Various actors are able to influence political campaigns, including interest groups such as, PACS, Super PACS, and Unions; in addition individual contributors. Under Buckley corporations were able to create political action committees (PACS or super PACS) to raise and make monetary contributions to political candidates, in addition to spending on their behalf. Citizens United Supreme Court case further their capabilities by making it legal for corporations to do these things without the need of such PACS. These articles are vey fascinating for they discuss issues on campaign financing reforms that inevitably affect both political candidates and citizens. The issue at hand deals with the Supreme Court’s decision favoring Citizens United, which
…show more content…
The author contends that the Citizens United court case not only violated previous established laws but also was harmful to campaign financing in multiple ways. The argument made is that by allowing corporations the right to have unlimited spending on behalf of candidates, belittles the speech of other competitors running for offices that do not have equal amounts of resources. He furthers his argument by saying that corporations will support candidates that share similar positions on issues, such as those regarding climate change. In this essence, corporations are able to buy enough airtime that subjugates and limits the speech of advocates of such issues whom are not able to buy equal broadcasting. Moreover, in regards to the First Amendment rights given to citizens, those in favor of the Citizens United reform argue that corporations as well are entitled to these freedom of expression/speech rights; that by limiting corporate expenditures on behalf of candidates running for public offices diminishes their freedom to speak. Corporations argue that political speech is aimed at informing the electorate and therefore their allowance to spend unlimitedly is fundamental for spreading information. In contrasting such argument, Dworkin discusses that neither the quantity nor the …show more content…
Corruption can find many loopholes in the system and therefore one cannot declare it to be a perfect one. Simply because it is the case that this right was permitted in other states and such corporations did not abuse their spending to the point of shunning other candidates does not mean that they will not do so in the future. In addition, the First Amendment rights and even previous verdicts regarding such rights are simply too vague and based on interpretation. Whether corporations should have equal rights as individuals to express themselves is simply a subject of too much complication. Being that corporations are composed of a great number of shareholders whom all may have divergent opinions on a matter, it can be argue that a corporation cannot have its own opinion, just as it cannot vote. While these two articles introduce the reader to the complexity that resides in the issue of campaign finance reforms they do not necessarily lay out a reform that is beneficial to all, but it is clear that a more direct meaning to the First Amendment may be a great
The author contends that the Citizens United court case not only violated previous established laws but also was harmful to campaign financing in multiple ways. The argument made is that by allowing corporations the right to have unlimited spending on behalf of candidates, belittles the speech of other competitors running for offices that do not have equal amounts of resources. He furthers his argument by saying that corporations will support candidates that share similar positions on issues, such as those regarding climate change. In this essence, corporations are able to buy enough airtime that subjugates and limits the speech of advocates of such issues whom are not able to buy equal broadcasting. Moreover, in regards to the First Amendment rights given to citizens, those in favor of the Citizens United reform argue that corporations as well are entitled to these freedom of expression/speech rights; that by limiting corporate expenditures on behalf of candidates running for public offices diminishes their freedom to speak. Corporations argue that political speech is aimed at informing the electorate and therefore their allowance to spend unlimitedly is fundamental for spreading information. In contrasting such argument, Dworkin discusses that neither the quantity nor the …show more content…
Corruption can find many loopholes in the system and therefore one cannot declare it to be a perfect one. Simply because it is the case that this right was permitted in other states and such corporations did not abuse their spending to the point of shunning other candidates does not mean that they will not do so in the future. In addition, the First Amendment rights and even previous verdicts regarding such rights are simply too vague and based on interpretation. Whether corporations should have equal rights as individuals to express themselves is simply a subject of too much complication. Being that corporations are composed of a great number of shareholders whom all may have divergent opinions on a matter, it can be argue that a corporation cannot have its own opinion, just as it cannot vote. While these two articles introduce the reader to the complexity that resides in the issue of campaign finance reforms they do not necessarily lay out a reform that is beneficial to all, but it is clear that a more direct meaning to the First Amendment may be a great