What’s the Big Deal About Campaign Financing?
What’s It About? In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court fundamentally altered the campaigning and electioneering landscape in the United States by easing restrictions on corporate donations to political campaigns. The Issue? How have campaign financing practices changed after the Citizens United decision?
https://mediaplayer.pearsoncmg.com/assets/_video.true/mypoliscilab-2017-AmGov-Explaining_Citizens_United
1. PACs versus Super PACs. What distinguishes these two forms of political action committees?
2. Should all political speech be transparent—that is, should we always know who the speakers are?
3. Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United? State your reasons.
4. Has your knowledge of the Citizens United case caused you to become more cynical or less cynical about the American political process?
Guide On Rating System
Vote
1. PACs (Political Action Committees) are organizations that raise and spend money to support or oppose political candidates or issues. They are subject to contribution limits and are required to disclose information about their donors. Super PACs, on the other hand, can also raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, but they are not allowed to coordinate directly with political candidates or campaigns. They are required to disclose their donors but often receive money from sources that are not easily traceable.
2. The question of transparency in political speech is a contentious one. Advocates argue that transparency is crucial for accountability and preventing corruption, as knowing who is funding a campaign or political message allows voters to assess potential biases or conflicts of interest. On the other hand, some argue that anonymous or undisclosed speech is protected under the First Amendment, as it allows for free expression without fear of persecution or harassment.
3. This question is subjective and depends on personal beliefs and values. Some may agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, arguing that it upholds the principles of free speech and protects the rights of individuals and organizations to participate in the political process. Others may disagree, claiming that it opens the door for excessive corporate influence and puts the interests of wealthier individuals or groups above the average citizen.
4. The effect of the Citizens United case on an individual's cynicism towards the American political process may vary. Some may become more cynical, perceiving the increased influence of money in politics as a threat to the democratic ideals of equal representation and fair elections. Others may become less cynical, believing that the ruling promotes free speech and empowers individuals and groups to engage more actively in the political process. Overall, the impact of the case on an individual's level of cynicism may depend on their interpretation of the decision and their broader understanding of the political system.
Got a question with my answer?
Cheapmath.com is completely free!
Asking question is free.
Getting answers is free.
+99