply through a call-a-thon. The secret weapon in this call-a-thon was a program called ComMITT. This program allowed the user to solicit donations from contacts in their email, and online social networking sites. Any donation made fed directly back into the campaign, giving a real-time tally of pledges. With all of this information, one can make a decision for or against campaign finance contributions. Personally, I have conflicting feelings about limitations on campaign finance. I feel as though there should not be a limit for campaign finance contributions, but there should be more qualifications for becoming president. I do not believe there should be a limit on campaign finance because technically it is covered under freedom of speech. It is covered under freedom of speech. This is because giving money is showing
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
Since interest group play such a large roll in politics, I think that it would be difficult to regulate them effectively. There are already regulations on things such as PACs and Super PACs but the current regulations seem to be more of an ongoing joke than actual regulations. There are several loopholes, as pointed out by Stephen Colbert. It is shocking to me that these things still go on today. I have to believe that the reason that these things are still legal is because some of the only people who can make them illegal would loose all of the money to be had in lobbying and the additional funding that PACs and Super PACs provide.