Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Campaign Finance v. Freedom of Speech
We've spent a lot of time the last few weeks talking about campaign finance and how the Citizens United v. FEC case impacted the future of elections to come. The decision on the case is really controversial, as the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot limit free speech, and by limiting the amount of money any individual or corporation is allowed to give to a campaign or candidate, they would be limiting free speech. On one hand, I agree that the government should not be infringing on free speech, but I also really see how this can affect politics heavily. If the wealthy are allowed to give unlimited amounts of money to whoever they want, the candidates who promise to help the wealthy are always going to have an unfair advantage. I'm not really sure how to feel about this decision, because I can see and understand both sides of the debate. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that this is an interesting issue because these outside groups can influence the local elections greatly on behalf of their donors. But also I believe that the government should not do more to intervene in elections. The candidates are able to still get help from donors, but doing anything more be infringing on people's first amendment rights. The people are the ones that are voting for these people and so supporting the candidates allow the people to see what information is important to the people that they might potentially vote for. Also a majority of Americans are not filthy rich, so letting wealthy individuals spend money to push they candidate that they want to win is more beneficial for everyone else.
ReplyDelete*less
ReplyDelete