America has always been a nation dedicated to the principles of democracy. Though the government has undergone massive changes in its organization, democracy has always been and hopefully always will be the pillar upon which the government is run. Despite the importance of the people in the governing process, many now think that their elected officials do not represent their interests. The reason for this doubt is that many politicians now take large donations from corporations, which are likely used for political leverage. One is inclined to agree with the people, as politicians continue to favor the interest of big business over those who elected them. By allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns the government has undermined
…show more content…
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION”). According to Principal Analyst Kristin Sullivan and Legislative Analyst Terrance Adams, this case was started by Citizens United in an attempt to protect their recently developed movie Hillary. Both Adams and Sullivan went on to explain that Hillary was a political piece used by Citizens United to express whether or not she was fit for the position of president. Citizens United however feared that Hillary may violate Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act , which “ prohibits corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on “electioneering communications” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.”(Kristin Sullivan, and Terrance Adams, “SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION”). According to Sullivan and Adams, Citizens United then proceeded to file an injunction in December of 2007 arguing that § 441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary. This simple argument over the rights to release a movie quickly evolved into a massive decision that could have long reaching implications, and unfortunately the most negative of those implications were true. As stated by both Sullivan and Adams, “The …show more content…
Some when questioned about corporate campaign donations will immediately jump to their defense and claim that it is free speech. Though it may be true that the supreme court allows these donations based of the concept of free speech, this argument falls flat when applied to any other situation (Kristin Sullivan, and Terrance Adams). For example, if while at a football game you saw a fan of one team step forward and pay a referee wouldn’t you immediately doubt the trustworthiness of that referee? Then if you questioned the fan and he said “well money is speech so that was freedom of speech” wouldn’t that bother you? Of course it would because that fan clearly paid the referee, expecting favorable calls for his team. This is the same situation we see in our government. Corporations back candidates and give them enormous donations to help them be elected. And just like the referee the politician is now indebted to that corporation, and they just expect the American people to believe that all of that money will not affect the politician 's decisions. This is just preposterous. Some supporters of corporate campaign donations will also claim that it is beneficial to have corporations involved in the government so that the government can better understand the needs of the U.S market. One can however argue that allowing corporations to have influence in the government
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION”). According to Principal Analyst Kristin Sullivan and Legislative Analyst Terrance Adams, this case was started by Citizens United in an attempt to protect their recently developed movie Hillary. Both Adams and Sullivan went on to explain that Hillary was a political piece used by Citizens United to express whether or not she was fit for the position of president. Citizens United however feared that Hillary may violate Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act , which “ prohibits corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on “electioneering communications” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.”(Kristin Sullivan, and Terrance Adams, “SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION”). According to Sullivan and Adams, Citizens United then proceeded to file an injunction in December of 2007 arguing that § 441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary. This simple argument over the rights to release a movie quickly evolved into a massive decision that could have long reaching implications, and unfortunately the most negative of those implications were true. As stated by both Sullivan and Adams, “The …show more content…
Some when questioned about corporate campaign donations will immediately jump to their defense and claim that it is free speech. Though it may be true that the supreme court allows these donations based of the concept of free speech, this argument falls flat when applied to any other situation (Kristin Sullivan, and Terrance Adams). For example, if while at a football game you saw a fan of one team step forward and pay a referee wouldn’t you immediately doubt the trustworthiness of that referee? Then if you questioned the fan and he said “well money is speech so that was freedom of speech” wouldn’t that bother you? Of course it would because that fan clearly paid the referee, expecting favorable calls for his team. This is the same situation we see in our government. Corporations back candidates and give them enormous donations to help them be elected. And just like the referee the politician is now indebted to that corporation, and they just expect the American people to believe that all of that money will not affect the politician 's decisions. This is just preposterous. Some supporters of corporate campaign donations will also claim that it is beneficial to have corporations involved in the government so that the government can better understand the needs of the U.S market. One can however argue that allowing corporations to have influence in the government