Campaign finance. It’s an issue that came up time and time again in the 2016 Presidential election. Both sides of the aisle believe different things about campaign finance, yet both stand to benefit from allowing more freedom for funders. Citizens United vs. FEC is one of the most famous Supreme Court cases that deals with campaign finance. This case ultimately decided that campaign finance cannot be heavily regulated since money is a form of speech and should be protected under the first amendment. Even after that decision we must ask, what is the most ethical way to deal with campaign finance that preserves our democracy and ensures the majority’s voice still comes through?
Those in favor of unlimited campaign finance believe that people have the right to spend as much money as they want in order to support politicians who share their views. For this side, money is speech and needs to stay protected by the first amendment.
Those against unlimited campaign finance believe it is detrimental to the system, not allowing an equal playing field for all those looking to be involved in politics. According to them, it is not moral to allow only a few, very wealthy people to fund multiple politicians, potentially allowing a single agenda to take control of one part of the government.
Should private political financing be unlimited?
Have race relations deteriorated in the United States since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?