Friday, January 22, 2010
Justices 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit
Do you think corporations should be allowed to spend excessively on political campaigns?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome. This is a blog dedicated to the students enrolled in the CSHS AP Economics classes. Click on the title of the article, read, and click comment.
I don't believe that corporations should be allowed to spend excessively on political campaigns. Of course some form of campaigning is necessary and is only fair; however, some of the campaigning is ostentatious and unnecessary. Mudslinging, in my opinion, does nothing beneficial for either candidate and is childish. Debates and speeches should be the principle way that the public learns about the ideas and motives of each candidate. Not too much more than pure rhetoric is really needed. Over-the-top campaigning is a waste of money.
ReplyDeleteCorrupted Democracy? Oh what a concept!
ReplyDeleteBut corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend excessively on political campaigns. I'm not saying that they can't contribute, of course they can. But there is a line between a contribution and a bribe for power/connection. The American public is ignorant enough, that what should be broadcasted on tv and radio are the politicians' opinions on important topics, among other things an informed voter would know. When the corporations put their money into it, we just get commercials discrediting one politician or another, nothing with any real substance. Plus, corporate money, in my opinion, seems like a bribe. That later on, when the corporation needs a favor or a break, that the elected politician who was helped out will feel obligated to "return the favor". Oh hey, corruption!
I fail to understand how any intelligent American would not think democracy in this country has already been corrupted. Corporate money has already flooded the marketplace with lobbyists and health-care. If anything, a corporate spending limit would impede upon a corporation's ability to flood the "political marketplace" with money that shouldn't be there, and may even bring back some semblance of democracy. I think Obama's words, that this is “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans," pinpoints exactly what I'm trying to say here, that this ruling only means a further descent into political, economical, and societal turmoil.
ReplyDeleteI think that corporations should not be allowed to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns. I think that there should be a very low budget. Allowing them to spend as much as they want allows for them to pay off actors or movie producers to help them make these amazing commercials, which gains Americans interest. I believe that if someone just watches something and all of a sudden wants that person in charge, there is something corrupt going on. People should listen to a speech and know if they agree with the person, but because of how society is today people just like to watch something and then think that that person is amazing. With no budget it allows them to do things like this and it may not be the right one for the job.
ReplyDeleteCorporations should not be allowed to spend as much money on campaings as they wish. If they are allowed to then the corporations would be able to essentially control the election, supplying unlimited funds for the candidate of their choice, making the election unbalacned and unfair. Corporations excessively spending in campaigns only invites corruption.
ReplyDeleteI will be completely original in saying that no, corporations should not hold the power to spend excessive amounts of money on political campaigns. By doing so they sway the votes, pouring cash and cash and more cash to persuade the public with fancy campaign ads, promotions, etc. Of course, the goal here is to persuade the public to vote for you, however, spending money to attack your opponent or putting out the fanciest ad is not the way to do so. Try backing up your words with actions.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there should be a very limited amount of corporate spending on political campaigns. There are many more important places that all the millions of dollars could go to, for example charities. It seems like such a waste of money to support a political candidate. The political candidates should just do a few debates and let it go from there, the excessive mudslinging and campaign commericials is not necessary. I think if you want to pay attention to it, you will, and if you don't, you won't.
ReplyDeleteNo. When corporations spend on campaigns, it gives them the power to treat the person who is elected like their puppet. This is why so often, such nonsensical laws get passed: they benefit the corporation who forked over the cash.
ReplyDeleteI am going to be true to my opinion and say that no, I do not believe that corporations should be allowed to spend as much as they please on campaigns. When a company controls a campaign, it leave the elected person between a rock and hard place when it comes to making proper decision if that decision is going to effect the company.
ReplyDeleteI think people are forgetting the essential reason why they are campaigning. Why bribe the crowd? I blame the modern culture for pretentiously evolving with gadgets. Before, there was no such thing as corporations spending so much money on campaigns. Political campaigns should be more about character and qualities not a competition no who spends more on what.
ReplyDeleteAm I really the only one who has read our first amendment? This is sickening. All of you have said no. This nation is based on principles, and the very first one is the right of free speech, the right to give your money to who ever you want. If you say that they should have a limit to what they donate to political campaigns then your same reasoning should apply to when they want to donate to charities, or what they spend on marketing. or how they run their entire business. where in our constitution does it say that the government has the right to control how much money a corporation spends on a campaign? NOWHERE. It gives the people the right to use their money however they want, and if a corporation wants to spend a lot of money on campaigns they have every right. this decision was a great one for our nation, i am proud of the court's decision, and am proud to live in a country that stands for freedom.
ReplyDeleteStevie....
ReplyDeleteI've read the First Amendment (which is capitalized because it pertains to the Federal Government) ....and I haven't read the part about spending money? I've read the part regarding Free Speech and Free Religion, but "spending money" seems to be an INTERPRETATION of the First Amendment---which is what the Supreme Court did!! Therefore, assuming that others' have NOT READ the First Amendment is a bit of a stretch. If you would like others' to respect your opinion or INTERPRETATION, then perhaps respecting others' should be reciprocated.
Point taken.. But back to the actual issue.. The 10th Amendment says all powers not specially given to the Federal Government shall be reserved for the States or "the people", therefore, the Federal Government (Congress) has no right to limit what corporations spend on political campaigns becuase nowhere in the United Sates Constitution does it give that power to the Federal Government. The Supreme Court made the only Constitutional ruling it could have made. Congress acted outside of its power defined by the Constitution.
ReplyDelete