After reading the articles about superPAC spending, answer the following questions and respond to at least one other student post for full credit. Remember your explanation should be the focus of your post.
1. Is our democracy weakened by the influence of such large sums of money ($1.3 billion in 2012 presidential race alone) spent on campaigns? Does this actually strengthen our democracy by providing another opportunity for participation (through unlimited donations)Why or why not?
2. Do you think there should be a limit on spending for political advertisements? Why or why not?
3. Should money=speech, as the Supreme Court has ruled? Does the implication that people with the most money will have the loudest voice hold true in America? Why or why not?
4. Do you agree with the idea that "corporations are people" for the purposes of campaign spending as the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United? Why or why not?
38 comments:
1. I believe that our democracy is weakened because money is very influential, especially when it comes to campaigning. It may serve for good purposes in the beginning but it has the high chance of becoming the campaign if there is no limit.
2. Yes there should be a limit. If one party is given a large amount of money for an add and another isn’t given as much, that wouldn’t be very fair.
3. This money=speech issue goes both ways. Giving money to campaigns is good because that is what runs the campaigns. It also shows the independence of the voters, allowing them to show that they support a cause. It can however be abused because campaigns can receive so much money that the money becomes the essential focus while the actual campaigning doesn’t.
4. I stand with the belief that corporations are people because corporations can have a larger impact on campaign spending than one person can.
1.) I do not believe such large sums of money weaken the democracy for a few reasons. One reason is that the money is conveying information about candidates so it is helping to educate the American people; even if the information is biased. Secondly, money does not equal victory. From the article that we read in class many republicans that were endorsed by millionaire hot shots did not win elections.
2.)There should not be limitations on SuperPACS. It is the superPAC's personal money, the government should not be able to dictate how much of the money is used. This is America, a free capitalist economy, money should flow equally.
3.) Money should not equal speech as the supreme court ruled. This creates an uneven playing field for smaller parties or candidates.Although, money does not necessarily equal the loudest voice, it just simply means that the voice is said more. An example is the more money, the more commercials so the voice is said more but not necessarily louder.
4.) No corporations should not be considered people. Corporations are much larger and can have a much greater impact than an individual. They therefore should not play by the same rules. An example is you can jail an individual but not jail a corporation, so why would they play by the same rules when it comes to funding political parties.
1. Our democracy is weakened because not everyone can afford to donate huge amounts of money to political campaigns to show their support. Thus, the platforms that the parties fight for represent the huge corporations and people who can afford to donate, and not all of the people of the United States.
2.No, because doing so won't solve any problems. Plus, most of the money is third party spending and is hard to regulate
3. Money should not equal speech, because that means the less fortunate people with no money have no say in anything. That implication definitely holds true, since corporations with huge sums of money that they can donate have much more of a say than the average citizen that may or may not even vote at the polls.
4. I do not agree, because corporations are not representative of everyone in the company, but of the CEO or a specific board of directors.
1. I do not believe that our democracy is weakened by large sums of money; however I also don’t believe that it strengthens the race either. There have been many races that show that a lot of money was poured into advertisement but the candidate still lost the election because their message was not liked by the rest of America and that is what matters.
2. I don’t think that there should be a limit on the amount of money that can be given because it is their money and they can do whatever they want with it. If they feel that that is the only way for them to be able to endorse the person and help them win, go for it. However, dumping millions upon millions of dollars will not guarantee a win for the candidate.
3. Money should not equal money in any way. You could have all the money in the world but your opinion could be worthless and vice versa. To me, I think that this is discrimination because it is almost saying, if you don’t have this much money, your opinion does not matter because your financial background can’t back you up.
4. I don’t agree that corporations are people because a large corporation can have a much larger influence than a person and since money is a large factor in this, corporations could round up large sums of money while an individual person can only get so much.
5. I agree with Akhila on question 3 with the money equaling speech statement. It is basically saying that the multi-million dollar corporations have more power because of money and a person has no influence because they can’t donate a large sum of money, noting comparable to a corporation at least.
1. I believe our democracy is weakened by campaign spending because much of the time a large sum of money is spent on funding and advertising, which sometimes ends up being a waste of spending when the campaign looses. Among all the campaign spending, the whole purpose of focusing on the bigger picture of improving the government is at times put to the side in the moment of achieving more votes based on how large the campaigns are.
2. There should not be a limit on campaign spending because the money is coming out of the people's pockets, therefore the government shouldn't control how the people choose to spend their money.
3. The topic of money=speech has two sides to it. Sometimes the more money a campaign has will mean that they will definitely get to advertise their message a lot more than other campaigns, but it does not necessarily mean that the speech is stronger because more funding was given to the campaign. At the same time, a campaign with low money funding could have a stronger message but not a lot of money to campaign it to the public.
4. Corporations are not people because a corporation consists of a lot more levels of power and money, where as an individual is almost considered only a part and does not hold as much money or power.
1. Our democracy is definitely negatively impacted by the presence of such large donations by outside parties. Money is necessary to win a campaign, to buy air time and place ads. You won't win a campaign if you are in disparity compared to your opponents financial situation. Also, keeping your job is a crucial thing. In order to keep your funding, you must keep those funding you happy, which you must do to keep your job. In a sense, private companies buy parts of our government.
2. There must be a limit to the amount that SuperPacs can give to candidates. This is what allows for large companies, controlled by very few people, to support, and in some sense employ, such a large percentage of our government. If the politicians were forced to get more support from the people as a whole than they were from the few with the most money, government would most likely be much more representative.
3. Money=speech is both correct and incorrect. People do make a stand every time they choose to make a purchase, as their money is going toward that organization, supporting the ideals of that organization. However, continuing with the analogy means that those with more money have more speech than the disenfranchised, which is fundamentally against what we, as a country, are supposed to believe in.
4. Corporations are not people because they are not subjected to the same social issues that people are interested in. The idea that corporations are people, despite the fact they can't deal with the majority of the problems the American public are concerned with on a daily basis, is absurd.
1. I don't believe that large amounts of money spent on political campaigns compromises our democracy because the money is a representation of the support of the people, which essentially gives them a voice in the matter.
2. I don't think that there should be a set limit on spending for political advertisements because it should be up to the people or the company to decide how they should spend their money. Setting limitations implies that the government is attempting to keep the competition fair, but, in politics, nothing really is fair so limiting the amount of money that goes towards a candidate might jeopardize their chances of winning.
3. Money should equal speech because those who have the money, but don't have the time to be fully participated in a campaign should have the right to have their voice heard through their money. Besides, if one person donates a large amount of money towards a candidate, and many people donate small amounts of money towards the opposing candidate, both sides have as much of a voice as the other. It doesn't mean that those who are wealthy have more of a say than those who might not be as fortunate.
4. I don't agree with the "corporations are people" idea because if a corporation is spending money on political campaigns, the donation might not represent each and every individual in the corporation. It might just be a representation of the beliefs of the head of the corporation just because he/she has the sole control of the money.
1. I believe that our democracy is weakened by the influence of such large sums of money spent on campaigns because, more time and effort is spent on funding for the campaigns taking the attention away from improving our government system and focusing less on global issues.
2. I do not think there should be a limit spending for political ads because it is the corporations own money and the government should not get involved with how they want to spend their money.
3. Money should not equal speech because this is a disadvantaged to the people who are less fortunate, ultimately not allowing them to have a say so in anything.
4.Corportations should not equal people because corporations are larger and can be more powerful than an individual person.
1. I think that our democracy is weakened by the influence of large money on campaigns because that creates an unfair advantage. The people with the more money have the ability to influence more people and in turn can make people vote a certain way that they may not have voted otherwise.
2. Yes, I believe that there should be a cap on the amount of money that can be spent on a campaign because otherwise it can create an unfair imbalance and through off the democratic way of thinking. The more money a campaign uses the more it can influence the public, and this is unfair because it gives a rich a well-supported candidate a better chance of winning.
3. I do not think that money should equal speech. This is basically saying that because you have more money, you get to voice your opinion more. This is completely unfair and definitely is undemocratic and doesn’t allow everyone to be equal.
4. Corporations should not count as people because those corporations are made up of a bunch of people and each of those people have differing views. If a corporation supports liberal views but the bulk of its workers are conservative it can cause a problem and insult the workers working there. Also a lot of companies are run by a few wealthy people, those people can go express their opinions separate of the corporation and not cause any problems.
1. Our democracy is weakened by the influence of large sums of money because as the passage states, big outside money forces candidates to spend more time fundraising than on the issues. More wealthy people would have a bigger impact than the poor who can't contribute as much.
2. There shouldn't be a limit because it is the people's money and should be allowed to spend it on how they want it to be used.
3. Money should not equal speech because it is unequal. The poor will not have a say in things even if they would like to. This would cause unbalance because the wealthier you are, the easier it is to be heard.
4. Corporations are not people because corporations can have a larger impact than just one individual.
1. Based on the outcome of many elections, with big spenders being the biggest losers, our democracy is not weakened by large sums of money spent on campaigns. Just because you spend the most money doesn't mean you're going to come out on top. If the message you're trying to get across to the people is inaccurate or doesn't relate to them, that candidate is wasting their money. I do believe that unlimited donations strengthen our democracy because it encourages regular people to participate. Of the $1.3 billion dollars spent in the 2012 presidential election, over 1 million of those donations came from individuals donating $200 or less. These people were getting involved by donating just a little bit of money to the candidate they thought would best represent them and approach certain issues in a way they agreed with.
2. There should not be a limit on spending for political advertisements. In a democracy everyone is going to get one vote but they shouldn't be restricted on much money they can put into a campaign. Government should not be allowed to dictate how we use our money. If someone wants to waste all of their money on a campaign, then let them, that is their right.
3. Money=speech is absolutely true. If you have enough money to produce as many ads as you want, then that is your right. This still doesn't guarantee that people will agree with you and vote your way, but you should definitely be allowed to make your voice as loud as your money permits. This goes back to the first amendment, free speech. If you limit the money on campaigns, you're limiting their speech which is unconstitutional. People with the most money will have their voice heard more than others with less, but once again if the people don't agree with that voice then it's on the candidate's group for wasting money.
4. Corporations are made up of people and so they should be treated the same as people. The rules for both need to be the same. The corporations need to have to same rules and limitations as individual people. This keeps things fair in the aspect of donations.
1. I think that the democracy is not weakened by the influence of such large sums of money because it doesn't matter how much money you put into the campaigns, it about who has the more valid statments to make a citizen vote for them. Money is how people give support to the specific party.
2. I believe that there shouldn't be a limit on how people spend there money on political advertisements because it is there money that they earned, so if they want to donate money the should have the right to. Also, it allows there to be voter contact within the campaign. Without getting money you can't campaign, so they should be able to spend there money on anything they want. The more money they have gives them a chance to have more political advertisements which would allow the party to have a better chance at winning.
3. I think money should not equal speech because it gives the unwealthy people a smaller voice than the more wealthy people. Yes, that implies that the people with the most money will have the loudest voice because they have more money and that will give them a bigger chance to be heard, rather than a less fortunate person.
4. I believe that corporations are not people because they all consisted of a lot of people that have to come up with a compromise about the campaigns whereas the individual person doesn't have much say compared to a corporation.
1.While I don't feel our democracy is weakened by the amount of money spent on campaigns, I do think that the money should not be spent on that. That's money that could be going to help homeless people or help to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it, or even just to put back into our economy in general. Though Alex was correct in her statement above about the amount of money mainly going to losing candidates, that just proves my point more. Why give money to a candidate that will just lose? You can never completely predict the outcome, and by giving money to someone who will or will not lose, it's wasting money that could be used in a more effective manner. Especially when a lot of the candidates don't even spend their advertising time telling us what their going to change. They just tell us what they think is wrong with the other candidate, which isn't even a good source to the general population because they are biased.
2.I do think there should be a limit on political advertisements. I think that there should be an equal amount of advertisements for everyone. Or at least some kind of formula that would prevent one candidate from having more air time than another. If candidate A has 50 ads, or commercials on 50 different channels, there should be a certain percentage that another candidate could go over that. It's a free country, and we all have free speech, but that won't make much of a difference if our equal rights don't stay equal.
3.In America, money does equal speech. It's unfortunate, but true. In this country, everyone has free speech, but there are over three hundred million people in America alone. Each voice is very small. It makes sense that you would have to pay money to be heard, but to what extent? You shouldn't have to pay millions of dollars. There aren't that many presidential candidates. If they each got the same amount of time on the same amount of channels in the same amount of websites, or newspapers, flyers, or billboards, anything, then the equal rights we were promised would be real.
4. I don't think corporations are people. I think the people that a corporation is comprised of are not equally represented. Corporate ideas do not always represent all of those people, it generally represents the people in charge, because they are the ones with the money, which just further proves the point of view that money should not equal speech.
1. Truthfully, I believe our American Democracy is weakened tremendouly by the influence of grand sums of money spent on campaigns. This is because more effort is focused on advertising the campaign rather than fixing real problems within the government.
2. I think there should be a spending cap on how much money can be spent. Essentially money run politics, which in my opinion should not be the case. Putting a limit on how much money one can spend on a campaign gives each canadiate an equal chance to win. The people will then be forced to listen to the ideals each canadiate wishes to pursue.
3. Personally, I do not think money should equal speech. Someone with less money might withhold changing ideas and aspects that could never have been shared if money equalled speech. It does not give the candidates a fair and equal opportunities.
4. Corporations should not equal people. This is because larger corporations might hold more power than a regular individual would.
1) I do believe that our democracy is weakened some because the rich, and large corporations, can donate more money than regular people; therefore they have a louder voice in a way. Thus, their voice drowns out the voices of other contributors who have less money. \
2) I believe that there should be a limit on spending so that third parties could have a say as well, and because all that money could be used in much better ways than advertising candidates 24/7 .\
3) No, money should not equal speech. Because some people have much more money than others, and everyone is supposed to have equal protection of free speech. But when money=speech, if you don't have enough money, your voice can't be heard. \
4) Not necessarily. Because a corporation is made up of a large group of people, but they only support one political party; therefore they are not accurately representing everyone in the corporation.
1) I agree with what Allison Snyder had previously said in that our democracy is not weakened by large sums of money. But, I disagree with the idea that money does not strengthen the race. In a political campaign, money allows the candidate to show their general stance. Without money, candidates wouldn't even be able to get their views and ideas known.
2) I do believe that there should be a limit on the amount of money that can be spent on political advertisements. This way, there can be an equal playing ground for the candidate. This will ensure the reliability of how the candidate won because we can be (more) sure that the winning candidate was not chosen because their advertisement was of better quality.
3) Money should not equal speech. It is true that people with the most money have the loudest voice. Is that fair? No, but nevertheless, big corporations and businesses who can afford lobbyist have more of an influence.
4) I do not agree with the idea that "corporations are people" because it isn't fair to the average American. A middle class citizen is obviously not going to be able to donate and contribute as much money as a million dollar corporation.
-Ahmani Joseph
1.I believe that through unlimited donations our democracy is strengthened by opening up another way to input support into campaigns and politics. Due to the fact that many people who are actively engaged in politics may not have the time to go and cast a vote, they may find that donating can give them the same satisfaction as if they had gone and cast a vote.
2.I think that there should be a limit for advertisement spending because all parties can have an equal amount of exposure. Time and time again democrats and republicans raise a significant amount of money while the third party often does not. By limiting spending for advertisements the public will have no other choice but to pay attention to all of the candidates equally. This will also draw more attention toward the views of the candidate rather than the candidates themselves.
3.I believe that money should not equal speech because this would imply that people with more money would have a bigger impact which is unconstitutional as everyone is entitled to equal participation. On the other hand people have the right to spend their money however they want to since it’s not like anyone is forcing them to give money to the organization.
4.I think that corporations should not equal people since the company is most likely not an accurate representation of the employees that work there, also since companies have a much larger impact than an individual they should not be equal.
1. I believe that large sums of money weakens democracy because it makes campaigning more about popularity rather than policy. It becomes a competition on which party can raise the most money rather than who has the better plan.
2. I believe that there should be limits on spending of political advertisements because it would cause them not to slander and to focus on getting their point across more. They would not be able to mass produce ads and overrun the competition and rather would have to persuade people to their side with their ideas.
3. I believe that money can equal speech, but there can still be a limit that way it doesnt make the political scene unbalanced. When a lot of money is donated by a small group of people, it doesnt correctly display how many people are behind them as compared to when a lot of people donate smaller amounts.
4. I believe that corporations being people should have some limits, because when it comes to political campaigning it can be unfair because there are enough loopholes to allow corporations to get away with things.
1. Our democracy is weakened by the influence of large sums of money spent on campaigns because the people of the democracy are not being represented in a fairly matter. One person’s opinion should not be more advertised or important than another person’s opinion. The public can independently support candidates through social media but local and national new stations should equally cover and display their political views to their viewers. This will make the voters more educated and therefore participate more.
2. I think there should be a limit on spending for political advertisement because we are in debt and it is a waste of the people’s money. Plus, the candidates would not be equally represented. The voters need to participate more by holding debates on which candidate they would like to donate because some people just donate to a party and not the candidate. The limit on spending for political advertisement would make the voters care more about how their money is being used to support their candidate.
3. I disagree with the Supreme Court that money=speech because it implies that people with the most money will have a louder voice. This does not hold true to the democracy ideal that people rule the government. If money equals speech and speech equals political power, does this mean that rich people rule the government? The Supreme Court got this one wrong in my opinion.
4. I disagree that corporations are people because the employs might disagree with the corporation’s political ideology. For example, Chick-fil-A does not agree with abortions but an employee could agree with or even have one and work at Chick-fil-A. Maybe, corporations are people if the people were robots and had the same opinion, but people are not robots and have different opinions. It is not fair that a rich boss of a corporation can donate or support a campaign that people in the corporation do not agree with and do not have a say in it.
By Brandon Battle 2B/AP GOV
(1B)
1. Democracy, to a point, is weakened by the influx of large sums of money into campaigning. The idea in a democracy is that every person participates equally in the government. Since campaigning is a form of participation, it is then that every person running for office should equally participate; therefore, get equal representation. If one person raises millions of dollars while another only gets a million, it becomes unequal between the two runners, as one can afford to campaign a lot more, while the other is limited on what they can do with such funding. As such, it would then take away from the natural meaning of democracy.
2. As stated in my first response, democracy is weakened from large donations; thus, there should be a limit on how much is spent on advertisements. The limit should be based on the other runners’ donations; however, at a reasonable extent. If there is a statistical outlier, they would be ignored on the rule, so the limit would regard those raising around the same amount of money.
3. In my opinion, money should not be the equivalent of speech. The idea of freedom of speech is that everyone has the same capacity to input, and therefore becomes the reason that there is no limit on what they are allowed to say. In regards to money, however, each person is at different stages of financial progression, and thus each is able only to donate a certain amount of money. Thus, it shouldn’t have equal rights as speech due to its inability to be equally inputted.
4. Corporations should not have the ability to be called as a ‘person’. In regards to donating, this would mean they reserve the right to donate as much as they want because of the money is speech ruling. This makes the unfairness of donating even more obvious, as corporations have larger amounts of money to shell out, and therefore would take away from the meaning of smaller donations, to an extent. Additionally, workers at a corporation might be against the donation, but have no say in that decision, which then means that worker technically is in favor of that campaigner. In general, corporations would then use the Bill of Rights to defend in legal matters- since they are people- which becomes problematic and even catastrophic in the legal world.
1. Our democracy is weakened by the large amount of money because it favors those who can spend a lot of money over those who cannot. It gives people who are willing or able to donate money more input than those who are not able to donate money. This process favors the elite or upper class over the lower class. This conflict can be traced all the way back to the 1700s with the framing of the Constitution.
2. I think we should limit spending because there are much more worthy causes out there. Donating money to political advertisements is not the best use for a person's money, in my opinion. Donating directly to the causes a person supports would be more beneficial for everyone, since the money would go directly to supporting a cause.
3. Money is not equal to speech. We have restrictions on money, but we cannot have restrictions on speech. The Bill of Rights grants us free speech, not free money. People with the most money typically have the loudest voice, especially when there are no restrictions on money. They are simply able to do more to get their voice heard.
4. While I do not know much about the Supreme Court case and do believe that they must have had good reasoning to come to their conclusions, I disagree. I think that corporations represent themselves, not the people that they're made up of. A corporation would represent its own needs, not the needs of individuals.
1. The idea of spending money alone promotes democracy because it encourages political participation. Money is spent on ads to get people to the polls and encourage voting, resulting in large voting turn outs and people voicing their opinion.
2. There should not be a limit on superPAC spending because it is third party and in a capitalist society people should be able to spend any amount of money on what they want.
3. People should have freedom to spend money on items they wish to purchase, just like people should be free to express their opinions in speech.
4. Corporations are people, (I agree with Sharon Bradley) because I agree with the idea that 1 CEO could donate to a campaign even if his/her employees don't agree with it because big money benefits American politics. Big money contributions promote political participation such as voting. Big money spending also helps educate individuals in political socialization as contributions go toward websites and informational TV ads, handouts,and brochures.
1.) No, I do not believe that our democracy is weakened by the alrge sums of money spet on campaigns becuase money does not "always spell victory," as stated in the article. The article talked about how Republican candidates in the 2012 election had the biggest and most high-profile outside spenders and raised more than $1 million, but they still ended up losing the election. For example, accordding to the article, Karl Rover "poured $300 million into races this year," but he still lost the election, which validifies the statement that money does not entitle victory.
2.) I do think that there should be a limit on spending for political ads becuase some candidates are more affluent as oppossed to other candidates, so they have the upper hand when it comes to elections and getting more voter contact. If one wealthy candidate is carelessy spending large amounts of money on campaigns, while another candidate who is not as affluent is barely getting by, it's not fair becuase one candidate will be getting more support than other, which is not right. At the same time, I think a limit should be implemented becuase no one knows where the excess amount of money goes after the campaigning and election is over. People have right to know what their money is going towards and where it's going. When a wealthy candidate is using absurd amounts of money and then there's so much excess, it becomes a problem becuase no one is sure if the money is going towards the right places or if it just goes back into a candidate's bank account. A limit should be set so that one is spending too much, but at the same time, they are not spending too little. A limit will act as a check and balance for the candidates and it will enable fairness among the candidates.
3.)Money should not equal speech because then candidates or people who are less fortunate than others will not have the same opportunity to voice their opinion about a topic that concerns them. It's wrong that the SC ruled that "money=speech" because then they are basically implying that if you are not wealthy or affluent, then your voice and opinions don't matter, which is wrong. Every person living in the United States is awarded freedom of speech; we are free to voice our opinions in this democracy we live in through our voice, self-expression, protests, etc and any way that will enable our voice to be heard. IF we start saying that money=speech, then you are discriminating against people of different social classes who may not have as much money as another person. We are entitled to voice our opinions and what we want in our government, so determing our right to freedom of speech by the amount of money we have in our bank accounts is absurd and morally wrong. Regardless of whether you are affluent or not, everyone has the right to free speech becuase that is what helps voice our concerns to our government.
4. I do not agree with the statement that "coroporations are people" becuase corporations are already large enough and compared to one individual, they have a far greater impact than one individual. Corporations already receive large sums of money from the government and they are massive in size compared to individuals. If corporations were to be classifed as people, they would be entitled to the same rights as individuals, which is not fair becuase they are already corporate business who make excessive amount of money, which gives them the upperhand. Besides from that, not all corporations play by the rules; some of them launder money from other big corporations or businesses, which can land them in legal trouble, so some of the money that is even coming to them was probably obtained illegally. Some corporations are corrupt and ruthless, so counting them as a person will not only cause legal and financial troubles, but it could also produce a bad portrayal of that corporation towards potential donors or people who want to be supportive during the election.
1.) This weakens our democracy in regards to the debt that America is already in. Money in America equals power just like property equaled power in prior American history. However as far as participation, it is a active attribute for American society.
2.)I think there should be a limit because then elections wouldn't be based off of who has the most acquired amount. Then third parties may have a higher chance of making it into the limelight.
3.) Money should not equal speech. People should be able to equally voice their opinion no matter the quantity. Money being equivalent to speech is saying the poor, or even middle class have no say.
4.) I do people corporations are people because they are composed of ideals just like an everyday citizen; however, they should not complete control campaigns.
1.) This weakens our democracy in regards to the debt that America is already in. Money in America equals power just like property equaled power in prior American history. However as far as participation, it is a active attribute for American society.
2.)I think there should be a limit because then elections wouldn't be based off of who has the most acquired amount. Then third parties may have a higher chance of making it into the limelight.
3.) Money should not equal speech. People should be able to equally voice their opinion no matter the quantity. Money being equivalent to speech is saying the poor, or even middle class have no say.
4.) I do people corporations are people because they are composed of ideals just like an everyday citizen; however, they should not complete control campaigns.
I do not think the spending of such large sums of money weakens our democracy. In some ways, it may actually strengthen it because those who are not ridiculously wealthy can raise money through PACs and still afford to run for and even possibly win government positions. However, i do think a limit of spending for political ads may help level the playing field and prohibit citizens from being bombarded with wall to wall political campaign ads. Money does equal speech, because if you support something and want to get the idea out there you have every right to give your money to it. In some ways, this may be negative because those with more money may find it easier to convey there message, yet just because money can be a form of speech, this does not mean it is the only way to get your point across. This means that those with money may have some sort of seemingly unfair advantage, but others are still able to speak their minds and find ways to express their ideas. I don't think whole corporations should be counted the same as individuals though because in most cases corporations make much much more money than just on individual and corporations are made up of many individuals, all of which may not support what these massive sums of money are being donated to.
1) I think our democracy is weakened because they think money is the core of everything. A lot of money goes into ads and then if they lose, all the money put into the campaign is lost.
2) I think there should be a limit on money spent for campaigns. This makes the people running focus more on the message they want to send instead of how the message looks to everyone on tv. The money should be divided equally so there is never a debate of another person having money and putting better looking displays for everyone to see.
3) I think money doesn't equal speech. I think somebody with limited money could put out a better message than someone who has bundles of money.
4) I don't think corporations are people because people stand with there own thoughts and corporations tend to have one opinion. One person can't make as much impact as a corporation.
(1B)
1)Democracy is weakened by the influence of such large sums spent on campaigns because there are unfair advantages when one side has more money over the other. And candidates begin to listen to the ideas of those with more money, rather than those with less. Campaigns should be all about equality since we live under a government that is supposed to be the about equality and the voice of the people, democracy, it’s only fair that there be equal participation in campaigning.
2)There should be a limit on how much money is spent on political ads because if one party gains an extensive amount of money, way more than the other party, they could get more ads and more views. And the thing is that just because one side doesn’t have as much money, which can be for numerous reasons, it does not mean they should be penalized for it. Once again things should be equal and fair.
3)Money should not equal speech, because once again it relates back to the amount of money people have. The more money you have the more voice you have, and vice versa if you do not have as much money to spend then the lower voice you’ll have. And reasons behind not having as much money could be jobless situations, financial situations at the time, etc. There should be an equal voice for everyone.
4)Corporations should not equal a person, because obviously corporations do not consist of one person finances. Corporations have more money than one lone person. And that gives the owners of the corporations a larger voice than a single person alone. Equality once again should be the focus.
1. I believe the democracy is weakened and strengthened because a lot of money toward campaigns can strengthen the campaigner because they have a head start on their campaign, yet to much money can limit the people of the democracy. Also like Akhila said not everyone can afford to donate, and money given out to the campaigner harms the less fortunate who cannot afford to donate.
2. There should not be a limit to spending because political advertising is everywhere whether it is on a commercial on television or on a bill boards, yet there should be a limit to over spending.
3. I do not think money should equal speech, for the simple fact that some times the people with the least amount of money have the stronger voice. Unfortunately, the people with more money end up being the one to have the loudest voice because they paid their way to the top.
4.There are two sides to this. There is the side that the idea of "corporations are people" is good because donating money shows that the people are voicing their opinion and there supporting the cause or issue. Then there's the part of the idea that donating and giving can give off the idea that its all about the person campaigning whether than the actual cause or issue being campaigned.
1. Our democracy is weakened because large sums of money spent on campaigns gives the rich more power. This will lead to the rich being represented where those that can not afford to contribute to campaigns will not have their voices heard. Also, if one campaign receives more funding than the next, they will receive better representation to the public which can give them an unfair advantage. This does not show the views of other candidates which makes the elections unfair. In addition, once people do decide to donate their money, they will expect something in return.
2. There should not be a limit on spending for SuperPAC's for the simple fact that it is third party spending that is in no way affiliated with the candidate directly.
3. In a sense, money should not equal speech because it is ultimately unfair representation. Someone who has more money behind them will obviously have more advertising than the next candidate. On the other hand, you should be able to spend your money how you see fit.
4. I do not believe that corporations should be looked at as people because the corporation's views may not represent the views of each individual employee.
(1B) I do not think large sums of money affect our democracy because candidates that receive lots of money during campaigns do not always win. I agree with Dani on how PACS allow people to participate in campaigns and show support for who they like which on some level may actually strengthen democracy. I do not think we should limit money on political advertisements because candidates should be able to spend the money they receive however they want. Candidates who have lots of money to use on advertisements obviously have a lot of support as well so they should not be punished for being more popular and receiving more money than the other people who are running. Money should equal speech because people should be allowed to spend their money however they want. This does mean that rich people have more money to spend on supporting their candidates but like I said in the beginning; just because a candidate has a lot of money does not always guarantee they will win. I do not think corporations should be considered people for the simple fact that the person who owns the corporation will spend the money on the candidate they feel is the best, not who the majority of people who work there like. Also it would be wrong for corporations to spend tons on money on campaigns which could in turn affect their employees as well as their products and business.
1. Democracy is not weakened by huge large sums of money because by allowing individuals to donate it gives them a say so essentially if strengthens democracy
2. I do not think there should be a limit on spending for political advertisements because if a person has a lot of extra money to give away they should be free to donate as much money as they can/want if they feel strongly about a party.
3. The people with the most money do have the loudest voice in America because candidates who spend the most money are the only ones we see on tv. You almost never see 3rd party candidates on tv because they have no money to spend on ads, so money does = speech
4. Yes, corporations are people and they have political views, so they should be entitled to donate money for campaign spending just as individual people can.
1. I believe that our democracy is weakened by large sums of money, because it gives more power to people based on how much money they have or what they are willing to spend it on. It takes the focus off of a lot of the bigger issues, because people generally want more funding for what they are advocates for, instead of being concerned about the actual issue.
2. I believe that there should be a limit on political advertisement spending because even though money represents support for different platforms and ideas, it stresses and focuses more on the amount of money rather than the platform itself. While a lot of money can benefit a good cause, the public's support of that cause can still be shown but in a moderated sense.
3. In a sense, money=speech, because funding is generally how people show their support nowadays. However, I don't think more money should represent more support than smaller sums of money.
4. I believe that what corporations want, and the goals of corporations, are different than those of the people. Corporations generally have more money than any one person alone has, and I believe that they should be regulated differently than people.
1. I do believe that democracy is weakened due to large sums of money. Those who feel obligated to donate large amounts of money, also desire more control of power in the government. Although having some money is okay to raise awareness for campaigns, donations can become overpowering and destroy the purpose for campaigns.
2. I do not think that there should be a limit on money because people have a right to do whatever they desire with their money. It’s a person’s choice to donate towards a political party any amount; however, this can grow out of hand.
3. Money does not equal speech because those who can afford to donate money cannot have a voice when campaigning. People should have a voice without the influence of money in government.
4. I do not believe that corporations are people because corporations may not listen to those within the company who disagree with the corporations beliefs.
1) I don't think that our democracy is weakened because of large money, and I think it does strengthen democracy because it allows citizens to participate with the party organization and it allows citizens to donate money to their party organization and try to help win the election.
2) No, because the government should not have the ability to say what we can and can't spend our money on. If I can spend the money that I have on whatever I want, then party organizations should be able to do the same.
3) It should, even though I personally don't like the idea of it. And yes; generally, the people with the most money have the loudest voice. If people with more money have more power and money = speech, then power = speech, and the people with more money tend to have the potential to have more political power and a louder voice in political issues.
4) No, because there's no way that every single person in a corporation share the same political views, and even if a corporation has way more republican employees than democrat employees, it's not an accurate representation of everyone in the corporation.
1. I do not believe that Democracy is weakened by the large sums of money spent on campaigns. The people will vote for their preference regardless due to their political ideology.
2. No I don't believe there should be a limit, each political party is entitled to campaign as much as they want
3. Personally, I believe that money should not equal speech however that is the case, individuals or corporations get their voice more out there and they matter more, rather than it being an individual wanting to get their voice heard.
4. Corporations are not people, corporations differ larger by size they do not represent the people but they represent themselves and their beliefs.
(1B) I believe that our democracy has weakened by the influence of large sums of money because more money, more voice and money is overpowering the common man's voice. Candidates will listen to people who gog them there and those people will be the ons who have the most money. This creates an unfair and unjust situation. I think that there shoukd be a limit on spending for political advertisements because a limit will stop how far ahead politicians will get in races and will limit their influence which is weaking our democracy. More money, more advertising and this isn't fair too those without money or those with not too much of it. Also too much money can be redundant and at a certain point, it can even become counter-productive for those politicians who are running. I believe that money should equal speech however. Money is like the property version of our speech and not everyone has time to voice their opinion. Money is how we can easily support someone and it's super fast too. Money can also contribute to certain issues. Even people on minimum wage can donate however much they want ($5,10,15). Smaller donations from many people turns out to be more beneficial than larger donations from few people. I do not agree with the idea that "corporations are people" because corporations represent many people and they may have people who may not agree since corporations act independently and on their own behalf. Also now what happens? What about the rest of the Bill of Rights? Will corporations be able to follow that too?
Post a Comment