Provided below are my insight about the corruption in regards to corruption over money, and gerrymandering. I also touch on trustworthiness and morals in our government officials. I acknowledge my views may be different than someone else’s. I stand strongly and firmly back my beliefs with information provided and personal insight.
The document provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s ruling to not limit the amount of money an individual can pour into political groups. The issue arose that many anonymous donors were large to these political groups and there become a lack of transparency. President Obama stated that this new policy will, “open the flood gates to special interests,” (Obama,1) I agree with this statement and I feel like congress allowed for the wealthy to somewhat have more of a say in the political process than someone who has less money to donate.
I believe the ruling to limit donations was effective because the wealthy couldn’t sway political groups. I see the other side of the argument however. If companies or individuals want to put bunch of money into something their passionate about then they should be given the right to do so. We, as Americans, should be able to use or money as we wish. As money we rightfully earned, we can throw them into independent expenditures if we choose to do so. This can be seen with the creation of super-PACs. I feel as though money corrupts political and a wealthy few and can cause people to view things more negatively or positively. “Close to half of all super-PAC money comes from 50 donors” (Narayanswamy) The only way to fix this, and level the political playing field, is though limiting the amount of money super-PACs can contribute. Coming from this statistic, the small super-PACs are being drowned out by the wealthy ones. Money truly talks. They are saying that the wealthy are more important and have more of a say than the common American. America has worked so hard for equal rights and to taint that by giving the wealthy more of a say is ironic. It’s ironic how every individual American gets one vote but the elite are technically getting more of a say. Money isn’t the thing that talks when it comes to super-PACs. The amount of involvement and support the PAC has can determine how influential the PAC is able to be. Some super PACS run sourly on volunteer work and fundraising. Jeb Bush’s super-PAC spends millions of dollars for ad campaigns yet he still fell behind candidate Chris Christie. Trump recently aired radio news for 300,000 and leads the election on the Republican side. (Alvarez) We often see money as the biggest factor in the presidential race. The fact of the matter is how the candidates use the money is a far more effective outlook. Gil strives and invests largely in Gay equality, which he is extremely passionate about. This supports my argument how If someone has the money to contribute to a case they are passionate about, they should have the right to donate as much of their money as they want. Ted Trimpa introduces the idea of “Glamour giving” to Gil. (Trimpa) The two decide to favor local and state races in an attempt to make more of an impact on the issue of gay equality. He argues that if you reach a few local people, they will be able to introduce new ideas and potentially be able to sway the views of high officials. I agree and think it’s clever …show more content…
The case was considered controversial and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Miller v. Johnson is another cause of racial gerrymandering. (Wong, 1673) We should strive to make sure the representation of voters in each district is diverse. Too much of one race in a district can cause bias. I am aware, however, that absolute racial equality isn’t possible but the people drawing districts should try to make equality as close as possible. It is easy to see how officials would greedily draw the lines in their parties favor. We are unable to say wither they drew the lines randomly and it just happened to sway to their side, or if they drew it that way on purpose. This is why I believe the concept of gerrymandering is very
The document provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s ruling to not limit the amount of money an individual can pour into political groups. The issue arose that many anonymous donors were large to these political groups and there become a lack of transparency. President Obama stated that this new policy will, “open the flood gates to special interests,” (Obama,1) I agree with this statement and I feel like congress allowed for the wealthy to somewhat have more of a say in the political process than someone who has less money to donate.
I believe the ruling to limit donations was effective because the wealthy couldn’t sway political groups. I see the other side of the argument however. If companies or individuals want to put bunch of money into something their passionate about then they should be given the right to do so. We, as Americans, should be able to use or money as we wish. As money we rightfully earned, we can throw them into independent expenditures if we choose to do so. This can be seen with the creation of super-PACs. I feel as though money corrupts political and a wealthy few and can cause people to view things more negatively or positively. “Close to half of all super-PAC money comes from 50 donors” (Narayanswamy) The only way to fix this, and level the political playing field, is though limiting the amount of money super-PACs can contribute. Coming from this statistic, the small super-PACs are being drowned out by the wealthy ones. Money truly talks. They are saying that the wealthy are more important and have more of a say than the common American. America has worked so hard for equal rights and to taint that by giving the wealthy more of a say is ironic. It’s ironic how every individual American gets one vote but the elite are technically getting more of a say. Money isn’t the thing that talks when it comes to super-PACs. The amount of involvement and support the PAC has can determine how influential the PAC is able to be. Some super PACS run sourly on volunteer work and fundraising. Jeb Bush’s super-PAC spends millions of dollars for ad campaigns yet he still fell behind candidate Chris Christie. Trump recently aired radio news for 300,000 and leads the election on the Republican side. (Alvarez) We often see money as the biggest factor in the presidential race. The fact of the matter is how the candidates use the money is a far more effective outlook. Gil strives and invests largely in Gay equality, which he is extremely passionate about. This supports my argument how If someone has the money to contribute to a case they are passionate about, they should have the right to donate as much of their money as they want. Ted Trimpa introduces the idea of “Glamour giving” to Gil. (Trimpa) The two decide to favor local and state races in an attempt to make more of an impact on the issue of gay equality. He argues that if you reach a few local people, they will be able to introduce new ideas and potentially be able to sway the views of high officials. I agree and think it’s clever …show more content…
The case was considered controversial and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Miller v. Johnson is another cause of racial gerrymandering. (Wong, 1673) We should strive to make sure the representation of voters in each district is diverse. Too much of one race in a district can cause bias. I am aware, however, that absolute racial equality isn’t possible but the people drawing districts should try to make equality as close as possible. It is easy to see how officials would greedily draw the lines in their parties favor. We are unable to say wither they drew the lines randomly and it just happened to sway to their side, or if they drew it that way on purpose. This is why I believe the concept of gerrymandering is very