Arguments Against Campaign Finance Reform

Money in politics has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Those Who want to eliminate money in politics by implementing campaign finance reform argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation say that campaign donations are a form of free speech, so it’s protected by the first amendment. However, the only groups that are really against campaign finance reform are the rich and the corporations. Most of the common people are against big money influencing their political system, however many do not know just how much of an issue it is. Having money in politics is bad because it …show more content…
There are people who favor this decision that argue this decision allows for freedom of speech. However, this decision just gives special interest groups and lobbyist even more power in Washington. It allows wealthy corporations and unions to have more of a say in politics. And by equating money to speech, one is essentially saying that the more money you have, the greater your voice in politics. The decision allows for unlimited campaign finance spending. Corporations and unions can essentially buy policy. They can persuade candidates to pass a certain bill or make a law that will help the corporation or union. They do this buy using their large general treasury funds to make advertisements and documentaries and other campaigning materials, for the candidate of their choice. In return, if the candidate is elected, he or she can vote on legislation that favors the union or corporation that aided that candidate in the election. This is essentially patronage, something that the government has been trying to fight since the nineteenth