A ruling today in the Supreme Court seemed to strike down "overall limits on direct contributions from individuals to candidates". This ruling looks like it will be passed because of the belief that money should not play as large of a role as it truly does in political campaigning and elections. It is becoming quite the controversial subject and many people have a lot to say about it. According to the article, some believe that the donation limitations are a violation of free speech while others think it is a positive idea that will promote democratic participation. Either way, it seems as if the Supreme Court is close to making a very important decision.
This directly ties into our class studies of campaigning and the role of money. It is somewhat unfair that the richer one is, the better their chances of winning an election is. In a perfect world, the most qualified individual would earn their rightful elected position, not the richest. I am glad that the Supreme Court is leaning this way because it will stop politicians from getting oodles and oodles of money from individuals. The technicalities of donations are incredible to say the least as well. Some court cases refer not to how much one can donate at one time, but the limit one can donate over the time span of two years.
It would be interesting to ban private donations all together (although this would never happen); the amount of money this country spends on elections would probably be enough money to feed the whole world, and it's downright shameful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/politics/supreme-court-weighs-campaign-contribution-limits.html?ref=politics&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment