The Pros And Cons Of Campaign Contributions
Are campaign contributions threatening democracy here in the United States? Many believe contributions to campaigns should not only be regulated but limited to prevent the abuse of fiscal power. Others adamantly disagree and proclaim supporting their candidate financially is a civil liberty granted to them by the constitution. However you stand on this issue, we must all accept the fact that the flood gates are now open.
In the landmark 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing corporate spending on elections. Since then, contributions have been pouring in in unprecedented numbers. Many of these contribution have come from anonymous donors or donated to groups known as super paces. In 2012 alone, nearly $340 million was spent by a mere 100 Super Paces. …show more content…
It states that campaign contributions are being “paid for by secret donors with unknown motives”. It is the author’s belief that wealthy individuals are able to finance political agendas for their own personal motives. This creates a disparity and political advantage when the average citizen spends little to none on elections.
“The purpose of disclosure is for us, the citizens, to monitor politicians — not for politicians to monitor our political views”. This quote is from “Campaign donor secrecy stops retaliation”, an opposing argument also written in the New York Times. Its view is vastly different and believes anonymous detonations prevents retaliations. I argues that donations are a first amendment right and should be allowed to be done in secrecy just as
In the landmark 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing corporate spending on elections. Since then, contributions have been pouring in in unprecedented numbers. Many of these contribution have come from anonymous donors or donated to groups known as super paces. In 2012 alone, nearly $340 million was spent by a mere 100 Super Paces. …show more content…
It states that campaign contributions are being “paid for by secret donors with unknown motives”. It is the author’s belief that wealthy individuals are able to finance political agendas for their own personal motives. This creates a disparity and political advantage when the average citizen spends little to none on elections.
“The purpose of disclosure is for us, the citizens, to monitor politicians — not for politicians to monitor our political views”. This quote is from “Campaign donor secrecy stops retaliation”, an opposing argument also written in the New York Times. Its view is vastly different and believes anonymous detonations prevents retaliations. I argues that donations are a first amendment right and should be allowed to be done in secrecy just as