How Americans Influence Politics

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

The Federal Court Case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee is a case with a controversial outcome. The Supreme Court came to the decision, through a 5-4 vote, that for-profit corporations have the same rights to finance political campaigns as citizens. The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limiting of independent advertisements by corporations, associations, or unions (CU vs. FEC). The Supreme Court Decision allows corporations and unions to use their financial resources to either promote or persuade against any political candidate on an advertisement. The ruling also allows corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns and does away with any limits on how much a corporate donor can contribute to a campaign (ibid). While the businesses may not give money straight to campaigns, they have the choice to persuade the population of voters as a whole through the use of advertisements, just as Political Action Committees do. The corporate funding of political advertisements is made possible by the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to free speech, and political spending is one form of that protected speech.

FEC) limiting campaign spending on the basis that PACs (generated by corporations) where in fact individuals in their own right. As such, all individuals/citizens of the US have a right to spend their money as they see fit, whether that is making a political speech by funding certain campaigns. Therefore, forbidding corporate spending on elections is a clear limitation on freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some argue that not limiting the amount of money into politics will inevitably lead to corruption. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not built to protect man against himself but against, the government he created. This topic also brings to light the dilemma over what we, (the people and government), consider a citizen. Webster’s dictionary defines determines that the legal definition of a citizen is “1: a native or naturalized individual who owes allegiance to a government (as of a state or nation) and is entitled to the enjoyment of governmental protection and to the exercise of civil rights” and “2: a resident of a town or state who is also a U.S. native or was naturalized in the U.S.” Based on what a corporation is in that definition; a corporation does appear to meet all the requirements: it is considered an entity in itself that can indeed be based in the US, but does it pledge an alliance to our government? Can a corporation

It is unsensible to believe that even the upper crest of the US financially can keep up with a corporation. Therefore receiving donations from corporations is the candidate's main goal, while ignoring the many small donors that truly represent America’s views. While there is no solid proof of corporations influencing candidates decisions thee have been sketchy moment in which corporations money influencing candidates decisions have been suspected. In 2000 when Bush was running for president an energy company based in Houston, Enron donated a substantial amount of money to Bush. They donated 2.5 million making them the highest donating energy company and the 36th highest corporate donator. After Bush was elected he passed 6 bills extremely beneficial for Enron that multiplied their revenue by nearly three times. In all Corporations donating limitless to candidates forces a candidate to pass bills beneficial for their donors and not the majority of people. This needs to stop or the purity of America’s political system goes down the

Huey Long never received credit for the government reforms that resulted from his “Share Our Wealth” movement. [4] Although he persisted in trying to end the failing economy, The Great Depression continued for six years after Long’s death. Many of today’s federal programs include ideas brought to light by Long. These include social security, veterans’ benefits, financial aid for colleges and schooling, labor rights, minimum wage and 40-hour work week standards, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps

In 2011, two sociologists named Erik Olin Wright and Joel Rogers identified five core American values: freedom, prosperity, efficiency, fairness, and democracy (Wright and Rogers). America’s numerous ideals inevitably cause these values to come into conflict each other. Such conflict characterizes the debate over the implications of modern campaign finance laws in America. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United v. FEC in 2010 undid former restrictions placed on how money can be spent on federal political campaigns. Prior restrictions like the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its amendments in 1974, placed limitations on political donations by Political Action Committees (PACs), political parties, and even individuals. Originally these restrictions were put in place to deter corruption that could undermine the democracy inherent in US values and elections. The Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 revolutionized the scene by declaring that independent expenditures are protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. They further asserted that for all intents and purposes corporations are legally viewed synonymous with people in terms of political spending. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized equality and freedom, but at what cost? Critics, like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, suggest at the cost of democracy, and ultimately corporate interests diminishing freedom in the long run. As a result of this case, more money is now

In a country where democracy is at the heart of all citizens, these citizens need to have a stronger voice when it comes to elections. This is why the implementation of an amendment that reforms the financing of campaigns is disputed greatly among scholars and political officials alike. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are entitled to first amendment rights, but the basis of this ruling is unclear. Unfortunately the overturning of such a ruling would not even guarantee a restored democracy to American elections. Some professionals see corporations and hefty donating figures as an essential part of the election process, while others believe the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee has taking many of the rights that the

The topic of discussion on June 23 was whether or not the politics in America is successful. In addition, the central focus on that day was whether or not politics was completely broken. All in all, politics as a whole, matters; not voting in politics is a choice but voting matters in the long run.

It is difficult to be a politician in the United States today without accepting money from corporate interest. Democrats and Republicans accept money from groups like wall street, lobbyists, giant corporation, and the oil industry. These two parties claim that this money doesn't affect their policies or votes. A group named Wolf Pac was formed by citizens that believe this type of exchange is considered legal bribery. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) On January 21st, 2010 the United States supreme court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC authorized this type of exchange. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) Therefore, both parties can accept unregulated money and support from huge corporations and special interest in the form of Super Pacs. The CEO’s of these corporations that donate to candidates believe their corporations are individuals, and the money they donate is their freedom of speech.

Corporations make America the money-hungry place that is critiqued worldwide. Without the major corporations we see today, like Walmart, Target, and Mcdonald’s, 27 million people would be unemployed and they are very well aware of that (Zillman, Claire). If these giants embody what is wrong in America, why should they have the right to contribute to the candidate they want to help elect? The CEOs of these companies have personal interests they want to protect. These individuals have earned money on the backs of the 27 million people, we should be protecting Main Street, not Wall Street. The Federal Election Commission should reserve the right to limit and close the checkbooks of the people that believe they can buy anything they wish.

Sadly, majority of Americans do not follow politics and who is running for presidency. Americans have become too comfortable with thinking that the world will become great on its own and that they are not needed in helping to extend life on Earth. Other democracies have higher turnouts because their voting days are generally held on weekends and the area expresses the concerns for voting. The problem is cultural and institutional. Culturally because Americans are greatly influenced by their peers and if their peers show a small interest in voting so, will they. An example is a parent that does not vote as they hold no interest; therefore, their child once reaching 18 will not want to do the same. Intuitionally because rules and laws are better

Government is universal. It is the air we breathe, the food we eat, the places we venture. Wherever we seek, it's always there, watching us, and waiting for our next move. Moreover, it affects what kind of health care my family gets, how much they get paid at their jobs, and if they can even afford the most simple commodities. If the government were to take a deep breath and submerge into the dark, murky water, essentially disappearing into the night, the consequences would be tremendous. The first day would be strange; waking up with no taxes, no rules, no care in the world. And it would be a glorious day at that. But as the days drone on, people start to realize that there's no structure in their lives. No mother figure to encourage you into trying something new, or a firm and supporting hand from a watchful father. Furthermore, our institutions would crumple, monarchies and dictatorships would rise, eventually shrouding our small world into darkness. Government is a light, though harsh at times, that guides us through life with measures in place to keep us in check.

If I had five minutes to speak with the President, I would speak to him about the current national policy on voting. Our country runs on a system of representative democracy; the country votes for who they wish to represent their interests. However, some demographics are far more likely to vote in all kinds of elections. This is due to many different factors, but a large cause of this is voter suppression. This is when, typically state, government puts in certain rules and regulations that make it difficult for certain kinds of demographics to vote. One of the largest contributents to voter suppression of the lower class is photo ID laws. I would suggest the President implement a policy that states that no voting laws can be passed to inhibit a person's ability

According to History.com, World War 1 took seventeen million lives, and wounded twenty million, showing up as one of the most deadly wars ever. The time between July 28, 1914 to November 11, 1918, was a time of gory death. World War 1 was fought between many major countries. At least one million soldiers were killed in each country, and many civilians died from disease. World War 1 gets its nickname “The Great War” for its bloodiness and impact it had on the people back then and today. During World War 1, there were many events that led up to World War II, which also impacted people around the world greatly. First, a chain of events started to occur after tensions rose, causing the start of World War 1. Second, there were many tactics used

Corporations rely upon the interest groups to sway the laws of the land in their favor. This can only be done by shaking hands and greasing palms of those on capitol hill. This means that it is very important that their interest and their wealth be protected. It is equally important for political figures to maintain political power and stay in office. Conversely, the wealthy will do all that they can to acquire and maintain their wealth. To that end, the wealthy tend to be intimately involved in the political process. Therefore, the wealthy often will donate to candidates or parties that support the same their interest. Views of the less fortunate and low income often conflict with the upper class. Likewise, the two groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to political views. This causes a wide disparity in political views. An example of this are the markedly different opinions on the black lives matter movement. Supporters of the black lives matter movement typically are lower income and because of this their views are often underrepresented and lack the political strategy due to lack of funding. Therefore, a potential candidate who is a strong supporter of the movement would have a lesser chance than a candidate who strongly focuses on agendas that support big business. Ultimately, candidates who support the views of the upper class have a larger advantage because they receive more