A recent supreme court decision ruled that there should be no cap to limiting the financial contributions from independent businesses/corporations, labor unions, and other non-profit organizations. This issue certainly calls into question the influence money and media have on our political system, so I thought it would be an interesting opening discussion for our new semester.
Directions:
1. Read The Court Systems' Blow to Democracy from the New York Times - Jan 22, 2010.
2. Watch "Supreme Court Eases Restrictions on Corporate Campaign Spending" on CNN's website at:
The Court Systems' Blow to Democracy from the New York Times - Jan 22, 2010.
Summarize THREE KEY UNDERSTANDINGS from each article in 200 words or less (total( AND answer the following questions:
a) Why is this decision so controversial?
b) The pundits in the Bill Mears segment on CNN explain that "according to this ruling, money is free speech." Evaluate the notion that money (and political financing) should be protected by the first amendment. (In other words, do you agree or disagree?)
c) Based on the NY Times article, how is corporate campaign financing complicating American Democracy?
Conclude by explaining wether you feel there was any bias in these sources OR pose a question for discussing the issue in class later next week.
REMINDER: bring in any materials you may need to finish your political system "menu."
Posts should be roughly 300 words.
NOTE - IF YOU CANT VIEW THE CNN VIDEO READ THE ARTICLE AND COMMENTS AT THAT LINK INSTEAD.
These articles discussed the negative effects of letting major cooperations fund as much money as they want in to political parties. This decision can give cooperations the right to “overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding” the New York times is right to see a major problem in this decision. This decision is so controversial because it give cooperations with money a much stronger hold in the political world then they every had before. Cooperations are now able to push candidates in the political system due to the unlimited amount of money they are able to spend. This ruling is very unjust because it brings in a lot of foul play on the part of cooperations and politicians. Politicians are supposed to be leaders, they are not supposed to be sponsored by companies because its give an unfair advantage and brings to much economic influence into political parties. Economics and government should be separate or that was the wish that the founding fathers had. Endless funding of politicians is going to greatly change the face of what America stands for. The quote “money is free speech” was pronounce in the CNN segment and really transforms what America is. Money is free speech, basically means that cooperate greed over takes what is right and cooperations are hiding behind the first amendment in order to protect themselves. Of course no member of congress or politician will with stand this argument because cooperations are throwing money at them. But to the rest of America this shows how our leaders are blinded by greed. More or less this new source of political funding is going to complicate the democracy of America. This changes the face of the America, making us completely about money with nothing to push us but our own greed. Politics has never been a fair game but at least politicians could fight for the right reasons, where as now its just for money.
ReplyDeleteI defiantly feel that the New York Times article was very biased in a more negative way towards the decision to let cooperations fund political parties. After reading that article I was defiantly convinced that this decision was the wrong way to deal with our current political and economic problems.
Katie McSherry
Block:C
The decision that there should be no cap to the amount of money that big corporations are able to spend on elections was so controversial because now major corporations will have major influence on the people’s opinions of candidates. Because of this decision, major corporations can spend millions of dollars on advertising that will tell people who they should and should not vote for. This means that the people with the most money will have the most voice. That is what is meant by the pundits in the Bill Mears segment on CNN that explain the phrase "according to this ruling, money is free speech." I agree with this statement. With this new ruling, the side with the most money will always have the greatest advantage in every election. This new ruling will make elections about witch side has the most money instead of which side has the greatest political views. According to the New York Times article corporate campaign financing is complicating American Democracy because now corporations can control elected officials into making decisions that will help the corporations. A corporation can offer his support to an official or threaten to financially support an opponent, based on what political actions this elected official makes. This completely destroys the system of democracy as now it is the corporations with big money who help to decide the laws instead of the officials elected by the people. In my opinion, the New York Times article was extremely biased. The article left no room to the fact that this newly passed edict could possibly be a good thing. Although I agree with most of what the New York Times article said, it was still an extremely biased article.
ReplyDeleteJoe Santangelo
C Block
The decision to let corporations spend endless amounts of money in politics was described as a travesty to American Democracy. Corporations have a much stronger pull on political elections due to the lifted decision made by a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court. From this decision corporations are allowed to spend any amount of money to help or slander a candidate. This gives corporations an abundance of power in a presidential campaign. Corporations are now basically sponsoring political candidates which seem to make elections uneven in that one candidate could have an abundance of money being provided. This decision is obviously very controversial because, the amount of influence corporations have on a presidential election could control laws passed by presidents. There would also be no proof that a corporation would influence a president in making laws that could help certain corporations. This decision is wrong in that corporations would have a stronger influence on government issues which could cause corruption in government issues. This is also could have negative effects on the economy with the strong influence large corporations have could destroy the hope of new business to rise. This could cause stagnation in an already declining economy. Bill Mears said in the CNN segment "money is free speech" which seems fitting in these circumstances. I partially agree with Bill Mears, the statement in that in elections those who throw the most money have the right of speech. Corporations with an abundance of money will influence what issues presidential candidates advocate. Corporations will complicate Presidential campaigning because corporations will more likely favor conservative candidates making the Republican Party more likely to win elections. This is due to the fact that corporations do not want to lose money nor have any laws passed that would stint their growth or income.
ReplyDeleteHow much will this decision affect the economy as a whole?
Ho Lee
F Block
After one hundred years of corporations holding back their money and "free speech" during elections they have finally decided to do just the opposite. The topic is so controversial because all these companies are huge and could have big influence on the people they are supporting. Also, for one hundred years this hasn't been allowed and now corporations can just bully and bribe their favorites to be elected. On CNN the statement, "according to this ruling, money is free speech." spoken by Bill Mears was used. The statement, for the most part, is absolutely true. Everyone has an opinion, this is a fact, but some people's opinions are heard a little louder than others. Some people have more "power" then others and some have more money. For example, in magazines you never see regular people talking about things it's usually celebrities or the president. Money speaks and when it comes to opinions being heard money screams. Democracy itself is being put into question now that this new rule has been passed. Corporations can basically do whatever they want. For example, they can make campaigns that make one elective look amazing while completely trashing the other elective. With enough money corporations can even help decide on laws instead of actually officials elected by the people. The article in question was extremely biased to begin with. Sure, it talked about the bad facts of this law and even though I agree with all of that, an article needs to have two sides in a debate. If it just going on and on about one side of the argument and never mentions the other side of the fight then the article, in my opinion, is extremely biased.
ReplyDeleteShawn Cybulska
Block-C
The decision in this article is very controversial. This is because by changing the laws of corporate spending in politics one allows the biggest wallet to win. Corporations are now able to push political candidates because of the unlimited amount of money they are able to spend. This change is completely unjust because it allows a great deal of corruption to occur in politics and also eliminates a fair playing field in politics. By making this decision to allow unlimited spending by corporations, the United States is basically allowing the richest company to run America. By allowing this, as said in the article, big companies can intimidate officials and force them to do what they want. This would completely eliminate any form of democracy. It complicates democracy because the traditions of this country allow anyone to be able to grow up and to be president. This is simply not true anymore. Now the only way to become president or any high form of an elected official is if you have a big company on your side or if you are just plain rich. By allowing corporate backing in elections, the richer candidate will get more commercials on T.V., radio, and more adds on the internet. It is just not democratic. This law is changing American politics for the worst and must be rethought. The CNN report basically says that the court believes money is the equivalent to free speech and people are equal to corporations. This is ridiculous because it would mean that poor people have no freedom of speech due to a lack of money. People’s rights are not measured in monetary value.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times article was bias. Once I began reading it, I was immediately swayed to agree with what they said. They did not give the other side of the story. All in al, I still agree with what was said in the article.
Lou Ferrara
F-block
According to the article from the New York Times, the courts have ruled in a 5-to-4 decision, that anybody can use corporate money to fund any kind of smear campaign against anything they don’t like. Originally, corporate money could not be used for campaigns. Many people believe that this issue shouldn’t have even been brought up to the courts, and it’s considered ridiculous. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission drastically changes well-established laws. The verdict also tears down the barrier between corporations and electoral politics. Due to this ruling, labor unions are allowed to spend money they don’t have.
ReplyDeleteThis decision within the Times, is a very controversial issue, mainly because it changes things in America, by lifting the limits on funding from money these groups don’t have. Corporate campaign financing complicates American democracy because it breaches our amendment rights, and it harms our economy.
The Article in the New York Times was very biased in a negative way towards this issue, by ridiculing the courts, and criticizing their decision.
Note: Due to my laptop being broken in more than one way, I have no sound and therefore have no way in watching the article.
Bryan Rivelli
F Block
2-7-10
The Supreme Court had a 5-4 ruling that anyone can spend money the way they want to in campaigns. Before this ruling was in, corporate money was not allowed to be used in campaigns. Americans are outraged the political leaders are now free to do as they wish with corporate money in their political campaigns. This was very controversial because major corporations have a huge influence on opinions of the candidates running in elections. According to the CNN post, money is free speech. I disagree with this because just because a candidate has more money that they can now freely use as they will, does not mean that they can buy themselves the election. I dont think it is fair that people in compaigns are now free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat their opponents in the election. But if a member of Congress would try to stand up to a wealthy advosary, lobbyists can then come back and threaten that they will spend whatever it would take to defeat their opponent and win. In the New York Times editorial the quote "If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt", i agree in the same terms about allowing political campaigns to freely spend money in elections is also corrupt. As far as corporate campaign financing goes, complications on democracy take away our amendment rights and also does a lot of damage to the economy financially.
ReplyDeleteWill the decision the Supreme Court has made about allowing corporate money to be spent in campaigns have a negative influence in future elections?
Bethany Greenman
F-Block
As many companies have spent a numerous amount of money in politics was shown as a charade to American Democracy. Now, large corporations will have a major impact on the people’s decisions during votes. In other words, money will tell people who to vote for. In the Bill Mears segment on CNN, they use a term, pundits, which explain the phrase "according to this ruling, money is free speech." This statement pretty much portrays that money will be talking for the people. Also, whichever candidate has the most money will be elected than that who has more political views than money. In the New York Times article, it says that corporations are going to use the money to control the candidates in ways that will only benefit them. This entire concept of money flow destroys the idea on democracy since money can be used to either help the people or threaten them. The world has come a long way from development to today and it seems as if money is everything to people and they let money control them. The New York Times article should’ve talked about how in the long run people are going to realize their mistakes.
ReplyDeleteWill this affect previous existing companies at all?
Tirath Singh C Block
A recent supreme court decision ruled that there should be no cap to limiting the financial contributions from independent businesses/corporations, labor unions, and other non-profit organizations. With a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber barron era of the 19th century. Waving the flag of the First Amendment, the courts conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding. The first amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press. As a result of Thursday's ruiling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, it's lobbyists can credibly threaten: We'll spend whatever it takes to defeat you. Basically, the article is saying that the Supreme Court has given big business unions and nonprofits more power to spend money freely in federal elections. The decision is so controversial because according to Bill Mears' article, "when government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought" Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." That statement is also in the Bill Mears article. I agree with that statement because the first amendment is all about freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom to of your choice of religion, etc. The topic is controversial because big companies have big influences on everyone. They have big influences on the people they are supporting as well. According to the Bill Mears article it says "according to this ruling, money is free speech." I totally agree with that statement because money is free speech. You can basically do whatever you want with your own money because it's yours and belongs to you. As long as you own it, it's your free speech. The way you spend your money is similar to your freedom of speech. So, I very much agree with the CNN article. The NY Times article is very biased. It's very negative towards the entire situation. It's saying that the majority is deeply wrong on the law and it makes a nonsensical claim. The article was critcizing the decision more than explaining their side of the issue.
ReplyDeleteAngela Matrone
2-7-10
F Block
The newly past law by the US Supreme Court remains controversial, and it seemed to be a hard decision considering it only one by one vote. In the past the amount of money that businesses were allowed to give to campaigns was limited, but now with the new law people can give as much money as they want. This can be good and bad in many ways, but if a company has a lot of money it is good for them. The more money a company has to give the more their opinion matters, which isn’t fair to the companies who don’t have the opportunity to give that much. This does not promote equality, which goes against the United States democratic ways. Now that this law is passed the government cannot regulate the money flow that backs people running in campaigns. If someone has a lot of money they can give as much as they want to the person they want to win, that leaves the people who don’t have a lot of money with a disadvantage. Although, it is a company’s money and under normal circumstances they should be able to do what they want with it, but it isn’t fair when it comes to elections and campaigns. Money should not contribute to an election win, someone should win because of what they intend to do. It is not a democracy if someone pays to win an election, because that does not help everyone. It helps the companies or the people with the most money. In a way passing this law does take a way some people’s first amendment rights, because it is taking away their say. In other words if someone doesn’t have money then their vote doesn’t count as much. There is so many ideas that float around this decision, which is why it is an extremely controversial issue.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles refer to the issue of restrictions on corporate spending. This decision has become highly controversial because the Supreme Court has decided to alleviate laws limiting corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations, from spending money on election campaigns. Democrats believe this choice will put an end to democracy. They believe that conservatives want to allow corporations to, in a way, buy who they favor to win for in elections through advertising. This change greatly alters on how the rulings are, the rulings that had stayed the same for a hundred years. Now, people are afraid of the dangerous effects of corporate influence and that the people’s voices will be drowned out and completely ignored.
ReplyDelete“According to this ruling, money is free speech” essentially means that money overrules citizen’s right to free speech. In essence, this means that people’s opinions will not be heard nor put into consideration. I agree with this statement and believe money should be protected but not abused.
Based on the article The Court’s Blow to Democracy, corporate financing complicates American Democracy because this ruling leads to unfair elections and corrupted political campaigns. There was a biased view in this article because it favored a democratic view without any conservative voice included.
Allison Lee
Block F
In these articles the supreme court had a 5-4 ruling that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns to help candidates. Corporations can have a strong political influence on political elections now due to the supreme courts ruling. This decision made by the supreme court defeats the purpose and the system of democracy because now the big corporations with all the money are the ones to decide the laws and presidential elections instead of the officials that were elected by the officials. The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The constitution they wrote mentions many thins and assigns them rights and protections like to the people, but it does not mention corporations. The decision is controversial because now that corporations can spend whatever it takes to elect and defeat candidates, the democracy has become corrupt. The majority that supported this decision are treating the corporations just like how they treat people and think that the corporations are entitled to the same first amendment rights. Companies are creations of the state that exist to make money, so a corporation is not a person therefore should not be entitled to the same first amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteCory Moser
C-Block
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe United States is not a dollar democracy. It may have been when the constitution was first written but no longer is. After reading the first article from the NY times, I have concluded that one of the key understandings is that many people believe that the First Amendment is being shrugged off. Now, after the final ruling of United States vs.Federal Election Commission, corporations are able to spend all the money they desire to defeat and win. Another key understanding would be that if a wealthy man stands up to a random congressman or woman they will succeed because they can easily boast or threaten them with how much money they can and will use. According to this editorial for all opposite opponents of wealthy men or women they have no reason to fight. A main key idea of this article that really caught my opinion is that the writers of the Constitution warned about something like this happening. In our Constitution, it does not say anything about corporations therefore is it unfair? Corporate influence is now in affect and is very strong.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article on CNN, two men describe their opinions of this court ruling. A key point again is how it contradicts or ignores the First Amendment. Another key ponit is how labor unions/corporations will now have the ability to "participate more freely in campaigns". Who's to say what will happen during the next terms of elections. lastly one other key understanding I gathered from watching that clip was that this ruling has been overruled for twenty years but then the other man says how its more like 100 years, and now things have changed.
This issue is so controversial because of how shocking and one sided. To some it is also unfair.
I believe that money should be included within the first amendment. People choose and not choose whether or not they want to use their money, however due to the first article I must agree with what they are saying. Corporations and electoral politics shall remain separate, due to our United States Constitution.
Jazmin Roman
F-Block
“The Court Systems' Blow to Democracy” published in the New York Times on January 22, 2010, and “Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending” from CNN discuss the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling to allow different parties to fund for a political campaign. The editorial in the New York Times suggested that Congress should act quickly and add limitations to the new ruling. This comment was made in fear that corporations will have a large influence in politics and their decision making. In 2008, an organization called Citizens United created a film to denounce Hilary Clinton’s attempt at the Presidential elections. Congress ruled that corporate spending on elections were not allowed. However, in court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it was decided that restricting the organizations ability to show the video was a violation of First Amendment rights. Now, there is fear that corporations will have “reached a new height in wealth and power.” So is the United States a dollar democracy? These news articles illustrate the influences of capitalism on our government. Democracy is being amended by those with money. At least direct contributions to campaigns are still illegal.
ReplyDeleteThis decision is controversial because many Americans, including I, fear that corporate America will have a larger influence in politician’s decision making. In the past, like in the Industrial Revolution, corporate scandals included bribery and aid for senators sided with commercial interests. In his article, Bill Mears mentions that money is equated to free speech. This means that those with money can speak as they wish, often times influencing other peoples decision making abilities through commercials and advertisements. The American Democracy is becoming more complicated because our freedoms are being manipulated by sly, wealthy conglomerates. People used to have the freedom to vote for who they feel has the potential to do better, but now their beliefs will be heavily influenced through media. So what is in store for America’s future? Could corporate influence lead to economic recovery?
-Oscar
There is now no limit of money major corporations will be able to spend for elections. According to the New York Times article, “The Court’s Blow to Democracy”, making the decision to have a free limit on the financial contributions from labor unions, independent business/corporations, and other non-profit organizations will overwhelm the elections and intimidate elected officials to do their bidding. As of Thursday the courts ruling in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case has been made official and the corporations can pour as much money wanted and needed for the elections and there candidates. Due to this newly established law businesses will now spend unnecessary money, millions, during elections for advertising telling the people who they should and should not vote for. Referring back to the New York Times article, wouldn’t the corporations be connected to the candidates that could achieve the corporations bidding? In every sense The New York Times article is correct because the corporations can single handedly pick and choose who to support and back with their money. “Money is speech, corporations are people.” To me this quote, from the CNN video, represents the inconsequentiality the people in politics have for the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is the freedom of speech and press. Therefore; the value of money shouldn’t be as high as the words someone speaks because money can buy words and that’s exactly what this law is doing. This new law is complicating American Democracy and in the process, completely destroying it. Democracy in America is elected officials voted into office primarily on the views and opinions straight from the people, in this case Americans. As of now the corporations are the was who can make the decisions either out in the public or behind the American citizens backs which will cause the officials back by the most money and endorsements to be elected into office.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Esposito
C block
Allowing corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money during elections is corrupt. The decision of allowing the large corporations to spend an endless amount of money toward the party they favor during the election can guarantee a huge advantage in the election. This decision to allow corporations to spend money during elections is very controversial because these large corporations have the biggest advantage as a group of people voting in America. Allowing this decision, corporations can also change people’s minds about a candidate by corrupt ads on the radio or on television. Bill Mears expressing that money is free speech is true but a shame. Free speech is a person’s words and personal opinions; money in an election is manipulative and brings out greed. There is a difference between free speech and money, however they both connect because money speaks and allows the wealthy to get what they want. Based on the New York Times article corporate campaign complicates American democracy because with large corporations spending all this money towards the elections, the ballot listens to money more than the people. Therefore some elections may have been fixed because of money, such elections like Bush v. Gore. Large corporations that are spending money toward elections in their favor is not just, however it is not surprising because certain corrupt actions like this is anticipated and because money does talk.
ReplyDeleteIn your personal opinion, can you think of any other election that may have been set up because of money being thrown towards the ballots?
Ric Adam Viera
C Block
Based on the three articles above, it is clear to conclude there has been a great deal of controversy towards a contemporary Supreme Court decision and the Political system. These articles share the negative effects of allowing major corporations to fund endless amounts of money, in order to help the candidate of their chose win an election. This topic is extremely controversial, due to wealthy business corporations taking advantage of the smaller man. In my eyes, it is bribery. On television channel, CNN, Bill Mears states “According to this ruling, money is free speech”. I agree with Mears, where this is what our modern day nation’s commentary of "free speech" has come to. However, I do not agree this is the way our founding fathers wanted us to interpret free speech. Essentially, Bill Mears feels free speech has transformed into the ability these corporations have over the influence on elections, through the direct use of their money. I agree with Mears judgments; allowing wealthy corporations to buy our influence would fundamentally undermine our so called democracy. Based on article number 1, “The courts blow to democracy”, I feel the true meaning of democracy is undermined by corporate financing and political greed. Electoral campaigns are corrupted, and the playing field is no longer fair. The wealthier man, therefore, has a louder voice, and has used his money to be heard, and selfishly win his way to the top.
ReplyDeleteALLY BEALS (=
C BLOCK
These articles discussed the negatives of letting major cooperations fund as much money as they want in to political parties.Allowing corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money during elections is not good.The unlimited access to money, in my opinon is not good because its like kind of taking advantage of the system.Major corporations can spend millions of dollars on advertising which is getting the word out but i dont think some 45 second advertisement would really make people change there minds. The 1st Amendment is the freedom of speech and press.money shouldn’t be as high as someone's words someone speaks because money can buy words and that’s exactly what this law is doing. This new law is complicating American Democracy and in the process, completely destroying it.
ReplyDeleteThe recent Supreme court decision ruled that there should be no cap to limiting financial contributions on elections.This is so controversial because now it is a way for corporations to use their financial advantage to overwhelm elections and to intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding. Corporations can spend as much money as they want on just advertisement to campaign on who should be elected but since there is no limits on financial contribution the candidates with the most money have the bigger voice and say in convincing who to elect and win a vote. i agree with the notion that money and political financing should be protected by the first amendment because if corporations are allowed to campaign candidates using a unlimited amount of money it give an unfair advantage and brings too much economic influence into political parties.Based on the NY Times article the corporate campaign finance is complicating American Democracy because it is giving America a whole new outlook and blinds us with greed and only the want of money. i feel that the sources were very bias towards this situation because the article had a very negative overview on the decision to let corporations fund political parties.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Wong
C block
In both the New York Times article and the CNN report they both describe the new Supreme Court ruling that will allow various parties to fund a political campaign with no restrictions to corporate spenders. In the New York Times article it suggested that Congress become hasty with their actions and add restrictions to this new ruling. Congress is being rushed because of the fear that corporate America would want a piece of the pie in politics. This has become very controversial because the Supreme Court has decided to not put laws on limiting corporations, unions and nonprofit organizations from spending money on campaign elections. With non profit organizations and unions having the ability to fund a campaign they would be able to persuade the leader of that campaign to doing anything they wanted them to. Many citizens feel that this law will put an end to democracy. This issue shows that capitalism is in control of our government. The common person's struggles won't be heard if corporate companies are in control of the government. Free speech will be overruled by money, which strictly isn't right. In my opinion, corporations should be able to fund campaign elections but there should be a limit of how much they can give and that they cannot suggest anything to the politician that would benefit their company or people of the wealth stature. Companies should try to find out the needs of people in their community then suggest any ideas to the party they are funding. Otherwise, people's opinions will not be heard or even put into consideration.
ReplyDeleteIn both New York Times articles, the decision of allowing big companies and corporations to spend money without any limits is being made. The large companies and corporations being able to spend money on elections was the main discussion and issue that affect Americans and the decision on people’s candidates they will vote for. They can spend large amounts of money on advertising to inform and advise people the right person to vote for. For example, in the beginning of senior year many students were able to able to work for Mayor Bloomberg. This was around the time of his new term and election. While working, people had to advertise Mayor Bloomberg to inform and entertain people to vote for him. This must of cost tons of money to pay these people and to have them hand out flyers and other sorts of information to grab their attention. This is unfair to the other people running in the campaign because everyone is supposed to be equal. Politicians are supposed to be leaders and enforce the right thing for people to do. Instead of getting caught up in the tabloids and lives of celebrities, pay attentions to what the serious problems are in the world today and future. According the CNN Bill Mears segment “according to this rule, money is free speech,” is fairly true and portrays the happenings in America. This quote means that being money hungry and being wealthy gets you to a better place than being middle class. This shows how politicians and leaders are showing fakeness and saying they will make the world better but not actually doing it is because they are receiving a large income.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if the New York Times article was leaning more towards the biased side. This is because it is showing and publishing the faults of politicians and leaders. This article could have stated it a different way and should of definitely suggested a solution.
In the New York Times articles, the Supreme Court ruled that there should be no cap limit on political funding from private corporations.There is much controversy around this issue as suggested by the articles in The New York Times. This issue is controversial because it gives many politicians away to gain an advantage over other candidates because of advertising and not for what they are going to do. Also, if a large corporation supports one candidate whose to say all employees support that candidate or are giving them the vote? Many citizens feel as if with a law that does not limit corporations and non-profit organizations funding politicaina, it will put an end to democracy because these corporations may be able to persuade the candidates to do what they want. The Bill Mears segment from CNN states "According to this rule money is free speech." This statement is shameful but true. Money is bringing out the greed of the candidates, who will say what their funders want to hear, so they continued to get funded and bring in large sums of money towards their campaign.
ReplyDeleteWhy cant the courts rule that corporations can spend a certain amount on one candidate based on the number of supporters in that firm?
In the New York Times article it stated that, the Supreme Court ruled that no dollar limit should be put in place from private coporations to political funds. This has started a lot of conterversy. It is unfair that there is no limit to the funding because many politians will get the votes of people not due to there beliefs on certain topics but because the voter saw a billboard in times square for the politician. a solution to the problem would be to give each politician a spending limit on advertisments so there is no unfair advantages in such a competive election.
ReplyDeleteRyan Mclean
F block
Key Understandings:
ReplyDelete1) Corporations may be treated like average American people in this debate, thus incurring what's entailed in the First Amendment. All Americans have freedom of speech, and political financing from corporations in order to help presidential candidates win their elections should be considered as such. Money is not only their form of speech but the form of speech for businesses, non-profit organizations, and labor unions as well.
2) Corporations should not be treated like average American people because they are not. Unlike one person making a contribution to his/her favored candidate, one entire corporation makes a much greater profit and can, thus, make a much greater contribution to its favored candidate; perhaps too great. Corporations are also capable of using these contributions to their advantage by making demands required to be fulfilled in order acquire the contributions. Therefore, corporations will have enough power to change the results of presidential elections and democracy will no longer exist. Corporations will run the nation, pursuing their own selfish needs.
3) Corporations cannot make monetary contributions to the election of a candidate, but the court's recent decision to allow corporate involvement in president elections may allow monetary contributions in the future.
a) This decision is very controversial because it demeans the democratic process of the presidential, as well as statewide and citywide, elections. By allowing corporations to be involved, they have enough power to shape the elections to their liking, paying for positive ads for their desired candidates and negative ads against those candidates' oppositions. Additionally, the courts are now ignoring our forefathers' warnings of the consequences that come with corporate involvement in elections.
b) I believe that political financing should be allowed for individuals, non-profit organizations, and labor unions because most of them, if not all, desire social and economic progress and improvement for the general public. If political financing was allowed for corporations, the decision to support candidates would be made only by the CEOs and leaders of those corporations, thus leading to possible corruption brought up by this increase in power over elections.
c) Corporate political financing can shape the public's general opinion about the candidates. Therefore, this gives corporations the power to shape the results of an election. This complicates American Democracy because, when the people vote, they won't be making their own votes but the corporations' votes.
Michael Appelgate
F block
Jackie King
ReplyDeleteThe controversial decision that was mad, that is no limit to the amount of money that big corporations are capable of spending on elections. This allowed large corporations to influence the decision making of the people. The corporations large sums of money allows them to spend it on advertising and convincing people which candidates to vote for. In conclusion this means the money is the power. “Money is free speech” was said by Bill Mears. I believe that this is true because the money is power in this type of situation. The side with the most money can expand quicker. The money will have a greater advantage. Political views seem to go out the window when money is the largest advertiser. Corporate financing is a complicated part of American Democracy according to the New York Times, however, now corporations can control decision making which will help large corporations. A corporation can bribe officials or threaten an opponent. This destroys the system of democracy due to large sums of money and big corporations, who creates the laws instead of elected officials. The article is biased.
Why is the government allowing this to happen?
C BLOCK
KING
The decision made about the money being spent by big corporations is very wrong because it allows these big corporations to spend as much as they want. They are allowed to use the money in elections so they will be able to persuade people to on the election. They also are allowed to spend the money on advertising so they can persuade the voters as well. This will give power to the money of big corporations. Money can decided anything from peoples lives to the president of the united states. Corporate america is why america is a dollar democracy. This will eventually cause the death of americas democracy. I believe this article is biased. i just want to know if the government will stop this from continuing?
ReplyDeleteJonathan Weiss
The newly past law by the US Supreme Court remains controversial, and it was a hard decision because it only won by one vote. In the past, the amount of money that businesses were allowed to give to campaigns was limited, but now with the new law people can give as much money as they want. This can be good and bad in many ways, but if a company has a lot of money it is good for them. The more money a company has to give the more their opinion matters, which isn’t fair to the companies who don’t have the opportunity to give that much. These articles discussed the negatives of letting major cooperation’s fund as much money as they want in to political parties. Allowing corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money during elections is not good. I think the New York Times article was on the biased side, because it is showing and publishing the faults of politicians and leaders.
ReplyDeleteAngela Soliman
F-block
According to the New York Times article and the CNN article they both state that they aggre with the Supreme Court ruled that there should be no cap limit on political funding from private corporations. In these articles the supreme court had a 5-4 ruling that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns to help candidates,this allowed large corporations to influence the decision making of the people. The corporations large sums of money allows them to spend their money on advertising and convincing people which candidates to vote for. This issue is controversial because it gives many politicians away to gain an advantage over other candidates because of advertising and not for what they are going to do witch is the wrong reason to vote for some one. I think this is really unfair because this will cause people to vote for canidates for the wrong reason and this will especially draw attention to new young voters because they might think their add was " cool " and vote for that person. People need to realize that voting is a serious thing and can change the way we live if not done properly but
ReplyDelete“According to this ruling, money is free speech” i aggre with the quote because it is sadly true witch means they can do what ever it takes to win as long as they have the money to
The decision to having no limit to the sum of money that corporations are allowed to expend is a very big mistake. This gives supremacy to the candidate with the most money. Corporations have a high impact on political elections because of the lifted decisions made by a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court. Because of great advertisements and alluring publication the United States can be pulled the wrong direction. Due to corporations sponsoring these presidential candidates the president can later pass laws that would be most beneficial to those companies that helped him attain his position instead of the American people. Due to the 5-4, corporations have a very big say in politics and laws being passed like this one, could potentially corrupt the government. That makes this topic a controversial one; That laws can soon basically be determined by corporations in some ways. Bill Mears stated in the CNN segment that, “money is free speech”. I completely agree with his opinion. The people with the most money are going to have the upper hand in ANY situation. If you have money you can cheat your way through many things. The New York times is thinking morally when they disagree with the Supreme Courts decision to give no limit to the amount of spending money for campaigns.
ReplyDeleteChris Gallo
ReplyDeleteThe articles above talk about the negative effects of allowing large corporations to fund as much money as they need in political campaigns and parties. This allows big corporations to spend as much money as they want and intimidate elected officials. The large amount of money causes the American Democracy to slowly crumble in who becomes the leaders. Now big corporations have the upper hand in most elections since they will have the most money to spend on fundraising. The money will play a major role in people’s decisions. On the CNN segment with Bill Mears which says that money is free speech. Money will be the key decisioin for most people which means money will be the speaker. Based on the NY Times article, it states that corporations will use money to control their candidates. Money is using the upper hand in all campaigns and the opponents will always lose. The articles are very biased and basically state that money controls the people.
Why is money such a major part in campaigns now? When did this start?
Having the belief that media is the fourth branch of government has been proven to be true in various cases as advertisements on television, campaign ads, and the internet promote political candidates and parties. The Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to spend as much money as they want on candidates has been a debate causing controversy because some people consider the idea as bribery while others view it as the right to the First Amendment. Having the right to free speech and civil liberties allows a person to identify themselves as an American citizen and express themselves as a whole person. By allowing a company or organization to use its finances to promote a campaign it demonstrates that candidates can buy the election by buying it out. Instead of trying to win votes and the hearts of people by using their own word of mouth, politicians are utilizing the source of media to promote their votes. Businesses and institutions should not try and buy the votes for elections and candidates. Money is a source of currency and exchange usage and should not be something used to try to change the minds of individuals. However, because the American nation is founded on the U.S. Constitution than these corporations have the right to endorse campaigns and other forms of advertisement because it coincides with the rights granted in the 1st Amendment. This form of corporate campaigning is drastically affecting the American democracy because individuals have various interpretations on how the 1st Amendment relates to the activities involving the Supreme Courts’ decision. Part of having a democratic society is having equality and with larger incorporations supporting one side of a political party it can be difficult for the other parties to sustain help from smaller businesses. With television commercials promoting one candidate it wouldn’t be fair if another candidate did not have the finances suitable for promoting such broadcasting. This can result in much confusion for the American society as individuals aren’t sure which candidates to believe because all are being portrayed by one another as crooks, scammers, and liars. Without truth that proceeds from the candidates’ speeches themselves than it is difficult for voters to actually know why they are going to elect that individual.
ReplyDeleteRacquel Wood
Both the articles discuss the recent court discussion where major corporations are now permitted to fund the campaigns of candidates in elections. Previously, corporations were banned from spending money directly on political campaigns. However, the issue was revisited two years ago when a critical documentary was released on then democratic candidate, Hilary Clinton. Once the courts saw that the law was mildly limiting the corporation’s freedom to spend their money as they wish or their free speech, the law had to be changed. This decision is especially controversial because it challenges the very idea of democracy. If corporations are free to “buy” who they want to win in an election is that making the winner based on who spent the most on ads or will it not affect the outcome, the people will still choose the winner based on their beliefs and ideals to help their area of control? That being said, should money and political financing be protected by the first amendment? No, it should be. There are many things that may not be illegal but suspicious such as someone with a valid gun permit buying a closet fl of guns. The man can use his monetary freedom of speech by saying that he can buy whatever he wants to. Though there was no evidence of bias in the second article, there is plenty of it in the first. The journalist shares his disdain with the outcome of the ruling right away. The second article mainly states the facts and possible outcome of the issue.
ReplyDeleteAsha Gibbs F-block