Arguments Against Super Pacs
American politics is not a pure democracy, and has not been since its founding. Rather, it is a representative democracy, with elected selected by the elite few at the county’s founding, white men later down the road, all men even farther, then all citizens. However the introduction of Super PACs seem to tilt back the already money leaning scale to a time where more and more politicians focus on less and less funders. Before the Citizens United decision funding came from individuals and PACs, or Political Action Committees. PACs are groups that receive or donate a minimum of $1000 but a maximum of $5000 to any individual to influence federal and/or state elections. This limit made fundraising one of the most time consuming activities for politicians. Even though individuals had the right to donate as much as they wanted the social judgment of openly paying for your political ideals kept many rich silent (and many were simply uninterested). This began to change with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling which overturned the ban on the use of corporate or union funds in politics. Yet, corporations were not as free
…show more content…
Should one apply the law to all, which allows the Super PACs to have such a strong influence in government while out yelling (or rather out funding) the rest? Or should, like the Great Compromise, try to give voice to smaller groups by balancing the power? Is limiting one group’s freedom to speak their opinions and associate with a certain political group to allow a proportional voice to another group legal? Is it democratic? Yet, the question of its democracy brings into question out corrupted form of democracy. If a true democracy all citizens of a certain ae would vote on every decision (or at least most). Yet, we elect people to make those decision, not even directly when it comes to Presidents, and not at well in cases like Supreme Court
Should one apply the law to all, which allows the Super PACs to have such a strong influence in government while out yelling (or rather out funding) the rest? Or should, like the Great Compromise, try to give voice to smaller groups by balancing the power? Is limiting one group’s freedom to speak their opinions and associate with a certain political group to allow a proportional voice to another group legal? Is it democratic? Yet, the question of its democracy brings into question out corrupted form of democracy. If a true democracy all citizens of a certain ae would vote on every decision (or at least most). Yet, we elect people to make those decision, not even directly when it comes to Presidents, and not at well in cases like Supreme Court