Howard Zinn Argumentative Analysis

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

During local, state, or federal election there is a limited amount of time and information that a voter has to help him/her decide for which candidate he or she wants to vote. Before the ruling in Citizens United v FEC, private donations from voters were needed to provide candidates with financial means to create commercials, billboards, etc. In turn, this gave the voters a voice in who is to lead their government. Corporations were limited in the amount they could provide to their candidate of choice. After the ruling, corporations can now match every private donation and contribute an unlimited amount on top of that in order to support their candidate. This creates a problem because a corporation can potentially suffocate voters with campaign ads without the other candidates' ads being heard. Therefore creating an uneven debate and platform for Democracy to work.

Eliminating this restriction meant that corporations could now reach the electorate during a crucial time; the days in which most people talked about elections and seriously considered candidates. It is no secret that candidates do fundraisers because money buys television and radio airtime, billboards along the highways and Internet advertisements among other means to reach voters. Also, the lay person is usually not fully informed of all the goals and plans of presidential or nomination candidates. In this fast paced economy lay people are more concerned about daily errands and responsibilities than doing independent research about candidates. Most of people’s knowledge about candidates comes from television and radio broadcasts as well as the Internet. Further, as with any other major event in the United States, many people follow developments in the election trail more closely toward the end of it. Therefore, even if the Supreme Court did not technically allow the wealthy to spend more money on elections, it certainly created an incentive to do so. This incentive is the opportunity to reach the electorate during a time in which they pay more attention to radio, television and Internet election

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

In the first five chapters of Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States, Zinn provides an overview of American History by providing examples and detailed accounts of Columbus’s arrival, the experience of the Native Americans after European arrival, slavery, the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the invisibility of women through early American history. In writing this book, Zinn’s purpose was to write more than another history book, just listing events and giving the traditional point of view, but to provide a balanced viewpoint. Zinn believes that, “The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks)-the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress…[is an

Perfectly summarized in one sentence, the words “And in a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners” uttered by Howard Zinn in the first chapter of A People’s History of the United States demonstrate the influence of voice in not only America but in society as well. In unity there is strength, a well-known proverb states, and there is one constant among famous quotes in that they can be applied to almost any situation, event, or idea, for that they are always true. This particular idea should not be excluded from that notion, considering Zinn’s quote is muchly similar to the proverb’s main idea, only worded differently. His

Howard Zinn A people's history talks about the United states wanting to expand and the foreign relations with other countries. Wealthy upper class Americans wanted to the U.S to expand, because they thought American markets overseas would increase the amount of purchases made and prevent an economic crisis. Also talked about why the U.S got in involved in cuban revolution against spain. The reason the U.S got involved was because if spain had won they would of kicked the U.S out and trade would not be open. Zin also brings up how president Mckinley did not want the philippines but after receiving a message from good he decide to take it. Lastly some people were against the U.S becoming an imperialist country.

One of the most well known parts of American history is how Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean in 1492 and evidently discovered the Americas. Where some historians view Christopher Columbus as a heroic adventurer who forever changed history, some view Christopher Columbus as a conqueror who was responsible for one of the world’s worst genocides. These two theories help prove that in history historians tend to use subjective history. Subjective history is w hen history is shown from an opinionated or emotional stand point rather than what actually occurred. Additionally subjective history is something all historians use to some degree considering it’s nearly impossible to record history with hundred percent accuracy. One example of subjective

The demons of a misinterpreted judicial review have corrupted the legislature, the courts, and our political process. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional. The landmark Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision ruled that political spending is a form of free speech and corporations have license to contribute exorbitant amounts to politicians. Citizens United ensures denies the voices of citizens as representatives are beholden to outside interests rather than their constituency. I, Justice John B. Gibson, hold that the power of judicial review is too widely interpreted and, to keep government officials accountable, must be vested in the masses to rediscover some twinge of our once budding representative democracy.

The 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, created national discord with a new discourse over money’s role in politics; in the 5-4 verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which considered limits on political spending the equivalent of limits on first amendment rights. Corporate lobbyists viewed the decision to allow unlimited political expenditures as a victory for the Constitution, while grassroots organizations foresaw the wealthiest corporations and individuals transforming American democracy into a corporatocracy. Unfortunately, the critics’ predictions materialized and crowded out any benefits to small donors. Because Citizens United allows unlimited, anonymous spending from corporations and wealthy interests, special interest groups exponentially increased electoral expenditures, holding politicians hostage to their wealthy donors’ interests and hijacking American democracy in the process. The corporate takeover of representative politics specifically manifested in negative advertising because campaigners believed in negativity’s efficacy in influencing the electorate (Gordon). Moreover, the allowance of external spending encourages candidates to perceive spending towards mudslinging as less attached, and thus harmful, to the candidate. The effect of Citizens United’s precedent is demonstrated in the

The case “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” was to regulate the spendings of candidates campaign, but it failed to succeed. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Bentley, 2017) The case was ruled in favor of big business donating private funds to campaigns. They argued because the first amendment protects the right to speak of many corporations and unions, whether or not people see them as human, therefore the are aloud to donate money to a candidate. (Bentley, 2017) In the academic journal written by Bentley, he States the Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued, " although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis." This meaning the government cannot enforce spending limits on private donors due to the government not being able to identify the big businesses as "corrupted". Since the government cannot label an organization as corrupt or unjust, therefore the donor can continue to assist the candidate. The main problem is the United States of America seems to avoid this. There is a clear problem with Citizens United being able to continue donating money to candidates without giving them so much power. This can be stopped through a constitutional amendment to strip away the corporations of their rights. (Bentley, 2017) By doing this, there will be a very successful campaign for future candidates due to there being an equal amount of money being distributed to them

Today’s American society is plagued by the concept and the idea that the wealthy are secretly pulling the strings behind every political action and every policy move made by our national government. The government has preventative measures that prevent obscenely large donations from wealthy businesses, labor unions, and individuals, right? Actually, that all changed in 2010 in a court case called “Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission” (Hasen). The Supreme Court ruled that “the First Amendment barred a federal law preventing corporations and unions from spending their own funds to influence the outcome of elections,” which does not sound too horrific or detrimental does it (Hasen)? Well, as Mr. Donald Trump would say: “Wrong!” This ruling allowed for the creation of a horrific creation of what are now referred to as “Super PACs.” Super PACs are organizations that operate independently from any candidate or political party. These organizations are allowed to receive any amount of money from any person or organization, which they can they allot towards their own support of a political candidate. A good example of this would be Mitt Romney’s Super PAC entitled “Restore America,” which spent over twelve million dollars launching an ad campaign that attacked Newt Gingrich (MacMillen). These new Super PACs have no purpose other than to allow the rich and wealthy to gain leverage in politics and to push their own agenda by throwing money at candidates. Super PACs and PACs

Within the pro-choice world there are many issues that are discussed like abortion, the instant where life begins and the use of contraceptives. This article will focus on not only the issue of using of contraceptives, but specifically the distribution of oral contraceptives (“the pill”) to teenage girls without their parent’s consent.

With this most recent party alignment we are experiencing, political institutions and agencies are having a more difficult time to addressing campaign finance regulations; thus, exposing loopholes and flaws in the system. Some of these lawsuits have been brought to the courts to dispute campaign regulations on a basis of constitutionality, such as infringing on 1st and 14th Amendment rights. This unfortunately allows the Supreme Court and its jurisprudence to try and make decisions based on their own interpretations regarding campaign finance.

Waite and Gallagher also discuss the benefits that marriage gives to couples. Including the financial benefits, in that through specialization and by sharing incomes getting married boosts standard of living by thirty percent and this benefit is not incurred by cohabitating, as those who cohabitate do not share as much and are less committed to the wellbeing of their partner. In addition to the financial benefits, they also discuss the emotional benefits of knowing you have someone who loves you and who would take care of you. Children similarly benefit from having married parents as there are more financial resources available to help take care of them and they get to spend more time with at least one parent.