I'm not exactly sure what the question really is for this particular blog but here's my opinion on what I read. The Republicans do have an advantage in an election because big corporations give a lot of money to the Republican candidates more often then to the Democrat candidates. In my opinion, the government should be able to give money to the candidates with less money so they can have a fair shot in the election also, even though this money comes from us, the taxpayers.
I agree with Jake. Giving money to a candidate that has a potentialt disadvantage allows for a more fair election. If two candidates spend the same amount of money, whoever wins will most likely support the public opinion more than the other guy.
I don't exactly agree with the government supporting the "under dog." I think it is fair as long as there is a maximum allowance, not equal funds. But the idea behind my logic is the same as Blake, if a party insufficient funds it is because no one is supporting them; therefore no one wants them to continue on or become elected.
I agree with Jake on this one, I believe that it is a good idea to give both parties a fair shot. The author also goes on to say that the court might rule the Arizona law unconstitutional but they still stay strictly loyal to the 1st amendment of the constitution, Even in extreme cases such as the Westboro Baptist Church protesting the burial of a gay marine who was K.I.A. Even though the protest was wrong in so many ways it is the courts duty to protect even the worst of speech.
Ya man, you're right. No matter what the 1st amendment needs to be protected. I would look really bad if we amended our first amendment, because we would look like hypocrites. The first amendment is what our country is prided by.
Personally, I think that setting limits on how much money can be donated to candidates from a single source is a good thing as long as they receive the same amount of money. I don't see why the Supreme Court is ruling laws that benefit the less funded party or candidate, require the disclosure of campaign spending, or limiting the amount of money donated under the premise that they violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives people the freedom of religion, speech, press, and peacable assembly. None of the laws that they declare unconcstitutionl have anything to do with the First Amendment.
I believe that there should be no limit on the money that can be donated. I just think the government should give that amount of money to the other canidates campaine
Along with Blake, I also think there should limits set on the amount of money candidates can receive. It only leads to a more fair election, that is based on what the people want not how much you can afford the people to want.
I understand the problems about limiting and not limiting the money to fund campaigns between parties, but which one is better? Limiting they money that can be raised and used allows for the campaigns to be equal in their publicizing and promotions. However not limiting them falls more in line with Constitutional rights. I believe that limiting the spending is completely valid. Just because there is a maximum value does not mean that each amount will be equal, even still; however, this ensures the fact that one of the parties cannot claim being out funded was the cause for the election. They have the same opportunities, just not any promises.
I would also agree with Jake in that the Republicans receive more money in general. The Republicans receive money from corporations, and Democrats receive money from unions. But, the Democrats receive better mass media image. I would compare the the Democrats to the Red Sox in that they have a bunch of money, not as much as the yankees, and the media loves them. I would compare the Yankees to the Republicans in that they have a bunch of money, but the media does not really like them.
I would also agree with Grant that limits placed on donations from a single source is a good thing. There are several examples of extremely rich business powerhouses donating huge sums of money to a single party or candidate. In 1972, for example, W. Clement Stone, a Chicago insurance executive, contributed more than $2 million ($20million today) to President Nixon's reelection campaign. If only a few people like this donate to a single party, it can have a dramatic influence on the success of the party, despite it only being from a few people.
I'm not exactly sure what the question really is for this particular blog but here's my opinion on what I read. The Republicans do have an advantage in an election because big corporations give a lot of money to the Republican candidates more often then to the Democrat candidates. In my opinion, the government should be able to give money to the candidates with less money so they can have a fair shot in the election also, even though this money comes from us, the taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake. Giving money to a candidate that has a potentialt disadvantage allows for a more fair election. If two candidates spend the same amount of money, whoever wins will most likely support the public opinion more than the other guy.
DeleteI don't exactly agree with the government supporting the "under dog." I think it is fair as long as there is a maximum allowance, not equal funds. But the idea behind my logic is the same as Blake, if a party insufficient funds it is because no one is supporting them; therefore no one wants them to continue on or become elected.
DeleteI agree with Jake on this one, I believe that it is a good idea to give both parties a fair shot. The author also goes on to say that the court might rule the Arizona law unconstitutional but they still stay strictly loyal to the 1st amendment of the constitution, Even in extreme cases such as the Westboro Baptist Church protesting the burial of a gay marine who was K.I.A. Even though the protest was wrong in so many ways it is the courts duty to protect even the worst of speech.
ReplyDeleteYa man, you're right. No matter what the 1st amendment needs to be protected. I would look really bad if we amended our first amendment, because we would look like hypocrites. The first amendment is what our country is prided by.
DeletePersonally, I think that setting limits on how much money can be donated to candidates from a single source is a good thing as long as they receive the same amount of money. I don't see why the Supreme Court is ruling laws that benefit the less funded party or candidate, require the disclosure of campaign spending, or limiting the amount of money donated under the premise that they violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives people the freedom of religion, speech, press, and peacable assembly. None of the laws that they declare unconcstitutionl have anything to do with the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there should be no limit on the money that can be donated. I just think the government should give that amount of money to the other canidates campaine
DeleteSo you'd be fine if money you donated to a candidate is instead given to the candidate you oppose?
DeleteAlong with Blake, I also think there should limits set on the amount of money candidates can receive. It only leads to a more fair election, that is based on what the people want not how much you can afford the people to want.
ReplyDeleteI understand the problems about limiting and not limiting the money to fund campaigns between parties, but which one is better? Limiting they money that can be raised and used allows for the campaigns to be equal in their publicizing and promotions. However not limiting them falls more in line with Constitutional rights. I believe that limiting the spending is completely valid. Just because there is a maximum value does not mean that each amount will be equal, even still; however, this ensures the fact that one of the parties cannot claim being out funded was the cause for the election. They have the same opportunities, just not any promises.
ReplyDeleteI would also agree with Jake in that the Republicans receive more money in general. The Republicans receive money from corporations, and Democrats receive money from unions. But, the Democrats receive better mass media image. I would compare the the Democrats to the Red Sox in that they have a bunch of money, not as much as the yankees, and the media loves them. I would compare the Yankees to the Republicans in that they have a bunch of money, but the media does not really like them.
ReplyDeleteI would also agree with Grant that limits placed on donations from a single source is a good thing. There are several examples of extremely rich business powerhouses donating huge sums of money to a single party or candidate. In 1972, for example, W. Clement Stone, a Chicago insurance executive, contributed more than $2 million ($20million today) to President Nixon's reelection campaign. If only a few people like this donate to a single party, it can have a dramatic influence on the success of the party, despite it only being from a few people.
ReplyDeleteGreat job Chuma! Making your mama proud!
ReplyDelete