Essay --

Saving Our Democracy causal agency Finance ReformIntroductionSince the bringing of the unite States, money has vie a large role in electoral politics. Of course, there was a time when political campaigns were much smaller than they are now to begin with television, radio, and the Internet. Modern campaigns cost millions, or even billions, of dollars, especially in presidential elections. This enormous increase in spending over the last a couple of(prenominal) decades has caused many to fear for the future of Ameri merchantman democracy. If so few can contribute so much, why would politicians even bother to listen to the second-rate voter? Lawmakers have taken steps on numerous occasion to reign in this political spending and even the playing guinea pig for the average voter, but that would mostly be undone with the Supreme costs decision in the 2010 case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This arguable decision struck atomic reactor many regulations, c iting that they violated the First Amendment. In the election cycles since, we have seen an unprecedented wave of shadowy organizations contributing unthinkable sums of money, drowning out everyone else. In order to understand how the Supreme Court came to its conclusion and how the average voter can ultimately overcome it, we essential understand the history of campaign finance law in the United States.BackgroundConcerns about collective influence in national elections found its way into the halls of sexual intercourse after President Theodore Roosevelts 1904 re-election. President Roosevelt himself suggested to Congress that they make a point of passing legislation that would ban corporate contributions to political campaigns. In 1907, the Tillman Act was passed, which did just that. Those that violated t... ...The financing in both states is funded by tax check-offs, as well as fines remunerative by past violations of their campaign finance laws. Many of these program s also contained a provision that granted matching funds to the publicly financed candidate to rejoinder what a nonparticipating candidate raised, but the Supreme Court struck this down in 2011 in the case Arizona Free Enterprise nines Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. The majority opinion say that this matching of funds interfered with First Amendment rights, because it could cause donors to withhold their spending or as the Supreme Court saw it, their speech.After the Bennett decision, New York metropolis devised what has become known as flexible financing, a system in which candidates receive funds that match their own fundraising as contrary to their opponents fundraising. Shareholder AuthorizationConclusion