- It placed limits on the amount an individual could donate to a political campaign -- $1000 per election.
- It placed limits on the amount an individual could donate to his/her own campaign. The limits varied with the office sought.
- It placed limits on the amount a campaign could spend. Again, the limits varied according to the office sought.
- It required campaigns to keep detailed records of donors, and make publicly available the names, addresses, occupation, employer, and donation amount of any donor giving more than $100.
- Chloe suggested that the 14th amendment protects equal opportunity, and that this law creates an equal opportunity in elections.
- Murren argued that the spirit of the 22nd amendment is to keep any one person from having too much power, and that this law does the same thing.
- Andrew argued that this law protects fairness, and I suggested that fairness as a principle is present in many places in the Constitution.
- Kienan argued that this law deprives people of the liberty to do what they want with their money, violating the part of the 14thamendment that protects against loss of liberty.
- Kienan also argued that money is connected to speech, so this could also be a violation of the 1st amendment.
Be specific about which portion of the law you’re supporting or arguing against, and make explicit the connection you’re making to the Constitution. Be aware of whether you’re making a historical, textual, structural, doctrinal, ethical, or prudential argument.
10 comments:
[I'm posting a comment with one sample argument as a way of demonstrating one style for doing this. Don't steal my arguments!]
The fourth provision of the law, which requires campaigns to report the identity of their donors, is a violation of the 1st amendment.
The 1st amendment protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." While donating to a campaign is not physically "assembling" in a particular place, it is a form of association that has the same function as people getting together for a rally. In today's modern age, people don't do all of their politicking in person any more; they let their money do their work for them. [textual interpretation]
This law would prevent a person from remaining anonymous when donating to a campaign. What if a person supports Candidate X, but her boss supports Candidate Y? With mandatory reporting of donors, her boss might find out that she donated to Candidate X, and treat her unfairly at work (or even fire her!) for her differing political opinions. The overall effect of the law would be to scare some people into not engaging in electoral politics for fear of being "outed" as a supporter of one candidate or another. [prudential argument]
We value the secret ballot for this same reason -- a person's beliefs are her own, and she shouldn't be forced to share them with the world. [structural argument]
The law deprives people of some of their rights, like the right to use their money however they want (kind of like free speech).
But it is constitutional because it prevents people with more power and more money from buying their way into office.
Poeple who have more money than other people shouldn't have more power. Spending limits make elections more fair. The Constitution doesn't use the word "fair," but democracy won't work unless it's fair.
Say some major company likes a person who is running for office and funds their whole campaign. Then that company could come back and ask for favors later.
The fourth provision of the law is a violation of the 1st amendment. Money is absolutely a way to express free speech. A presidential candidate can not by his way into office he is voted for by his ethics and morals not financial support. Having your name posted on everything doesn’t mean you will be president. This is also a form of “petitioning Government for redress of grievance.” Redress of grievance relates to money because you are giving money “petitioning” to a presidential candidate because you wish to have that president versus another. Which is “redress of grievance.”
Limits on donations and spending give all presidential candidates an equal opportunity to a successful campaign. If there weren’t limits, the more wealthy candidates could spend huge amounts of their own money on publicity and be excessively advertised. If a wealthy supporter/friend were to make a hefty donation to an already well-off candidate that would also be unfair and irritating.
The other side of this story is that it goes a bit against the 14th amendment, because the law abridges people’s freedom to control their own property (money).
This law was created so that a person could not pay their way into a public office. That is to say, fund their campaign entirely on their own, without outside aid. Doing so would not reflect the will of the people. Campaigners need outside help because at least in that, the will of the people is reflected. Also, this law makes it so that people do not spend inordinate amounts of money advertising for their campaign. Someone who had less money and therefore couldn’t spend as much might not be able to mount the same kind of campaign against someone with a lot of money. Also, the law makes it so that any one company couldn’t pay for their candidate’s campaign; essentially it makes it so the candidate can’t owe one group of supporters any more than the other. While it could be argued that this law infringes on freedom of speech by limiting the amounts of money one is allowed to spend on what they want, it seems like a weak argument to say that money equals speech. If that were the case then you could argue that someone with more money has more freedom of speech than someone without it and that is defiantly not in line with the first amendment. Everyone has freedom of speech, rich or poor. A candidate for public office should not be based on their financial records; it should be based on their ability’s as a public official, which is not directly reflected in their bank accounts.
Money is speech. If people can't use their money for whatever they want, what's next, restricting talking and writing? The slippery slope, you know. And maybe someone who has more money is more business savvy, and therefore would make a better president anyway. As I was saying in the last class about how I thought it wasn't right to force desegregation, this is forced equalization. People may be equal in the eyes of god, but socially and economically they're definitely not. That's just the way it is.
Equality. People may not be equal socially or economically, but we've got to try. America is supposed to be a democracy, goddamnit! The more power we give to rich people the closer we get to monarchy, which is what the founders of this country were trying to get away from.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was made to give all people running for office equal opportunity. The 14th Amendment states in Section 1, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That says that you can't deny anyone of equal rights.
You could make an argument against the The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 using the 1st Amendment, that Amendment says, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." What that says is that you can't go and make it illegal to talk or otherwise express yourself. The argument I would make is that spending your money is expressing yourself.
I believe that money is speech and this limit on campaign funds is in violation of both the 1st and 14th amendment. The initial goal of The Framers shall not trump the freedom or liberties that are clearly written in the Constitution. One may make an opposing case by interpreting the intentions of The Framers as creating everything and keeping everyone equal, but building a case consisting of what you think they meant versus a case consisting of what they actually wrote, does not hold up well. Money is speech and denying any person of their liberty to spend it, is a violation of the 1st amendment.
I believe that this law is in violation of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." has come to mean that the government cannot restrict citizens' right to express themselves in most cases, and this law is no exception. What comes next? Restricting the language that a candidate can use while campaigning? Trying to give handicaps to underdogs to make elections more "fair" is not a solution, it's a copout that is inviting rule-breaking by candidates.
It can also be argued that a candidate campaigning is not different from a company advertising. There are no restrictions on how much a company can spend on their ad campaign, so why should there be one on candidates. If anything, we should welcome candidates when they want to spend more money on making their point, due to the importance of understanding their political views more clearly.
Post a Comment