Read this link
What will the impact be from this ruling? Is it bad?
Decsribe the conflict within the Supreme Court.
Lastly, should the SC have this much power?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Polly Plugs In!
A 21st Century bird, Polly the Political Bird interfaces with the flock about the demise of CFF!
About Me
- Hoover
- HS Teacher, specializing in American government & politics, as well as World Religions.
1. The impact of this ruling will be that any politician with large business backing will have an improved chance of winning elections because they now can spend as much as they want. I think this is bad because its unfair to other candidates.
ReplyDelete2. Some are for it others are against it.
3. They shouldn't have this much power, because that's giving one branch too much power.
Amanda Morrow
ReplyDelete1. The impact of this ruling will basically be more mud slinging and shameless self promotion in the media for elections. I know that many Americans base their decision for who they want in office off of commercials and other media outlets and because of this ruling i think whoever large businesses back will get the most exposure and will therefore win the election because many Americans dont choose to educate themselves on facts, but simply choose whoever looks better on television. So overall i think this will lead to more corruption and uneducated decisions, which in my eyes, are both bad.
2. The SC basically over-ruled a decision that has prevented large scale corruption in elections and a lot of people are outraged. But, the Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution and they think it violates the First Amendment, which i can understand. However, this is really going to shake up election season because there is so much controversy surrounding it.
3. I dont think that they alone should be able to make this ruling. I think there should have been a sort of poll among the people or voting with the rest of the branches of government. As Courntey said, it is giving one branch too much power.
1.I think the impact of this ruling will be negative and bad because these politians can do whatever they want with as much money as they please. It is unfair for a candidate that doesn't have the funds or plublicity for his campaign.
ReplyDelete2.The Supreme Court is torn both ways. Some think it would b good to be able to spend as much as you want on your campaign.
3.I dont think that its a good thing to have the SC having all the power in this decision. They need to think about this n vote on it!
I agree with what kaity said.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The impact of the ruling will be that it will have a direct effect on the campaigning of individual candidates. Most American voters base who they vote for off of advertising. The candidate who has enough funding from a large business will have a more likely chance of winning the election. I think its bad, because right from the start it gives a disadvantage to some of the candidates. The candidate with a more money backing, may win, but that doesn't mean they are the best suited for the position. It has just created more corruption!
ReplyDelete2. With the SC, some for it and others against it. Although, some do think it may good to allow an unaloted amount of money on the campaigning. Either way it will cause controversy with the elections.
3.Like Courtney, Amanda, and Kaity all said the SC shouldn't be the only ones ruling over a case like this. It gives them to much power and a poll amgonst the other branches may have made a more fair final decison.
I just accidently deleted my whole blog! Mother eff lets try this again
ReplyDelete1. The article is simply stating that big business may spend as much money on any candidate they like.
2. The conflict is between the rights that the first ammendment states as free speech and association. The other part of the conflict is that this gives big business power to give candidates the power to dominate over others. This could be bad if the business in question (which most will probably do) uses this to put the candidate with their best motives and interest in office. They could also use this to bribe the candidate to give the business certain privileges if they get in office.
3. And in this situation i think it was the SCs decison to make. The executive and legislative branches make decisions without the judiciary on certain things so its all equal. The SC rules on these matters so yes i think they should have that power.
@ dakota (i'm assuming dk is dakota)
ReplyDeleteI think you have a really good point about the bribary thing in number 2. That could create a whole mess of problems i didnt even think of.
@ maddie
ReplyDeletei agree.
Bribery? In a sense, its always been an issue in terms of $$ and politics. The key is that there needs to be disclosure, so we know who is giving what to whom. A bribe would be----secret!!!!
ReplyDeleteand DK--tech issues are all part of the 21st century class. Don't bring Mothers into it. They are the future.
ReplyDeleteLevi
ReplyDeletewowowoow just deleted my essay immm pissed ... ok lets start again.
1. the outcome will probably be neg. i mean lets be honest the big fish always wins. and as much as i am for the little guy he just doesnt have what it takes. and now especially if the big fish has all the money he wants to spend on what ever he wants. i think as a company owner i would want to be allowed to spend my money on what i want and as a candidate i would want to be able to get as money as i want. so it is a real toss up/
2 the conflict is that the SC doesnt no what to do because there are certain rules and guide lines that need to be follow which state that a company is allowed to spend as much money as they would like. but the SC doesnt want a good candidate to get left out simply because they have no good sponsores willing to keep up with the big guys.
3. i think that everyone in the class has made good point but if the sc didnt have this power then it wouldnt be fair just like what dakota said. and since the US gov is all about being fair then i think that they should have the power.
Another tip--you need to be logged in 1st before posting. If not--you lose everything. I always copy it and then I can paste it if its gone.
ReplyDeleteDHS cares
Hyde
ReplyDelete1. The impact of this ruling will be that certain candidates will have the upper hand just because of money. Not because they are better for the job, but because they have the backing of corporations with a lot of cashh. It gives politicians with more business experience in their background a huge advantage because their campaigns will be better than those without. A lot of Americans choose their candidate based on things they see in the media and in the campaigns, so it might swing the votes. Yes I think it's bad.
2. It says in the article, "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor supported the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold in 2003, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and O'Connor's replacement, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., have supported each challenge to the law since joining the court." There's a conflict right there. The Supreme Court has justices that support and believe different laws and have different opinions, so obviously there will always be conflict within the court. This is no different than any other piece of legislation they have voted on. That's the whole point of voting.
3. I don't really think it's giving one branch too much power because the other branches have a lot of power too. It needs to be spread out somehow. If all the branches should have a say in the decisions being made, what's the point of separating them into branches? Although this ruling isn't fair to the candidates, it's fair to give the SC the power to make this ruling.
Brittany
ReplyDelete1. The impact of this court ruling will probably be more negative than positive. The Supreme Court is allowing large corporations to have a huge impact on political candidates' campaigns. I agree with Amanda. This provides an opportunity for corruption to slip into elections. Many Americans will be influenced by the media and votes may be based on false info. I also agree with those (Courtney, Maddie, Kaity etc. )who think this is unfair.
2. The conflict in the Supreme Court is interpreting the First Amendment to the Constitution. Some people in the Supreme Court believe it isn't fair to let large corporations support a candidate while others don't see a problem with spending money on a campaign.
3. I agree with Dakota. I think that this was rightfully the Supreme Court's decision. I think it's okay that the Supreme Court has power. Our political system is pretty well balanced out.
Mr. Hoover shouldn't the title of this be "Greetings 2nd Semester!"? Not marking period ha
ReplyDeleteHa I finally figured this stuff out!!!! Everyone seems to make good points, but is anyone really sure where the money comes from when all that money they have is gone? Most likely I would think the taxpayers or the employees of those huge businesses... which sucks for us in the long run.
ReplyDelete