According to FEC rules, any superPAC must not coordinate directly with a candidate running for office in spending their money, as the are "independent expenditure only" committees. For the first time, someone has pleaded guilty and faces criminal prosecution for spending unconnected superPAC money in direct consultation with a candidate. Read this article from NPR an answer the following questions abotu money in politics.
1. Do you think superPAC money plays too big a role in American politics? Why or why not?
2. Do you think that, concerning political advertisements, money=speech? Should anyone be limited in the amount of money they can spend promoting their policy goals or attacking their opponents? Why or why not?
3. Read more about the Citizens United ruling. Do you agree with the Supreme Court? Why or why not? Is it more an issue of censorship of political speech or curbing the influence of money in elections? Which is a more pressing issue?
39 comments:
1) SuperPac money plays too big a role in American politics. Although candidate campaigns operate under strict contribution limits, SuperPac money has no limit to their contributions. This obviously creates an imbalance in the political system.
2) I do not believe that money=speech; you do not need a million dollars to make your point. I look at like this; someone who has mercenaries and someone who has soldiers. Mercenaries don't necessarily believe in their cause, they are just in it for the money, whereas soldiers actually believe in the cause they are fighting for. Now would someone say that it for the side with mercenaries to have won that war?
3) I agree with the ruling because now potential candidate know they will as least face a criminal prosecution for doing something like this. Therefore, the court decision was more about curbing the influence of money in elections.
1. Being that superPAC money is expendable and the amount that can be donated isn’t restricted I think that it plays way too big a role in American politics. I believe that the more exposure you have to the public makes a great difference and so whether you’re using expansive amounts of money to promote yourself or degrade other candidates it’ll reside in the minds of Americans; especially those uneducated in politics what they see or hear on the radio could without a doubt determine their choice of candidate.
2. Yes, I do believe money=speech. It isn’t cheap campaigning around the nation and so it takes a heap of money to do so, and whomever has more money can travel more and faster which results in more people agreeing with their policies etc. I think that candidates should be limited in the amount of money that they can spend because if say an independent party were running and didn’t have as much money to campaign with it wouldn’t be fair that his ideas are overshadowed because he hasn’t the money to afford excessive exposure. It may be the case that he’s got the best idea and best message it wouldn’t be fair that the public was unaware because of a money deficiency.
3. No, I don’t agree with the Supreme Court. In fact I’m not really understanding why their ruling was in favor of no restriction on spending in the first place. I think it’s very unfair for the reasons I explained in the two questions above. I don’t think it’s an issue of censorship in political speech, because with expendable money or not they’re still free to say whatever they want in their speeches they just wouldn’t be allowed to speak as much if there were limitations. I think that the “censorship” was just a loophole spenders and candidates found so that they could better efficiently advertise. The influence of money I think is more pressing of an issue because investors could in theory determine the elected themselves by prompting voters through advertisement.
1. Do you think superPAC money plays too big a role in American politics? Why or why not?
I think that there is a big possibility that it does. As long as people plead themselves to be involved with a PAC and then they name themselves a “super”PAC, they automatically get all of the liberties that a regular PAC does not. They can raise as much money as they want, and this inevitably affects the way that the public sees them as a candidate. The candidate with the strongest superPAC, is going to have the most/best commercials, because they have more money to spend on them. This could sway the way people would originally vote, just because of an advertisement.
2. Do you think that, concerning political advertisements, money=speech? Should anyone be limited in the amount of money they can spend promoting their policy goals or attacking their opponents? Why or why not?
I do think that money=speech, because in this way, you can reach way more people by advertising things on the radio or the television. I think that everyone should be limited to the same amount. The candidates with the stronger superPAC are most likely to win, because they have more advertisements supporting them.
3. Read more about the Citizens United ruling. Do you agree with the Supreme Court? Why or why not? Is it more an issue of censorship of political speech or curbing the influence of money in elections? Which is a more pressing issue?
I think the SC is right in the fact that they are limiting the amount of power this person can get from the PAC. Although I also believe that this situation is happening with more people than just this one, so it may need to be more strict on how it governs the laws made onto PACs. I think this is more of an issue with the influence of money, because with money comes power, and it is unfair to the people who may hold a higher status once elected, that they cannot make it because of what the public was exposed to, that may not even be true.
1. I do believe that superPAC money plays too big of a role in American politics. Instead of candidates focusing on what's on the policy agenda and appealing to the voters, they are relying on money to attack other candidates that serve no real contribution. And then once this comes to the surface, people begin to focus on that and the real issues at hand get ignored.
2. I believe that money does equal speech, just not always in a positive, productive way. The more money someone has, the more they're able to get themselves heard and featured in the media with different campaign tactics. Even if the audience disagrees with what is being said, that person is ingrained into the audience's mind much more than someone who doesn't have the funds to get their viewpoints across. It's sad that's the way it is in politics these days, but in my opinion, it's true. I don't believe people should be limited in the amount of money they can spend to promote their policy goals because it's their money and they have a right to be heard. However, I do believe there should be a limit on how much someone can spend on attacking someone else, especially if it's not in a constructive way. Because then, nothing is productive and it's just being used as a way to jab someone else's character.
3. I agree with the supreme courts decision. It made the issue a more pressing one and let other candidates know they can't do something like this and get away with it. I believe it's more an issue of curbing the influence of money in elections. Again, money is what gets in the way of politics. Candidates just spend more and more money to try and out do each other. The supreme court I believe is trying to reduce this influence so candidates and voters can focus on the real issue at hand, making the influence of money a more pressing one.
1. I don't think they play a big role in a sense, but i definitely think they play a role. The SuperPAC Allows a limitless amount of money so the donations can be endless like they said some even get multimillion dollar contributions. It does allow you to get media attention as well which in a way does play a big role however.
2. I do think people should be limited in the amount of money they spend to reach a political goal. its not fair for a big cooperate or political name to be running against a small home town candidate and flood the campaign just because they have more money then the other candidate. it would imbalance the scale and make it so money would be the key to victory and not so much the politics behind that money. there needs to be a fair chance when it comes to candidacy and with unlimited money there is not.
3. I do agree with the supreme court. Perkins did break the law, and harbor who initially gave him the funds he needed to attack the other candidate should be punished accordingly. if you sign a contract stating that you will not do something and then you try and sneak it behind peoples back then you should be punished. its the reason you signed the paper, so you should follow the rules just like everybody else. i think its more of a curbing the influence of money in elections which i think is more of a pressing issue because with last years election there was over 4.8 billion dollars spend overall which goes to show how it is getting a little out of hand and needs to be managed in a new way. politics is swaying from policies and leaning more towards whoever has and or can raise more money.
1) I think superPAC plays a big role in American politics because of the money. SuperPAC can get unlimited amounts of money which can help them pull strings in media by creating commercials and ads since they have his unlimited amount of resources. These commericials can promote themselves by addressing issues on the policy agenda or humiliate the other candidates in order for voters to choose them.
2) I believe money equals speech. Campaigning, advertising, giving out speeches isn't cheap. Money is needed, and with this, it gives them the freedom to use the money however they please. I believe it should be limited since money is a pressing issue. One candidate may not have enough money to campaign and create ads while another candidate may have unlimited amount of money to do whatever they want. It is unfair.
3) I agree with the Supreme Court's decision because since superPAC is getting unlimited money for themselves, then they shouldn't be using it for other candidates to lose or win. I think this is an issue of the influence of money in elections. This is a more pressing issue since you need tons of money for elections, which is used to bash the other candidates instead of addressing issues.
1. I think that superPAC does play too big of a role in American politics because of the unlimited amount of money people can donate for candidates. People center more on how much money they can get from the superPACs and then it just turns into this big competition of which candidate can receive more money.
2. I feel that money does equal speech because with money, people are able to spread their campaigning further to the voters and make it grander. I also think that people should be limited on the amount of money spent for advertisement or attacking opponents because that way every candidate gets an equal opportunity of money spent. Without this equal quantity, I think that it will focus too heavily on how much money a person can spend on campaigning, rather than focusing on their ethics and policies that they promote while campaigning. A candidate with more money would be able to promote more, whereas one with not as much won’t be able to express their policies more.
3. I do not agree with the Supreme Court ruling because I believe that there should be a limit off of how much one can spend in order to campaign. Like my answer in question two, I think everyone should have an equal limit. This way, the money spent can be evenly distributed and no one will be at an advantage nor a disadvantage based off of how much money people can give. I think this is more of an issue about curbing the influence of money in elections because the more money one can spend, the more campaigning, which equals reaching out to more people and potentially getting more votes that way. This is more of a pressing issue because by having a uniform budget on spending for advertisement, it is less likely to have a tendency of more votes towards who had the most campaigning.
1) I don't think superPAC's money too big of a role in American politics. Though the company withholds millions, as stated in the article only a few hundred thousand was misused. I think the uproar about the situation is more of a principal matter than the crime that actually happened.
2. I don't think their should be a limit on the amount of money they should be able to spend promoting their policy goals and attack on their opponent. Much of the race is promotion and gaining the interest of more voters. This is done so through promotions and advertising. Each candidate knows millions will be needed in their campaign run, and just because some haven't prepared "enough" doesn't mean their opponent should have to back off as well.
3. I do agree with the Supreme Court's decision. A law was knowingly broken and their is a consequence for it. I believe this is more of an issue of curbing the influence of money in elections. Money is the root of any elections which is why it is more pressing issue. Money influences a lot in an election which is why people without it support having limitations on spending.
1. Honestly it seems too early to make a definite judgement, but based on the trends seen in the last election I do believe superPACs play too big a role in politics. These superPACs bypass the corporate restriction on PAC donations and effectively allow too much power to be given to one campaign. Campaigns with the most money are typically the most successful, and with superPACs an unlimited amount of money can be given (indirectly of course) to these campaigns by corporate institutions and not the American public.
2. I heard an argument I really liked in class, since money is earned, claiming that money=speech is essentially saying you have to earn your speech. Our freedom of speech gives every American a voice and equal say, but if speech is money, then only the wealthiest Americans will be heard. That being said, it is hard to tell people what they can't spend their money on. Maybe the best middle ground is a limit, but a high one, that way a voice can be heard, but not by being the loudest.
3. I think the supreme court's ruling may not be the best for elections, has justification. Their logic in reaching that conclusion is sound, it just may not be the best conclusion for America. The decision came as a result of censorship of political speech. The court is incredibly careful in preserving the first amendment and takes measures not to infringe upon that right. A clear case was made in favor of money=speech and it couldn't be ignored. I believe it is definitely more important to curb the influence of money in elections because it seems to hurt democracy since only the wealthiest candidates are relevant.
1.) I do think that superPAC money plays too big of a role in American politics regarding the money prospective. From a political standpoint we see thousands even millions of dollars spent on campaigns and elections throughout the United States government and without the spending of money how would we know what candidates are running of even what is going on in politics because of the consistent advertising which is produced through the press and the media. SuperPAC money just allows big corporations to continue to support politicians without having any limits to how much money they are able to contribute which to some is not seen as equality among individuals.
2.)Concerning political advertisements I do think that money=speech because the more money you have the more publicity you are able to gather whether it be through the press or the media. Essentially money allows you to get more exposure among the people because the more the public eye sees you the more they are inclined to know more about you.
3.) I do agree with the supreme court ruling because candidates who commit such acts should be punished, curbing the influence of money is more of a pressing issue in this matter because I think the courts finally realize that numerous amounts of money does equal more power in politics and that allowing money to continue to run politics and government does have some cons to it.
1. Yes, superPAC money plays too big a role in American politics because it “has radically changed federal campaigns” and some rely on it for elections since it has no limitations. The superPAC’s affect the way the candidates are portrayed.
2. In politics, money=speech because in order to get heard by many, money will help with advertising such as broadcasting on media and such. People should be limited to the amount they spend because it is unfair if certain people have more money than others, giving them an unfair advantage. Those with less money could be a better candidate but would have less of a chance of being well known without more money to advertise. Therefore, everyone should be given a fair chance with the same limited amount of money.
3. I agree with the Supreme Court that power should be limited among the benefits gained from the PAC. The amount each candidate can spend should be equal so they all have a fair advantage. It is more of an issue in curbing the influence of money in elections because money is the main focus of power not the points being made by the people. The more money someone has, the bigger influence they are able to make in advertising. This is a more pressing issue because if all of the candidates had the same amount of spending, they would have an equal opportunity. However, those who have more money are at a greater advantage and it is unfair for everyone.
I think Super PAC money plays too big of a role, because they have no limits, while candidate campaigns do. I think that money does equal speech when it comes to politics because it isn't cheap to broadcast on television or to travel throughout the U.S. to spread your voice. I think that there should be a limit on how much someone can spend, but I don't think that it should be a set limit, I think that you should have a specific percentage more money than the opponent who spends the least. This way if say, the limit is $100,000 and one opponent doesn't have that and only has $10,000 then they would still be spending $90,000 more. But with a percentage, they would be able to go only so much more than the other and it would be much more fair. I don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling because I think there should be a limit. I don't think this has anything i do with censorship because weather you have money I spend or not, you still have free speech. I think that money is more of a pressing issue because more money equals more speech, which means more voters will vote for that person.
1. Yes I do think it does play a huge role in American politics because superPAC are literally capable of making or breaking a campaigner. It seems that people are more worried about the superPAC than the responsibilities of winning itself.
2. I really do think that money = speech. If you think about all the past political campaigns, the people you know about or have heard about have a commercial or TV ad of some sort. That is because they have the money to do so. If you don't have enough money to get your self out there and gain publicity, you're least likely to win. Americans are constantly glued to the TV and Internet so if you don't have enough to broadcast yourself on either of those places, you've basically already lost. Yes I do think there should be a limit on the money because if someone campaigning is a new-comer and doesn't have a lot of money to campaign, but is an amazing politician, they can't get themselves out there. I think there should be a limit because a campaign shouldn't be run on money, it should be chosen through the will and capabilities of the candidate.
3. No I don't agree with the ruling. I feel like if you're going to penalize one person for something that was written up to legally be okay, then you should do the same for all. It's not good to pick and choose. I think it is an issue of censorship. Maybe someone wasn't happy with what they saw and tried to make it into something that it shouldn't have been; and they were successful at it. A more pressing issue would be the censorship of speech because it goes against our rights in the constitution
1. I don't think it plays too big a role i American politics but I do think it has some influence on it. Without superPAC some politicians wouldn't be where they are. Although mostly negative (according to the article) superPACs help push other candidates through the campaign and they can be entertaining to voters.
2. Yes I think that money equals speech because if you didn't have enough money then you wouldn't be able to get that many votes. I say that because in America we are dependent on the TV for our news and we are addicted to social media. If you have enough money for ad campaigns then you are on the right track, if you don't, then you should probably start. There should be a limit because the amount of money because those candidates with a lot of money have an unfair advantage when running.
3. I don't really agree with the Supreme Court only because they have already said that SuperPACs were okay, so they shouldn't punish one person for something THEY said was okay in the first place. I think a more pressing issue is curbing the influence of money on political campaigns because money really is power in situations like this
1) I think SuperPac money does play too big of a role in politics, because there are no limits set in place. Candidates can be funded with unlimited amounts of money. It basically becomes about the money, the candidate with the most money, gets the most exposer in the media, this can also affect the way candidates are portrayed.
2)) Yes, money does equal speech, because if you don't have money, you cant afford advertisements. Television time, and media exposure isn't cheap, there is a reason we've never had a broke president, or one who wasn't wealthy. That like the unwritten qualification to run for office, you have to have money, or your campaigning wont be extended to a large amount of voters. No, you don't need money to make a point, but you do need money to share that point.
3) I agree with the supreme courts decision, it's letting candidates know that they will be punished for such actions. I think it's more about curbing the influence of money in elections, because money is being used to give, what is considered to me, an unfair advantage. It shouldn't be about the person with the most money, because that person maybe not be best suited for the position.
1) Yes I believe that the SuperPac does play a big role in politics. Because the candidates of each campaign can get what they want and there is never limit to it whatsoever. In my opinion whoever has the most money has the most influence on the people.
2) I believe the money does equal speech because without the money there is no way for the candidate to promote commercials or any other advertisements. When a candidate is trying to have a successful campaign he or she must have a lot of money or else the campaign is going no where. No you do not need money to prove a point.
3) I strongly agree with the supreme courts decision, it shows that there are consequences for such behaviors that is being projected. The candidates tend to try and have money be the big influence throughout the whole company and to have it be a real powerful force. Its about the person that brings the best to the American people, not the richest person.
1.)I do believe that superPAC money does play too big of a role being that there is no limit on how much money can be donated in support of candidates. This all seems to become more about who can receive or raise more money in order to publicize themselves before the election.
2.)I do believe that money equals speech because with more money, the candidates and are able to promote themselves more as well as more effectively. I do believe that there should be limits on all candidates in order to ensure equality so that all candidates and parties may all receive equal exposure and an equal opportunity to accurately present themselves and their campaign.
3.)I do not agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court because the amount of money allotted to candidates should be limited in order to have an equal and fair campaign. This serves more as an issue in curbing the influence of money in elections because the more money a candidate receives, the better campaign they may have. This is a pressing issue because with less money, the candidate may have less exposure to the public resulting in less votes in which the lack of money or the inequality of money distributed may cost a candidate the election.
1. I believe that superPAC money plays a vital role in american politics. Why? Because of Advertisement. The mere exposure affect affects the human logic. Increased amounts of resources and money allows the public to be exposed to the same candidate over and over again. Thus, the more advertising, the more successful a campaign will be, which is a large part of politics.
2. Money=Speech is sometimes an accurate statement. it really depends on the charisma of the candidate. Some candidates may not be as charismatic and may need multiple speeches or advertisements to win over america, whereas some may be able to do it rather quickly. If a candidate has the resources and is willing and able to spend money on their campaign, they should do it. There should be no restrictions because they have the resources and nothing should be holding them back.
3. I do not agree with the Supreme Court ruling because candidates should have no limit to how much they can spend. If they are blessed with the resources they have, they have every right to use them.
superPAC money is expendable and I think that it plays way too big a role in American politics. I believe that the more exposure you have to the public makes a great difference and so whether you’re using expansive amounts of money to promote yourself or degrade other candidates it’ll reside in the minds of Americans; especially those uneducated in politics what they see or hear on the radio could without a doubt determine their choice of candidate.
I believe that money does equal speech, just not always in a positive, productive way. The more money someone has, the more they're able to get themselves heard and featured in the media with different campaign tactics. Even if the audience disagrees with what is being said, that person is ingrained into the audience's mind much more than someone who doesn't have the funds to get their viewpoints across. It's sad that's the way it is in politics these days, but in my opinion, it's true. I don't believe people should be limited in the amount of money they can spend to promote their policy goals because it's their money and they have a right to be heard. However, I do believe there should be a limit on how much someone can spend on attacking someone else, especially if it's not in a constructive way. Because then, nothing is productive and it's just being used as a way to jab someone else's character. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision because since superPAC is getting unlimited money for themselves, then they shouldn't be using it for other candidates to lose or win. I think this is an issue of the influence of money in elections.
1.) I think that the super Pac plays to big of a role in American politics. By using this Pac it allows them to raise however much money they want and use to however they please whether it is to promoting their campaign or degrading their opponent. I feel like this created imbalance in the political system and allows the voting to be skewed one way because of the advantage of using this pac.
2.) I do not believe that money equals speech, the amount of money you put towards a political campaign should not decide if you win an election or not. Just because people can afford more campaigning does not mean that they have the best policies, and should in the election.
3.) I do agree with the Supreme Court, there should be consequences for these types of actions. I think it's more about curbing the influence of money in elections, because the more money a person have the more advantage thy have in a political campaign, which is unfair because money doesn't define what you can do with your policies.
I personally believe that superPAC does play a fairly big role in American politics. SuperPAC is able to get an unlimited amount of money, that they can use for commercializing which will help promote them and win voters over. I do not believe that money equals speech. I don't think that you have to necessarily be wealthy or have a certain amount of money just to be able to say something or to prove a point or express an idea that you have. However I do believe that money can influence speech. More money provides more ways to campaign and to create ads to help with their campaigning. I agree with the SC decision because at the end of the day laws where broken and consequences had to be paid as a result. The more pressing issue in the scenario is the influence of money because with more money you have more "power" and more advantages than those with less money.
Krestina Merko 1B
1) I believe that SuperPac does play a big role in American Politics especially since it allows unlimited amount of money to be supplied for a campaign. Since there is no strict rules on the SuperPac it creates imbalance and unfairness in the political system and politics in general.
2)I do think that money=speech to an extent because if you have the money you are able to get more words out their as opposed to someone who doesnt have as much money. If you don't have money you are less likely to fall behind someone who does. I think there should be limit because it does create unfairness and imbalance. Money shouldn't be the reason anyone wins because the wrong person could end up winning. Money shouldn't be the key. Its the views and beliefs the people want not the money.
3)I do agree with the Supreme Court because it opens the eyes of other candidates showing them that something of that action has a consequence and they won't just be able to get away with it. This ruling shows that it isn't all about the money in winning a race which isn't what politics is about. Those who have the best views and ideas on moving the country forward are the ones who should be wining rather they have money or not so it is more about curbing the influence of money on elections.
1. SuperPAC money is a key tool to assist those who wish to campaign for one group of individual during an election. The role of the SuperPAC is vast without many limits and its role in American politics deters whether a candidate will have the leverage over an opponent. So the larger the SuperPAC, the more likely the person or group being supported will have a more fluid campaign with the ability to escape a tight situation due to their high level of funds.
2. As this is America and the ideal playing ground for campaigns would be equal funding and skills, this is also a competitive system of winners and losers. The more money a candidate has behind them, the more likely they are to have a more stable campaign as they can then hire the best directors, speech writers, marketing advisors, etc. It is very important to have a good foundation for a campaign that includes a person’s ideals and agenda, but in order for the American people to be persuaded one way or the other, there must also be a strong campaign which requires a large amount of money. No limit should be set because even with a lot of money like when Harper used $325,000 to attack Connolly, he still lost tremendously.
3. I agree with the ruling because while candidates themselves cannot receive money from corporations or labor unions, they can have as much money as needed provided by the companies to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. They were trying to curb the influence of money in elections to create more of an equal playing field for candidates, but as it is unconstitutional to limit a group’s participation in campaigns, it was not very effective. Censorship of political speeches is the most pressing issue since taking away a person’s freedom of speech is a higher level of unconstitutionality than keeping money from a campaign. Without the foundation, there is no need for money.
1) SuperPac plays an enormous role in American politics and in many ways dictates who progresses and who doesn't. The influence and power of corporate America demonstrates its incorporation into American poltics as well. The few limits allow wealth to be a dictating power in the selection of a candidate. This imbalance of funding invalidates Politics to something more petty and empty. No longer is a platform important but who has the most screen time, something out of a motion picture.
2) while idealistically I would like to say that speech is free, with regards to its inclusion in the political realm, those with the money get the most to say. Money builds connections to media, Internet outlets and gaining supporters. I believe that despite this that there should not necessarily have great limits on it. I feel that it is up to the people to make informed decisions and vote based on their platform not the quality of their commercials. However, I also believe that both sides are equipped with the means to compete. The left dominates the media and the right dominates a large pop of the mid west and Fox News. Both have opportunities to utilize their funds.
3) I agree with the Supreme Court decision because in reality a corporation deserves the opportunity to support their candidate, but with certain limits, money isn't what decides elections. The value of the platform should not be dictated by the amount of economic power held in the campaign. I think that the reason was curbing the influx of money coming into poltics. This is because funds are crucial and funneling too much gives an unfair advantage.
1. Do you think superPAC money plays too big a role in American politics? Why or why not?
Yes superPAC plays a very vital role in American Politics because it funds the candidates with money. And as we know money buys ways to many things and opens many doors for candidates. When you side with superPAC you have no limits, you are free to do what you want and spend however much you want on your campaign.
2. Do you think that, concerning political advertisements, money=speech? Should anyone be limited in the amount of money they can spend promoting their policy goals or attacking their opponents? Why or why not?
Yes money does equal speech and I strongly believe that all candidates should be allowed to spend equal amount of money. Nothing more than the max amount set. The reason I say this is because money is a very powerful thing. It corrupts the voters minds and makes them forget what the candidate really is saying but rather focus on the fact that he has a lot of money so he probably will do more. That’s not always true. Also someone with more money will be able to get himself/herself broadcasted on different channels, different radio stations, and would be able to campaign differently than a candidate without much money.
3. Read more about the Citizens United ruling. Do you agree with the Supreme Court? Why or why not? Is it more an issue of censorship of political speech or curbing the influence of money in elections? Which is a more pressing issue?
I completely agree with the Supreme Courts decision. Perkins and Harber should be punished for trying to get around and attack Connolly with unfair advantage. The influence of money is a bigger and more pressing issue because people are not going for the idea that the candidate is presenting to them but rather the fact that he spent more money while campaigning so he will do more things for us since he has money.
1. I think the SuperPAC does play a large role because there is no restriction on the amount of money people can donate. I think this will allow the more wealthy people will donate more to who they think should win making it harder for the other candidates to win.
2. I do think that money=speech because the more money candidates have the more promoting they can do. I do think there should be a speeding limit because not everyone can donate as much so making it fair would allow for a better election.
3. I agree with the Supreme Court because there definitely should be a limit on the money. Money shouldn't be the definition of how well a candidate does. Curbing the influence is more Important because money not people is the main focus of the power.
1. I do think the superPAC money plays to big a role in American politics because it helps candidates raise all the funds they could ever need in a campaign allowing that person to have the upper-hand.
2. I do think money=speech, because if people are able to spend their money on advertisement, which is a form of speech then they should be allowed to say their opinions. We should limit the amount of money, because it goes to the candidates head, sometimes its not necessary to spend that much on campaigns when there are other world crisis that money can fix to worry about.
3. I do not agree with the Supreme Court ruling, because they are penalizing a person for donating money toward a campaign something that has been asked to do by countless of people, and there is not a limit towards a person spending I think its curbing the influence of money in the elections, as it has been seen time and time again of candidates winning with the help of wealth and connections.
1. I do not believe it changes the outcome of the election so feel that it is wasted money and is not important.
2. I feel that money does not equal speech. I feel that there should be a limit to spend. I feel that the more someone spends does not enhance their chances of winning that much so the politicians should all spend their money equally and let the people decide.
3. I like this because now people will know that cheating has a consequence. I feel that it affects money more and I feel that it is a bigger problem.
1) SuperPAC money plays a huge role in politics because many of corporations that donate millions of dollars to the SuperPACs goes back into influencing the people and who they choose for an election. The money is used to educated the public about candidates positively or negatively for political elections through commercials, rallies, or posters.
2) Sadly, money is speech because the only way that political candidates can be heard about and essentially voted for in an election. Since, money allows candidates to have an advantage there should be a limit for each candidate to spend their own money for their campaign. However, the money given to the SuperPACs shouldn't because its their right to give money toward whoever they please.
3) I do agree with the Supreme Court, corporations should have the opportunity to support whoever they want, but, the restrictions are necessary so the money isn't used improperly, this is more of an issue with the influence of money on the election in order to make it fair. Corporations are still given their right of speech by giving money to their their preferred candidate but the restriction makes it most fair.
1. Yes, because I feel like there has not been an “Average Joe” running for high political positions because money runs politics so much. From before I can remember, each election has been about the candidates acting like they’re “average-Joes”, when in actuality, they have more money than they know what to do with. I think it’s morally wrong to base everything off of money, because, in the end, the average man is not represented.
2. I disagree morally that money=speech because people of lower economic status are not represented equally. I think people should be limited because many of the advertisements can sway voters in a negative way, since they are so biased. If viewers don’t educate themselves on certain issues being discussed in the advertisements, then they may just take the advertisements word for it.
3. I disagree with the Supreme Court because it is morally wrong for money to run politics like it does today. I think it would be much better if candidates were allowed a certain amount of time on television and a certain amount of money they are able to spend so that everyone is able to have a shot at candidacy, despite their socioeconomic class. Although many disagree with censorship of political speech, I think the more pressing issue is curbing the influence of money in elections because elections are what decide who will be running our country, where political speech causes a lot of unnecessary banter from strongly opinionated groups that may sway unknowledgeable voters into voting for something they don’t believe in.
1. I think the superPAC plays a big role in Americans politics because too many politicians are getting caught up with it and they are using the money for the wrong reason, which in this case lands them into legal trouble.
2. Yes money does equal to speech because campaigning and advertising about your election isn’t cheap and traveling to different states to give a speech towards thousands of people is quite a pretty penny. Absolutely, politicians should have a limit on how much they spend on elections, because if the politician did win the election then that money will go to waste or it will have to be repaid back.
3. I agree with the Supreme Court decision because there should be a limit on how much they should spend on a campaign. I think the influence of money is more of a pressing issue, since politicians need thousands of money to operate a campaign.
1.I think that superPAC does play too big of a role in American politics because of the unlimited amount of money people can give for candidates. This creates an unfairness in the political system.
2. I do think that money=speech because it going around the united states campaigning and developing political advertisements cost a lot of money. i don't believe that anyone should be limited in the amount of money they can spend promoting their policy because if that person running for election is dedicated to a specific issue they should spend how ever much money promoting it.
3.I do agree with the supreme court ruling because it shows that unlawful activities in an election comes with serious consequences. i think that curbing the influence of money in elections is more of a pressing issue because powerful and rich companies could win an election and be unfair to other candidates without rich company dollars in their campaign.
1) I do believe that superPAC money plays too big a role in American politics because the people campaigning sit around and wait for this money to be given to them so that they can use it to influence the people to vote for them and make it seem as if they are the better candidate when actually all they have going for them is the largest sum of money which was given to them by large corporations.
2)I think that money does equal speech because the wealthier you are the more people you are going to be able to influence. People are controlled by money which isn't a good thing but it's the truth. There should be a limit on how much money a person can spend promoting their policy goals or attacking their opponent because they may be wealthier than their opponent and it wouldn't be a fair race if they one of the candidates has more money than the other and really spending large amounts of money on campaigns isn't necessary because although money does equal speech, spending large amounts of money to campaign doesn't guarantee that you'll win the election.
3) I agree with the Citizens United ruling because if you are going to collect money to be used for campaigning the that's what the money should be spent on, not used for personal expenses. This was definitely about curbing the influence of money in elections because money is basically what runs politics.
1. SuperPAC money does play a significant role in American politics. The funds that these SuperPACs are allowed to spend is virtually endless, which can sometimes create unfair advantages in the political field because money=speech.
2. Money does equal speech. Advertisements and political campaigns are not cheap. To run a large-scale, national campaign, a significant amount of financial contributions are needed in order to reach millions of viewers and voters. However, there should be an imposed limit on how much money can be spent. This will equal the playing field for candidates with less financial backing or who may be newer to the political field.
3. I do agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The influence of money on politics has become almost too strong. In an election, no candidate should have a significant financial edge on an opponent. With more campaign dollars, a candidate can reach more voters with increased advertising, so this is not fair other campaigners who may not have the financial backing that others do. The Court is attempting to curb the imposing influence of money in elections, which has become a pressing issue as candidates raise an increased amount of money. For example, President Obama raised $1.4 billion dollars between his 2008 and 2012 campaigns, an amount of money that other candidates may just not have access.
1.SuperPac money plays a an important role in American politics because campaigns are so highly expensive and the money from people will help a lot. Donating money is one of the most important thing for a person to get involved. Money brings attention and promotes a message to a greater extent.
2. Money=Speech. People get involved by campaigning, money used to advertise. Money brings out the opportunities to share beliefs through a widespread, most importantly, media. Media will help promote a campaigns ideology all across the nation. Money allows your message to spread out. Money should be limited because then, money is kind of buying politics, it’s like off your credit, not really earning it. It would be unfair to have unlimited money because the idea of politics will rely on economy.
3.I agree with the Supreme Courts. There should be boundaries and consequences. I think it’s more about curbing the influence of money in election because money is an issue today, in this case, money would be buying American Politics which is a huge conflict because of people that don’t have money to support their parties.
1) I think that superPAC money plays too big a role in American politics because they're too concern about money for campaigns which causes overuse to that category.
2) I believe that money equals speech because with more money, the more you may express your beliefs. I also believe that they should be limited in the amount of money they use promoting themselves/downgrading others because you may have the better guy who is poor, rather than the guy who has money and all these advertisements supporting/publicizing them, giving the rich guy more support just because he has more money. So in a sense, money also equals power.
3) I do agree with the Supreme Court because breaking the law must come with a consequence-or else no one will learn.
It's also more of an issue curbing the influnce of money in elections.
Influence of money is a more pressing issue because once someone has a ton of money, they may use it freely to promote themselves and gain supporters quicker.
1.) I think superPAC does play too big of a role in American politics. Because of how much money they raise, they provide politicians a way to fund their campaign. If a candidate decides to run, he should be the one funding the campaign, not other people donating unlimited amounts of money.
2.) I think money does equal speech. When a person donates money to a candidacy, they are expressing their support for that candidate; they are saying they agree with his/her platform. I think there should be a limit when it comes to how much someone can spend on promoting policy goals or attacking opponents. It would be difficult to enforce, but there are better things the money can be used for. Political campaigns use too much money, and it just goes to waste if the candidate you donate to loses.
3.) I do agree with the Supreme Court. If money = speech, then it is unconstitutional to limit the money that can be spent. That would be limiting what a citizen is allowed to say, which violates the First Amendment. I think it is more an issue of curbing the influence of money rather than censorship. I think the influence of money is more of a pressing matter. Political campaigns use huge amounts of money that really aren’t necessary.
Post a Comment