Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Are Political Donations A Form of Free Speech

    Uploaded by

    Jacquelyn Ramos
    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow individuals to donate unlimited amounts to multiple political candidates and committees during an election cycle. The ruling struck down aggregate limits on donations but maintained individual candidate limits of $5,200. Supporters argue this protects free speech rights, while critics argue it will increase the influence of wealthy donors and lead candidates to serve wealthy interests over the public. Analysis found most large donations support Republican campaigns and come from a small fraction of wealthy donors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Are Political Donations A Form of Free Speech

    Uploaded by

    Jacquelyn Ramos
    18 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow individuals to donate unlimited amounts to multiple political candidates and committees during an election cycle. The ruling struck down aggregate limits on donations but maintained individual candidate limits of $5,200. Supporters argue this protects free speech rights, while critics argue it will increase the influence of wealthy donors and lead candidates to serve wealthy interests over the public. Analysis found most large donations support Republican campaigns and come from a small fraction of wealthy donors.

    Original Title

    Are political donations a form of free speech

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow individuals to donate unlimited amounts to multiple political candidates and committees during an election cycle. The ruling struck down aggregate limits on donations but maintained individual candidate limits of $5,200. Supporters argue this protects free speech rights, while critics argue it will increase the influence of wealthy donors and lead candidates to serve wealthy interests over the public. Analysis found most large donations support Republican campaigns and come from a small fraction of wealthy donors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    18 views2 pages

    Are Political Donations A Form of Free Speech

    Uploaded by

    Jacquelyn Ramos
    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow individuals to donate unlimited amounts to multiple political candidates and committees during an election cycle. The ruling struck down aggregate limits on donations but maintained individual candidate limits of $5,200. Supporters argue this protects free speech rights, while critics argue it will increase the influence of wealthy donors and lead candidates to serve wealthy interests over the public. Analysis found most large donations support Republican campaigns and come from a small fraction of wealthy donors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Are political donations a form of

    free speech?

    By Deena Zaru
    Washington D.C. (CNN)In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday private
    citizens can contribute to as many candidates as they'd like during a single election cycle.
    Contributions to a single candidate are still limited to $5,200.

    In McCutcheon vs. the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the high court ruled in favor
    of Shaun McCutcheon, a conservative businessman from Alabama.

    In a phone interview McCutcheon tells State of the Union "I'm very excited that our First
    Amendment freedom is being upheld in the Supreme Court... The Constitution guarantees
    the very important First Amendment right to be able to promote political ideas and change."

    The Republican National Committee agrees with McCutcheon.

    In a statement, Chairman Reince Priebus applauds the decision and the RNC's role in
    supporting McCutcheon:

    "I am proud that the RNC led the way in bringing this case and pleased that the Court
    agreed that limits on how many candidates or committees a person may support
    unconstitutionally burden core First Amendment political activities. When free speech is
    allowed to flourish, our democracy is stronger."

    ADVERTISING
    The FEC, however, is expressing fears that unlimited contributions would lead to corruption.

    In a statement, the FEC says "The Commission is considering the impact of the opinion on
    its existing regulations."

    According to attorney Emily Tisch Sussman, Campaigns Director for Center for American
    Progress Action Fund, the ruling is problematic because candidates will be less concerned
    with serving the public and more focused on courting a select few wealthy citizens who
    could fund their campaigns.

    Sussamn says, "The ruling for Mr. McCutcheon is unfortunate for the American public. He
    argued that his First Amendment free speech was limited due to the aggregate limits on
    campaign contributions, when in fact, by striking down the limit, he has making his voice so
    much louder than the average American.".

    Sussman argues that "We the People" is really applicable to "we the wealthiest."

    "We are talking about people who can afford to give more than $123,200 per year on
    federal elections alone."

    According to an assessment by the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation, in the 2012 election,


    28 percent of all disclosed political contributions were donated by 31,385 people or in other
    words, the "1% of the 1%." The Sunlight Foundation also determined that most large
    contributions support Republican campaigns.

    McCutcheon tells State of the Union that "There are just as many wealthy Democrats as
    Republicans and the private citizen should be able to spend as much money as they want
    to on elections."

    You might also like