Essay on Critical Thinking Test Week 4

Campaign Finance reform 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. Proponents of campaign finance limits 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 argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

Daniel R. Ortiz’s writing, The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform states that those who argue for campaign finance reform, violate the democratic theory in the name of defending it. This article reveals the paradox between campaign finance reform and other types of regulation of political process. Although the paradox is unavoidable, along with discomforting, it should be made evident.

It is time that the voters are the only one’s deciding elections. Candidates should be running on issues, not money. They should not be allowed to get money from wealthy investors, who keep the playing field unlevel. Any person who wants to run for office, and is qualified to run for office, should be able to regardless if they have a lot of money to set up a campaign or not. It is time for Campaign Finance Reform.

Many people do not live ecofriendly lives or find protecting the environment to be important.

would be a violation of the first amendment to set a limit on political spending, as it is

In order to fully survive, it is very crucial to constantly maintain the environment at a healthy rate. The main aspect that truly affects and drives our environment is the economy. The environment is always brought up within social political debates across the country as it is very difficult for Americans to come to a consensus since we have the right to speak our every thoughts. Two of the major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, are two completely different parties that constantly struggle to settle on the same position. In this essay, I will discuss the political parties’ beliefs about the environment.

Efforts to regulate campaign finance, in particular, the Federal Election Campaign Act, have been based on mistaken assumptions about the role of money in politics and on the mistaken belief that eliminating or reducing money will in some way make the process more fair, the playing field more level. In fact, spending on political campaigns is hardly extravagant, amounting to only a few dollars per eligible voter every two years. Because there is no a priori correct allocation of political advantages, including money, efforts to control this one feature of the political landscape have tended to have serious detrimental side effects, including the entrenchment of incumbents and the stifling of new, alternative political choices. FECA and its

What's worse is that these politicians’ supporters believe it too; we are denying the bad parts of our leaders because again, we don’t want to believe it. And honestly, no one d0es! No one wants to think that we’ve destroyed this planet all by ourselves, and we are all to blame. I don’t want to think that when I am thirty I’ll have to stay inside for fear of getting sick from the immense amounts of toxins in the air! The thing is, we don’t have a choice.

Campaign finance reform is political effort to change the involvement of money in political campaigns. Presidential candidates use a lot of money to run for president, in 2008 Barack Obama raised about 750,000,000 and 250,000,000 came from people who donated 200 dollars or less. The supreme court ruled that limiting on how much money presidential candidates can use on their campaign and contributions by corporation and union was a violation of the first amendment which is the

In American society, campaign finance reform is continuously a topic of discussion. This year’s 2016 election will be the most expensive campaign with presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton is running for office. By this coming November, campaign spending for all candidates spending for all candidates who ran in this year’s election will be an estimated total of 4.4 billion dollars (“Do We Really Need”). For campaign finance to experience reform, we must first acknowledge that the current system is broken. Campaign finance should be restricted and monitored, laws can create more incentive for candidates to disclose political spending. Disclosing Political spending helps voters make informed decisions at the ballot box, and fosters trust in the political process (“Do We Really Need”). States regulate campaign finance in three ways by disclosure and reporting requirements, setting contribution limits to candidate campaign, and by providing a method for public financing of elections. Candidates who run for Federal Office as President of the United States, Vice President, and Senator or House of Representatives have the responsibility to contact the Federal Election Commission to obtain forms and information regarding Federal Campaign requirements and filing deadlines (De Gruyter). States use public financing of elections is by providing means by which candidates can accept public funds to conduct their campaign. If a candidate takes into this program making

Luckily, the dramatic change for finance laws came in the 1970s when the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed. This act paved the way for regulations regarding contribution limits. Before this act was put in place congress never took reports of the money being spent during the election. Finally, in 1967, Congress began collecting and analyzing the financial reports for campaigning. As according to Elizabeth Hanes on History.com, the Federal Election Campaign Act passed in 1971 established “fundamental changes” in campaign finance laws. Hanes goes on to state that in order for the Act to running smoothly the Federal Election Commision was created to “enforce” the campaign finance laws put into place. The Federal Election Campaign Act required full reports of all contributions, amount of money spent and limited spending on media advertisements. Years later in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed, which limited the use of “soft money”, money raised by national parties and political action committees. Passing the act provided more honesty for the candidates running. The political action committees or PACs,

We did not find results for: Throughout much of American history, campaign financing for federal offices was left relatively unregulated and the public knew very little of candidates' campaign finance activity. The largely unregulated framework for federal election campaign financing changed dramatically with the passage of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act, its amendments in 1974, 1976, and 1979, and the Revenue Act of 1971 and its 1974 amendments. As campaign finance expert Anthony Corrado contends: The new campaign finance system represented a major advancement over the patchwork of regulations it replaced. An overview of regulations at the state level would show a wide range of approaches and regulatory frameworks in dealing with campaign

They are ignoring their human morals of saving the planet just to get their government funding. If the world continues down the same path we are now, our planet will be uninhabitable sooner rather than later because of politician’s lust for money and

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.

During his campaign, president-elect Donald Trump made several statements across different states regarding his policies and positions. A particularly interesting statement took place on May 26th, 2016, in North Carolina, concerning his energy policies. His speech had the purpose of advocating against President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), refuting the positions assumed by the democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, and of promoting the expansion of the fossil fuel industry (Trump, 2016). While still concerned with environmental issues in his policies, Trump claims that some of the most important ones are “phony”, such as Global Warming.