Posted by: vanhoff | May 2, 2008

Campaign finance reform: My Opinion

Campaign finance reform

 

  1. According to the Federal Election Committee’s website, some of the things they have restricted include the solicitation of soft money or even the use of it. This ensures that the candidates do not have unlimited resources by the uses of excessive donations, contributions or non federal funds. They have also limited how much a person can actually donate to a specific candidate. Also there are specific people in whom they cannot receive donations such as minors and foreign nationals. Most of these regulations have to do with how or when people use money and exceptions on the use of contributions such as a less well off opponent against a millionaire. Also there are now more restrictions on what they have labeled electioneering commission, which has given regulations of issue ads. With the use of these regulations it’s harder to use the amount of money however financing is such a big part of campaigns that is still hard to regulate it all the way.

 

  1. According to an article about the Supreme Court’s decision on the Washington Post website, Supreme Court made decisions to put fewer restrictions on pre- election ads because it was decided because not allowing a persons name to be aired along with the ads was determined to be an unconstitutional infringement on the person or groups right to advocate issues. The decision was made by a 5-4 vote.

 

  1. According to the previous article and website as before Chief Justice Roberts said “Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.” However the dissenters such as Justice David H. Souter said, “The court (and, I think, the country) loses when important precedent is overruled without good reason, and there is no justification for departure from our usual rule of stare decisis here.”

 

  1. No I do not because the act still allows the person or group to talk about his ideas during the election period. Trying to prevent them from over inundating us from the mass amounts of ads before a campaigning isn’t preventing them from their right to speak its just limiting where they can do it, and as long as it applies to all candidates it should be upheld.

 

  1. According to another article on the Washington Post’s website, the current status of what have been called the “527” committees is that the government has decided not to ban these even among the criticisms that this will allow a flood of soft money to come out into the elections. Their status is important because it allows for loopholes pertaining to campaign finance and this can allow a candidate to proceed further in the election based on TV ads and appearances.

 

  1. In my personal opinion I believe that doing away with the Electoral College would allow the people to feel like their votes really counted. Many people shy away from these elections because they don’t think it really counts. Although this idea was important when it began we have become a more educated society and they should allow the popular vote to count for everything.

A thank you to Bri Shipley for her guidance

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Really enjoyed reading your article. I’m going to bookmark your site for future reference.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: