Hudgens 1 Rachel Hudgens Mr. Newman English 101: Rhetoric 25 November 2013 Can You Hear Me Now?

Money corrupts the hands it touches, so should we not limit the amount of money people are allowed to donate to political campaigns? The Founding Fathers knew that factions would destroy the young America; only then, the factions that scared them consisted of farmers. Over two hundred years later, it is the corporations we must be weary of. Ideally, the Federal Election Commission should limit the amount of political donations both individuals and PACs are allowed to donate. Factions and interest groups have been an issue in this nation ever since the creation of our Constitution. Proposals by Mitch McConnell and others to scrap limits on campaign contributions and allow politicians to solicit unlimited donations are wildly out of step with the common-sense view held by the people. They are also contrary to the wisdom of our Nations Founders said Elizabeth Wydra, who is a part of the Constitutional Accountability Center. The founding fathers did not want the need of a few to affect the needs of the many. The desires of the common man are what really need to be accounted for by the government. Wydra also states that Our countrys founders were deeply worried about officials or government institutions becoming dependant on special interests or big money. James Madison said "liberty is to faction what air is to fire". That is to say that in order to get rid of factions, we need to get rid of liberty. Instead of sacrificing all of our freedoms in the name of protecting the nation, we can make a few calculated regulations in order to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, has an equal voice.

Hudgens 2 It would be folly to believe that a substantial donation would not weigh in on a politicians thinking. A great example of money corrupting a politician is Richard Nixon. In 1971, Nixon started to solicit money from corporations. In one of these transactions, he was awarded two million dollars from the Associated Milk Producers Incorporated (AMPI) and in return he increased the federal subsidies for milk during his presidency, in effect raising $100 million for AMPI (Overby). Quid pro quo actions such as these ultimately weigh down the middle and lower economic classes. The closer the money comes to the hands of members of Congress, the danger of corruption and undue influence of big donors (Hasen). Big Corporations flood political platforms with their money, essentially wiping out the concerns of the common man with their costly agendas. Corruption like this should not be tolerated by the American people. In 1974, the initial steps of campaign finance reform were put into place the reform started with the creation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The FECA was intended to take some of the money out of politics. It required full disclosure of political donations, limited the amount of money individuals could donate to a candidate, and created the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Because of these new restrictions, people were concerned about the constitutionality of this new act. According to the First Amendment, Americans have the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Does limiting campaign contributions effect ones political speech, thus denying people of their First Amendment rights? The First Amendment protects political speech and the use of resources (Printing presses, the Internet, money) to facilitate that speech. Yet when someone wants to engage in the most obvious kind of political speech supporting election campaigns the government restricts this important constitutional right (Shapiro). Politicians rely so heavily on money nowadays; with television, social media, and advertisements

Hudgens 3 bombarding us constantly, it takes a pretty penny and a lot of creativity for candidates to make a lasting impression on the American people. Candidates spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising instead of legislating because they face an unlimited demand for campaign funds but a tapered supply (Hasen). If we favor a candidate shouldnt it be our right to express our political allegiance by means of money? Without money, a candidate simply has almost no chance to succeed. Without the help of donors a candidates campaign would not be able to get off the ground. Although Shapiro and countless other Americans feel like their constitutional rights are being infringed upon by limiting direct political donations to candidates, I still maintain that the restrictions should be kept. If one were to analyze the constitution in depth, they would find multiple scenarios in which our rights are infringed upon: schools, the military, and television all restrict what can be said. The Supreme Court has always recognized that limits on campaign contributions infringe on First Amendment rights, just as limits on the size of a news paper, the number of posts on a blog, or the number of speeches a candidate can deliver would limit speech. This is not controversial every justice has recognized this (Smith). However, despite the fact that donation restrictions limit some of your speech, it does not limit all of your speech. Several of the Supreme Court justices found that while showing support for a candidate does reflect ones personal political view; it does not represent all of the donors beliefs. In other words, if a person contributes to a campaign, this is not the contributor speaking their ideas directly, but instead being articulated by someone else. So, technically it is not the donors speech. If a donor wishes to express their view solely on an issue, they may donate unlimited money to endorse that issue. It would be unconstitutional of the Supreme Court to restrict the amount of money an individual is allowed to donate to an issue.

Hudgens 4 In sum, the U.S. should uphold its stance on the restriction of political donations. If unlimited direct political donations were a reality, then big corporations, PACs, and individual donors with large checkbooks would overexpose politicians with their monetary contributions. This money would corrupt the process and thinking of politicians. If all contributions were removed, politicians could focus on an even tinier percentage of the already tiny pool of campaign funders (Wydra). Essentially, my point is that in order to hear the collective nations thoughts, we need to keep the restrictions on political donations. Unfortunately, the way the restrictions are set up currently, there are multiple ways to get around donation limits. 527 groups and Super PACs are able to blatantly endorse candidates with unlimited money in the name of whatever issue they take up. There are loopholes to the legislation in place and it opens the door for corruption in the system. Although there are some restrictions in place, the argument now is to encourage stricter regulations to maintain the integrity of U.S. politics that the Founding Fathers intended. Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 10 that the government should be dependant on the people alonenot the rich more than the poor (Wydra). From 1974 to 2010, several acts have been set in place, such as the FECA, Buckley v. Valeo, the McCain- Feingold Act, and most recently, Citizens United v. FEC. When so many rulings have been made, it is obvious that the system is flawed and big money is corrupting our politicians. The middle and lower economic classes are the foundation of this nation and our laws must be able to reflect the needs of these people.

Hudgens 5 Works Cited Hasen, Richard L. "Limits to Candidates Deter Corruption." Room for Debate. New York Times company, 6 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Overby, Peter. "Illegal during Watergate, Unlimited Campaign Donations Now Fair Game." NPR. N.p., 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. Shapiro, Ilya. "Strike Down All Contribution Limits." Room for Debate. New York Times Company, 6 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Smith, Bradly. "No Compelling Government Intrest in Limits." Room for Debate. New York Times Company, 6 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Wydra, Elizabeth. "Senator McConnell v. the Founders." Room for Debate. New York Times Company, 6 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013