Oz Hewett
The Political Product
The Constitution is document laying out the frame of America’s government, written by the creators of this country on a piece of parchment. This document has done a good job of making sure the rights of the people are protected, and that the United States maintains order. After the writing of the Constitution, there were ten amendments made to it, commonly know as the Bill of Rights. It outlines the rights of the people and the rights assured to them by their government. The First Amendment, alone with freedom of religion, press, and assembly, talks about the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech prohibits congress from restricting people’s rights to talk freely. There are situations, however, that need a …show more content…
They believed that political speech makes up this country, and to democracy itself. Because of that, it shouldn’t make a difference whether the political speech comes from a single person or a corporation. As well as that, the court talked about how there are corporations, such as those in news and media that are made to speak about political views. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens for simply engaging in political speech.” If all corporations were to be banned from political speech, they would in turn be restricting the freedom of press. Although there is a massive amount of wealth in the ever-expanding corporate wallet, the possible distorting effects of their potential influence is not enough to revoke the freedom of speech just because they have money to back their opinions with. The threat of quid pro quo, or expecting something when giving something, is just not enough to prevent corporations from expressing their view and exercising their First Amendment right to free …show more content…
A corporation funding a candidate would inevitably lead to quid pro quo. Even if it doesn’t, that company would have it’s own interests in mind, and would try to get a candidate elected if they promise things beneficial to the profits of the company. I can’t say that I agree with the court’s ruling, although I do understand why it was made. The First Amendment clearly supports the right to free speech and freedom of press. Throughout many years, corporations have gained personhood, meaning that many of the rights given to people in the First Amendment also apply to corporations. The result of this is a lack of separation between the two, while in reality, the interests that a corporation has are far different than those of the individual. It is assumed that small donations from a person to a campaign will overall not affect the races as a
The Political Product
The Constitution is document laying out the frame of America’s government, written by the creators of this country on a piece of parchment. This document has done a good job of making sure the rights of the people are protected, and that the United States maintains order. After the writing of the Constitution, there were ten amendments made to it, commonly know as the Bill of Rights. It outlines the rights of the people and the rights assured to them by their government. The First Amendment, alone with freedom of religion, press, and assembly, talks about the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech prohibits congress from restricting people’s rights to talk freely. There are situations, however, that need a …show more content…
They believed that political speech makes up this country, and to democracy itself. Because of that, it shouldn’t make a difference whether the political speech comes from a single person or a corporation. As well as that, the court talked about how there are corporations, such as those in news and media that are made to speak about political views. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens for simply engaging in political speech.” If all corporations were to be banned from political speech, they would in turn be restricting the freedom of press. Although there is a massive amount of wealth in the ever-expanding corporate wallet, the possible distorting effects of their potential influence is not enough to revoke the freedom of speech just because they have money to back their opinions with. The threat of quid pro quo, or expecting something when giving something, is just not enough to prevent corporations from expressing their view and exercising their First Amendment right to free …show more content…
A corporation funding a candidate would inevitably lead to quid pro quo. Even if it doesn’t, that company would have it’s own interests in mind, and would try to get a candidate elected if they promise things beneficial to the profits of the company. I can’t say that I agree with the court’s ruling, although I do understand why it was made. The First Amendment clearly supports the right to free speech and freedom of press. Throughout many years, corporations have gained personhood, meaning that many of the rights given to people in the First Amendment also apply to corporations. The result of this is a lack of separation between the two, while in reality, the interests that a corporation has are far different than those of the individual. It is assumed that small donations from a person to a campaign will overall not affect the races as a