Summary: As they opened presents after a Christmas meal, the Koch brothers realized they had both gotten each other something truly special; in fact, the exact same thing! Both had bought each other the same election, that of Lee Zeldin in New York's 1st Congressional District. After the precedent set by the right-to-work law passed in Wisconsin this time last year, they decided they had to go big. Notwithstanding, this was only a small part of their efforts for 2016, however after the defeat of their preferred candidate Scott Walker, they decided to start from the ground up, much like 2010 and 2014.
All jokes aside, campaign spending in this presidential election thus far has been unprecedented. Huge donors each have their pet candidates, such as Ted Cruz receiving $15 million just from two billionaire brothers alone. In addition, Super PACs like Right to Rise supporting Jeb Bush has over $100 million in funds to spend on the campaign. It is impossible to ignore the effects of this wave of cash flowing through our political process, making corruption and buying elections a distinct possibility. We are at a crossroads, either regulations are passed to limit this, or it must be embraced as just another quirk of the American political system.
Questions:
What are your thoughts on the Citizens United Ruling in 2010? Do you believe that unlimited campaign spending is a corrupting influence or enables more free speech? How do you feel about multimillionaires and billionaires having such a great influence on elections?
Article: http://www.theonion.com/article/koch-brothers-get-each-other-same-election-christm-52012
I don't agree that there shouldn't be any restrictions but I don't know what exactly those rules should be either. I think that the Supreme Court made the logical decision within a reasonable time since the line between free speech and corruption is a fine line that still needs to be debated. It would be hard for them to come to an agreement considering their polarized ideologies as well, so I don't blame them. Like anything money is just a tool and people decide whether to use it for good or bad. It doesn't immediately fall into strictly any one category. I just believe something should be done to restrict the spending, and apparently, like the judges and their selective restrictions, I'm undecided on how to do so. I'm upset that billionaires have so much more influence than the rest of the electorate.
ReplyDeleteI am against the Citizens United Ruling in 2010. I think unlimited campaign spending is unwise because it gives corporations too much power over elections. I see the reasoning behind the final decision; the ability to spend money on what you want is a freedom. But I do not think this freedom extends to large corporations because they abuse the power unlimited spending gives. I hope in the future restrictions will be placed on big donors of campaigns in order to reduce their influence on elections.
ReplyDeleteUnlimited campaign funding definitely has an effect on our government. We have to make our voices heard somehow for our government to be effective but what would you listen to more, a large group of people picketing your local park or the company that just slipped you a blank check for your campaign? The people are clearly being put into a corner and those who are rich have the ability to control congress. Maybe the next course of action would be for the masses to vote with their wallets instead of elections. Whatever it takes to get representation.
ReplyDeleteThe Citizens United case has allowed corporations to control the amount of power each candidate gets and I believe that this has caused the candidates to be more focused on gaining favor from corporations that from "actual" people. I believe it has changed the way campaigning is done and it might just become a new strategy to gain more votes. Although it is not fair for the rich to have such a big influence on presidential candidates, it is safe to say it probably does not matter a whole lot because they already have a big influence in other parts of government.
ReplyDelete