Campaign Financing

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that, perhaps the strongest argument which has been made against limitations on campaign contributions, is that these restrictions run afoul of the deeply valued free speech clauses of the First Amendment. The author examines landmark Supreme Court cases such as "Buckley v. Valeo" and "McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC)" to evaluate the complicated relationships between money and the freedom of political speech in the efforts to combat corruption and the growing influence of money in politics. The paper concludes that a legitimate view of these cases is that the restriction of campaign financing as now written dangerously violates free speech rights integral to successful political campaigns.

From the Paper:

"In order to reconcile the perceived differences between contributions and candidate spending without being forced to explain away any possible free speech violations, previous interpretations of the First Amendment and even fundamental conceptions of democratic government can be reevaluated. Professor Ronald Dworkin, a leading legal philosopher, prefers the partnership conception of democracy to the majoritarian framework, particularly as it applies to free speech and individual, equal rights. Instead of viewing democracy as the simple execution of majority rule, regarding our democracy in the context of "a partnership in collective self-government in which all citizens are given the opportunity to be active and equal partners" would allow us to regulate campaign finances in a way that is fitting with equal rights and the Supreme Court's traditional policies on free speech."

More papers on Campaign Financing:

• Term Paper # 99152 : "Campaign Financing"
• Argumentative Essay # 118062 : "Campaign Financing"
• Research Paper # 63864 : "Campaign Financing"
• Comparison Essay # 57069 : "John McHugh and Campaign Finance"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: