Buckley v. Valeo
As we have been learning about genocide, the documentaries have been stressing the importance of maintaining a democracy that supports all people. An integral part of maintaining this representative democracy is by having a system that is not disproportionately skewed in favor of a certain sect. This brings up the importance of Buckley v. Valeo.
In 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act placed limits on “electoral expenditures”. This was an attempt to eliminate corruption in political campaigns by “restricting financial contributions to candidates”. Specifically, it limited the amount of money one could donate to a campaign. In addition, it required that one reports contributions above a certain amount. The government subsequently introduced the Federal Election Commission to enforce the act. However, a group of individuals argued that limiting the amount of money one could spend on an election is unconstitutional.
After their ruling, the Supreme Court Justices established two important conclusions. They first found that restricting individual campaign contributions did not violate the first amendment since is “enhances the integrity of our system of representative democracy”. However, they secondly stated that campaign contributions don’t “enhance the potential for corruption” and because of this restricting individual campaign donations does not “warrant a curtailment on free speech and association”. Simply, the justices decided that limiting election spending through the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was unconstitutional.
This decision, in addition to the Citizens United Supreme Court Ruling, has set a precedent that individuals and corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to any campaign. This disproportionately benefits the rich as they are able to fund the campaigns of their desired candidates. Because of their disproportionate influence, the government favors affluent individuals rather than working-class citizens. This is a slippery slope as a small group of individuals have a disproportionately large influence on our government.
I agree with your opinion and I'm a little surprised that this is the conclusion that was reached Supreme Court. To me it seems fairly obivous and inviting for corruption to occur if big corporations could odnate unlimited money to organization that support their businesses. I will note however that even though I don't agree with the Supreme Court decision the argument/explanationt hat they gave for making their decision does seem valid to me. I do wonder however if somehow this oculd be once again brought to court in maybe a slighlty different way and once again challenged since this initial trial was during the 1970's and now almost 50 years later it seems like there is a chance of a different conclusion being reached.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, while there are other ways to support a candidate, like volunteering in the campaigns, having marches, giving speeches on behalf of the candidate etc. I do agree that this law which allows one corporation/rich person to donate an unlimited amount of money to a campaign if unfair to the working class. The more money a campaign has, the more they can travel to campaign, the more they can advertise. etc.
ReplyDeleteThe Court's conclusion that limiting election spending through the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was unconstitutional is frustrating because it creates for conditions within the government where politicians may not actually make decisions on behalf of the majority of the people they are supposed to represent. There is a relatively recent campaign called the "Stamp Stampede" that advocates a proposed 28th amendment to "Get Money Out of Politics" and overturn Citizens United v. FEC. It has been working to promote its goal with messages stamped on paper money such as "Not to be used for bribing politicians," "Money is not free speech," "The system isn't broken; it's fixed," and "Corporations are not people; amend the Constitution." It will be fascinating to see what happens with this campaign and what kind of impact it may have.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.stampstampede.org/