Is the Citizens United decision good for US democracy, or will it limit/manipulate election? This is a tough question. Limiting the first amendment would be a crime against the first right we have as americans. But is the manipulation of the people who are not aware of the election fair from major companies brainwashing them with political BS? Does this mean the seat for the president can be bought? The most important factor is the Citizens United court case, the cases involved in the decsison, and the people effected by the decsison. Before you decide on what you believe is the right or wrong choice, you should look at both sides of the field.
The people who favor support the Citizens United Decision believe these people and corporations have a right to their opinions and should be allowed to voice them how they choose too. If you had money that you earned, the government in no way should be allowed to tell you how to spend your money, same way with the freedom of speech. There is no doubt that putting campaign ads on the television and radio does inform the people of the election and what is going on (assuming its true). If you one of those people who believe corporations are evil, then you are a hypocrites, but besides that, if you dont believe they have a right to speak on behalf of a canidate then we should take your right to free speech away from you. You can't try to limit someones opinion based on how much many they have or how the want to spend it or based on the fact the side Democrat or Republican.
For those who opposed the decision of United Citizens believe that allowing these companys to muck up and lie about other canidates will result in brainwashing. With frequent TV ads, radio ads and flyers many unknowing voters could be persuaded into voting for the canidate the companies are backing. In many ways this results in canidates' being able to buy the seat in the oval office. By allowing a third party to influence voters in an election, with the party often saying things their own way, its helps them swing the vote to the many americans undecided on either parties. Stephen Colbert's anti-superPAC campaigns help highlight the ludicrous accusations and lies told by superPACs'.
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteOk, post. I would like you to choose one side in your article, though. Even if it's a tough choice, go for it.
Your into is okay, but it could use more facts about the case and its controversy.
Both of your opinion paragraphs have strong language, but where are the facts? Find good quotes to use (from the articles and videos I provide).
I need to see more effort.
Again, you are missing the facts/sources section of your blog. Please take a look at the instructions and follow the format.
I've asked you now, for several weeks, to start making these changes. I need to see the improvement to make the grade.
I know you have it in you. Let's see it.
GR: 75