Since the days of Andrew Jackson, campaign financing in America has been a controversial, confusing and important issue effecting elections in our republic. All you will need to know and more on Thursday's Test (Patterson, Ch. 7-9) is here. This "flipped" lesson will need to be completed in the comment section here by Thursday, 10/10.
Campaign Finance History in US
1) Define: a) Buckley v. Valeo (1976); b) Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002); c) Citizens United v. FEC (2011).
2) Watch the video above and identify the Citizens United vs. FEC case and explain its impact on elections in the U.S. today.
3) View the Prezi presentation (thanks, Maura O'Kane). In a sentence or two, what's the biggest takeaway?
Jack Abramoff was the King of K Street (the HQ of lobbyists in Washington)
until he went to prison on 2006. (Thanks, APGov.org)
4) MCQ: Which of Jack Abramoff's activities listed below is the closest to bribery - one of his crimes for which he spent 4 years in federal prison.
A. Giving $2,000 to a Congressperson's re-election fund
B. Taking members of Congress golfing in Scotland
C. Holding a fundraiser for a member of Congress
D. Promising to hire a member of a Congressperson's staff in the future
E. Suggesting obscure additions to legislation that would help his clients
A. Giving $2,000 to a Congressperson's re-election fund
B. Taking members of Congress golfing in Scotland
C. Holding a fundraiser for a member of Congress
D. Promising to hire a member of a Congressperson's staff in the future
E. Suggesting obscure additions to legislation that would help his clients
Casino Jack, with Kevin Spacey....about Jack Abramoff.
5) FRQ: Although all lobbyists attempt to influence the governmental policymaking process, not all groups employ the same methods.
A) Identify and explain two (legal) methods lobbyists use to influence public policy makers.
B) Identify and explain the best methods lobbyists would use for two of the following groups: MADD, NAACP, NRA or AARP.
_________
Just for kicks, Colbert Super PAC meets disenter John Paul Stevens
___________________
38 comments:
1)
a) The Buckley v. Valeo decision of 1976 sustained limits on individual contribution in campaigns but struck down limitations by individuals and groups.
b) The Bipartisan campaign reform act placed limits on contributions from political parties and interest groups in political campaigns.
c)Citizens United vs FEC ruled that it was unconstitutional to limit the freedom of speech of corporations and corporations may fund as much as they want in campaigns.
2) the Citizens United vs FEC made it seem as if corporations are the same as humans but are unlimited in funding campaigns and trying to persuade or sway peoples opinion about canidates.
3) After numerous court cases regarding campaign financing and advertisements, we still have a large amount of money put into campaign financing and ads constantly running during election time. With every court case, more loopholes are made than fixed.
4) D
5)
a) Lobbyists can use their economic influence to offer to pay for things such as campaign advertisements and help public policy makers become more known by the people who will be voting for them.
b) lobbyists can use famous celebrities who have similar views to help gain access to politicians using their influence. This strategy could work for groups such as the AARP and the NRA, as both of these ideas (Guns and Medicare) are considered somewhat unpopular socially by a majority of people. Having a celebrity back their cause could get the public to support it too.
1-2) Buckley v Valeo: got rid of some parts of FECA. It also states that individuals can’t contribute unlimited money to campaigns, but they can spend unlimited money to influence elections (free speech). Ads could spend unlimited money as long as it did not advocate for or against a candidate.
Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act: closed the soft money loophole created by Buckley v Valeo. Also, PACs can spend unlimited money, as long as they do not coordinate with the candidates.
Citizens United vs. FEC case was a case brought to Supreme Court in regards to corporation funding in elections. Corporations fund elections so representatives of their choosing create and support laws that helps the corporation maximize its’ profits. The corporations won this case as the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to restrict the amount of money a corporation could put into a campaign. They claim it goes against Freedom of Speech. 85% of people believe that corporations have too much influence in democracy and are working to get that ruling reversed.
3) People will always find loopholes in Campaign Laws and manipulate them. It seems that corporations and the wealthy will always have the biggest impact on who is elected, and that is not true democracy.
4) Taking members golfing in Scotland was Jack Abramoff’s activity that is closest to bribery.
5) Lobbyists influence policy makers many ways. One way lobbyists influence policy makers is through fundraisers. As we say in the video today, a lobbyist can take a congressman out to eat and buy him very expensive things at a fundraiser. That act would be illegal, but because it is at a fundraiser it is allowed. Another way lobbyists contribute is through corporations that are created to support a candidate. Corporations can contribute unlimited amount of money to a campaign and are considered single issue lobbies. Celebrities are often used as lobbyists. Getting a celebrity to back an issue such as guns and Medicare (AARP and NRA) could sway public opinion in their favor.
1)
a. Buckley v. Valeo was a US Supreme Court decision that constituted a central obstacle effective campaign finance reform.
b. The Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act was designed to end the use of "soft money" for activity affecting federal elections.
c. A Supreme Court ruling that said that Corporations were allowed to spend as much money for campaigns that they want.
2. Corporations are treated like normal citizens and are given the same rights as us, which seems unfair. Just like the video says, even if they donate 1% of their income, they could out-donate the majority of their opponents. This seems wrong.
3. Despite the FEC's efforts to put limits on contributions, corporations could ultimately swing the votes by simply giving as much money as they choose.
4. B
5.
a. Lobbyists often draft letters of support and take them to the Member or staff and ask them to send such a letter to the respective agency. They can also pay money for ads and campaign financing.
b. For the NRA, lobbyists might use ads that support gun rights, as well as hiring famous, retired actors to support the AARP.
1.
a. Buckley v. Valeo: It was in this case that the Supreme Court ruled that candidates are not restricted on their spending, but the funds must come from private donors.
b. Bi partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act: This act brought reform to campaign finance law by banning soft money contributions and placing more restrictions on campaign ads.
c. Citizens United v. FEC: A Supreme Court Case that upholds the First Amendment’s power to bar the government from restricting the influence of funding, support, or campaigning of associations, corporations, or labor unions.
2. The Citizens United v. FEC is shown in the video when it talks about corporations being able to be sway the government by masking themselves as people that deserve the same rights as citizens. The Supreme Court has allowed businesses/corporations to spend millions in campaigning and ensuring someone they like is elected into office or a position of governmental authority. The influence of corporations in American elections causes the voice of the people to be muffled by the economic dominance of the big business.
3. A candidate is able to get ahead of everyone else campaigning if they have a larger amount of funds. Even if all the funding SuperPacs provide is not spent, the unrestricted amount allows for one individual to hold a constant lead over everyone else.
4. D is the highest form of bribery Abramoff used.
5. a. Lobbyists can use inside lobbying which is using direct contact—email, phone calls, meetings, etc.— to bring awareness to legislators personally. Another legal method is outside lobbying which focuses more on the power of a large body of people, advertising, and other media outlets to influence lawmakers. It could be organizing protests all the way to financing a movie promoting the lobbyist’s cause.
b. For the NAACP, by finding powerful, influential people in government, sports, or entertainment will provide a face a more coverage on policies they are lobbying. MADD should dominate the media. By having their stories and interviews broadcast all constantly, the public will be attached and supportive of the MADD policies. With that influence, legislatures will not create policies that will upset a large population of the country.
1)
A. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) was a case in which the Supreme Court struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.
B. Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002) is a law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns.
C. Citizens United v. FEC (2011) was a case where the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.
2) Citizens United v. FEC allowed corporations the same First Amendment rights as a regular person. This impacts elections today because it allows corporations to fund the campaigns of candidates in return for the passing of laws that benefit the corporations. This gives corporations more influence in the government and is taking away the voice of the people.
3)The government is constantly revising laws about campaign finance. Currently, the government is allowing groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns for unrestricted propaganda. This is misinforming the public on issues and candidates. Revisions on laws will continue to change in order to stop groups from finding loopholes.
4) D. Promising to hire a member of a Congressperson's staff in the future
5)
A. Lobbyist will contact members of Congress and the executive branch to discuss information about the positive or adverse effects of proposed legislation. They will also support policymakers in future elections if they help them pass or stop a piece of legislation.
B. All of these groups could use celebrities to help spread their message. MADD could use a celebrity mom to say drunk driving is bad and the NRA could use a celebrity who is for gun rights. I know this doesn’t have anything to do with these particular groups, but a good example of using celebrities is the “Demand a Plan” ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64G5FfG2Xpg).
1
a) Buckley v Valeo was a supreme court case that challenged the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The FECA sought to control how much individuals could donate to campaigns. The supreme court ruled that while regulation is constitutional, limiting how much someone can donate is unconstitutional.
b) The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) amended FECA to deal with the issues of soft money. It also made it illegal for corporations to air ads close to election day in order to minimize their influence.
C) The Citizens United v FEC case challenged the BCRA saying that the limiting of ads by corporations violated the first amendment. The court ruled in favor of corporations, striking down part of the BCRA.
2) The Citizens United v FEC case paved the way, or "opened the floodgates" on corporations funding campaigns and putting out ads. They were free to spend their money to influence elections however they wanted, which gave massive power to the wealthy and drowned out the facts and voices of the American people.
3) Campaign financing has grown over the last few decades. Loopholes in the laws are found by lobbyists and corporations and then exploited, leaving Congress scrambling to fix them. While these laws are there with good intentions, it has just created more PACs and such.
4) B
5
a) Two legal ways they would influence a politician is by emailing them or meeting with them face to face to bring important issues to light. They could also give large amounts via fundraisers to make their positions known.
b) For the AARP and the NRA, lobbyists could enlist the support of famous celebrities who share their views. These very political issues can be challenging, but with a powerful celebrity, people may change their mind which would influence the politician.
1. A) Buckley v. Valeo: This case was trying to limit corruption in elections. Congress tried to pass a law restricting financial campaign contributions to candidates. Parts of the Act were upheld such as disclosure of contributors, but most of the act was shut down, leaving groups, individuals, or personal funds able to support the campaign.
B) Bi-Partisan Campaign finance reform Act: This act was an amendment of the federal election campaign act, regulating financing of political campaigns. The Bi-Partisan limits the use of soft money used to fund electoral campaigns. This act also bans the ability fro companies or other foreign entities to run a campaign ad.
C) Citizens United v. FEC: This case repealed the FEC’s prohibition of corporation-funded ads, under the freedom of speech act.
2. This case has a huge impact on today’s elections because of the large amount of money corporations will put in campaign ads. This is a problem because it drowns out ordinary citizens support of a candidate. The corporations will back a candidate for there own gain, and that candidate will likely win due to the vast amount of publicity the corporation can give him or her. This will lead to the corporation-sponsored candidate to favor the corporation when setting laws and rules to businesses giving an unfair economic advantage.
3. Politicians are spending more and more money than ever to get elected, leading to a need of out side support of corporations in order to fund the campaign. This leads to corruption and unfairness in an election where the politician with the most money will win by drowning out the others with advertisement.
4. B.
5. A) Two legal methods lobbyists could use to influence public policy makers are; organizing fundraisers to get a politician reelected and/or directly giving a legal amount of money to a policy maker’s campaign. These two methods would make the policy maker want to help the lobbyists so they can continue to support them in elections to follow.
B) For the NRA lobbyists could have more gun ads in republican areas in the south or in places where gun activists are prevalent. For the NAACP lobbyists would be inclined to show civil rights act and equality ads in predominately colored areas. Both of these techniques would put pressure on the public policy makers from their hometowns. The people who vote for them would want them to pass a bill thanks to the ads, so the policy makers would have no choice but to do it or not be reelected.
1). A. Buckley v. Valeo-was a case in which the Supreme Court struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment which limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate as an individual. However,the Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.
B. The bipartisan campaign Finance Reform Act prohibits the national parties from raising or spending soft money. It also made it illegal for corporations to run campaign ads, so as to limit their influence.
C. In Citizens v FEC the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money on candidates to influence votes/policies. The Courts reasoning for this ruling was that by prohibiting corporations from doing so would be a violation of their first amendment rights.
2). Citizens v. FEC allowed corporations to spend unlimited amount of money on candidates and on ads for that candidate. This has given corporations a much stronger voice in democracy than even the people, who democracy is suppose to protect and represent.
3). No matter what restrictions and regulations the FEC puts on campaign financing, there will always be loopholes that the candidates will exploit. Also, money has become a determining factor in elections, which takes emphasis away from the policies and issues that matter.
4). B
5). A. Two legal ways of lobbying are donating to a candidates reelection fund, or meeting with him face to face to discuss the issues.
B. For the NRA, lobbyist could host campaign fundraisers, or donate to his campaign. This almost guilt’s the candidates to make the candidate feel as if he owes the NRA something. For the NAACP lobbyists could use celebrity endorsements, such as Oprah, to sway opinion on civil rights issues.
1. A. Supreme Court attacked provisions of limiting campaign expenditures.
B. Regulated the financing of political campaigns.
C. Allowed unlimited expenditures to groups and corporations.
2. It allows corporations to push ads to tell you who to vote for and what to think of the candidates.
3. With no limit on spending, onl the rich can advertise. So, the voices of the less fortunate, some of the people, can’t be heard.
4. D
5. A. Lobbyists can use their economic status to influence congressmen, by using fundraisers, or buying them dinner, usually by just throwing fundraisers and calling it that. For the most part they won’t talk business except for when they mention just to think of the piece of legislature. This can cause lobbyists to push for what they want, not necessarily what should happen, for exchange of a position later on after retirement or help to be reelected.
B. Lobbyists can use popular spokesmen to raise awareness to a problem that are well respected. They can stream ads on why something would be bad, which would most benefit the NRA and the MADD, for trying to protect things both organizations love.
1. a)Buckley vs. Valeo- The supreme court struck down provisions that limited campaign expenditures by individuals and groups.
b) bipartisan campaign- law amended federal election campaign act of 1971. Regulates financing of political campaigns.
c)Citizens United vs. FEC- Unconstitutional to put limits on how much money cooperations can spend influencing election.
2.The Citizens United vs. FEC impacts elections today because large cooperations can influence who wins elections in their favor, no longer the peoples decision.
3. My biggest take away is that so much money is being put into elections and campaigning, but not that much money is being spent. So the people who are running for office end up getting to keep the extra money (millions of dollars).
4. B-Taking members of congress golfing in Scotland.
5. Lobbyists can use many methods to influence political policy makers such as educating the public about issues or contacting members of congress and the executive branch to inform them about issues.
For AARP lobbyist might educate the public through commercials and ads about AARP. For the NRA lobbyists might contact members of congress telling them about gun statistics and why guns should be legal and the rights should be protected.
1)
a) Buckley v. Valeo was a case where the Supreme Court set limits on an individual's campaign contribution. The Supreme Court also then placed provisions on the campaign spending and funding.
b) The Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act amended FECA because of the issue of soft money.
c) Citizens United v. FEC was a case where the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures.
2) Citizens United v. FEC in the video discusses the influence corporations because they are allowed the same First Amendment rights as a regular person. However, this is taking away from the power of the people because corporations spend big bucks to find campaigns and to support candidates in order to sway the government in their favor.
3) Laws about campaign financing are almost always under revision because of the loopholes that exist. But these loopholes are exploited by many especially corporations.
4) D
5) a) Lobbyists can influence policy by the fact that they can use personal contact to legislators by email, phone, or even face to face. Also, they can donate sums of money in fundraisers to get their position known.
b) Lobbyists can use any famous media figure to get support for the AARP and the MADD. These celebrities that would endorse their political ideas which could help sway the public in their favor and towards supporting them.
1. A. Buckley v. Valeo- Buckley v. Valeo is a case in which the Supreme Court struck down certain
parts of a previous law. The Supreme Court upheld that there are limits on campaign contributions
and that individual spending is a form of constitutionally protected freedom of speech
B. Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act- this case dealt with more prohibitions on the amount
of money candidates were allowed to raise regardless of if the election happened to be state, local,
or national. The bill also bans foreign candidates and foreign corporations from political spending.
C. Citizens United v. FEC was a case in which the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to disallow
corporations to spend disproportionate amounts of money for campaigns and elections. It is
unconstitutional on the basis of free speech.
2. Citizens United v. FEC really paved the way for unprecedented spending in elections and
campaigns. With corporations now being players in the political scene, our votes count for less
as they can easily install their own puppet politician and make laws go their way. It really makes
elections a two party affair, or rather two candidates who can raise the most amount of money,
usually a member of the Republican or Democratic Party as of late.
3. The election process has always been catered to the super wealthy and we have never found a
foolproof solution without any loopholes.
4. B
5. a) lobbyists can use inside lobbying which is direct contact with the senators or whomever they need to contact, and that is usually through email or phone calls. lobbyists can also use outside lobbying which is using larger resources/mediums like social media or celebrities or tv ads
b) lobbyists would definitely use a lot of outside lobbying in the form of celebrities and tv ads- especially with the NRA and AARP.
1.
A. Buckly v. Valeo was the Supreme Court case that was in regards to a federal law that stated that there should be cap on the total amount of expenditure towards campaigning. Congress ruled that candidates do not need a spending cap as long as it came from private donors as a form of free speech.
B. Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act- This was a law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act which essentially demanded a certain amount of enclosure for the fiscal contributions of campaigns.
C. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a case in which corporations were restated their right by the First Amendment to politically participate in elections by fiscally ensuring a flow of money. This was primarily to target a critical advertisement and if corporations can swing public vote.
2. Basically, the video was about how corporations use their big profits to campaign for a candidate that will not restrict their ambition for profit. The case ruled that due to the first amendment, corporations are allowed free speech and therefore do not have to have a cap on financing, but that means that corporations have the same rights as individuals in the grand scheme of the constitution. This relates to our political campaigns today because it shows how public opinion is often just big corporations trying to swing the vote economically, and not for public needs.
3. There have been many cases, amendments and observations regarding the controversial topic of campaign financing. We still struggle with labeling corporations with individual rights, and it is something that will be a highly discussed/debated topic in Washington.
4. D
5.
A. Two legal ways that lobbyists can use to promote and influence a politician is by direct contact, which would ensure that there is a personal connection between the lawmakers. Another way would be to fundraise, which would fiscally influence the lawmaker’s decision regarding the lobbyist’s opinions.
B. To influence MADD, the best way would probably be through advertising, MADD is a valance organization, and people from different parts of the political spectrum can associate themselves with the lobbyist. For the NRA, the lobbyist could personally contact members and discuss their involvement with gun right activism, which would ensure that there is a personal bond between the citizens and the lobbyist, therefore making their political position known.
1.) Buckley v. Valeo- In 1974 an Amendment was created to limit campaign expenditures, independent expenditures, and expenditures by a candidate. In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that restriction on money reduces quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed; spending money is necessary for all means of communication. This resulted in candidates having no spending limit as long as funds are raised from private donors.
Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act- This 2002 law was sponsored by John McCain and Russell Feingold. This law banned soft money contributions and forbade corporations and labor unions from buying advertisements mentioning a political candidate’s name within 60 days of a federal election. Supreme Court ruled that soft money contributions are allowed with spending restrictions and banning ads 60 days after a federal election if they mention a candidate’s name is unconstitutional.
Citizens United v. FEC- the 2011 Supreme Court ruling tossed out the corporate and labor union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. They said it was okay for these organizations to spend as much as they want on ads and other political tools.
2.) The Citizens United v. FEC case arose when corporations began becoming a large part of our nation’s democracy by claiming that they have the right of the First Amendment. Five members of the Supreme Court thought it was unconstitutional to place any limits on how much a corporation can spend influencing elections. They said this because they believe that those limits would violate their right to freedom of speech. This influences elections today because without any limits on spending, corporations have infinite power to sway elections from one candidate to another. The majority of candidates who spend the most money win the election, and if these powerful corporations are spending large amounts, the candidate supported by them is more likely to win. This can also cause candidates to try to spin their political beliefs in their campaigning process to appeal more to corporations in order to have financial support from the corporations. Candidates know that these sponsorships are critical to their success.
3.) The way campaigning works is constantly being reformed. A change is made, loopholes are found, and more changes are made to try to get rid of loopholes, thus creating a different set of loopholes; this process can continue infinitely.
4.) B
5.) A- To influence public policy makers, lobbyists can meet with them either over dinner, drinks, or some other social event in order to discuss the issues at hand. Another method of influence is organizing fundraising events for the public policy makers in order to spread awareness about the policy.
B- The most influential form of lobbying for MADD would be the use of public media. By including real stories in television commercials or newspapers public awareness about drunk driving and its effects would rise. The best method of lobbying for AARP would be celebrity support in advertisements and at fundraising events. By using an older popular figure more people would pay attention to the organization.
1.Definitions:
Buckley v. Valeo- this was a Supreme Court case that challenged the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The suit was filed by Senator James Buckley against the U.S. Federal Government represented by Francis Valeo. The Federal Election Campaign Act limited contributions to candidates, required disclosure of contributors, limited expenditures from personal funds of a candidate and created a fixed method for appointing members to the FEC. The suit ended with almost the entire act being deemed unconstitutional except the part about limiting contributions from personal funds of candidates.
Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act- This act, was signed into law in 2002 by George Bush. This limited the use of “soft money” or money donated to a political party rather than to a candidate. This act also limited the frequency and proximity telecommunicative ads can be used near a caucus or general election day.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission- This was a Supreme Court case that determined, due to the first amendment, that corporations could not be denied the rights given to people. Therefore, the restrictions put on corporations and their roles in the election process were lifted or relaxed so as to not deny them of their first amendment right to free speech.
2. As defined above, in the Citizens United v. FEC supreme court case, it was ruled that corporations have first amendment rights and they cannot be infringed upon. This affects elections today greatly. It is legal for corporations to pump loads of money into a candidates PAC to aid in their success on Election Day in exchange for their vote or support for legislation that will help make the corporation money.
3.The main takeaways from those pictures are that presidential candidates have enormous and superfluous amounts of money at their expense and for most candidates, most of it wasn’t spent during the election. What scares me is we are spending more and more on elections but where is the unused money?
4.D
5.FRQ: Lobbyist Techniques
Legal Lobbyist Techiques:
One legal method lobbyists use to influence public policy is through “gifts.” For example, why have a meeting in a stuffy office when a lobbyist could take the official out to dinner at a fancy restaurant or to a local sports game?
Another legal method of lobbying for legislation is promising financial support to a politicians campaign for re-election in exchange for a certain vote on a certain issue.
Specific Lobbyist Groups:
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) mainly uses emotional techniques to influence public policy. For example, they get mothers of drunk driving victims to speak to the public and politicians to rally support and get drinking restrictions and drunk driving penalties raised.
The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) primarily uses protests as a form of lobbying. During the Civil Rights era, the NAACP organized walk-outs, sit-ins and boycotts to bring national attention to the issues at hand.
1).
a) The Supreme Court in the case of Buckley v. Valeo ruled that candidates can spend as much money as they want as long as it comes from private donors.
b)The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act tried to ban "soft money" contributions to candidates and campaign ads from corporations/labor unions within 60 days of a federal election. "Soft money" was not banned, but there were restrictions placed on spending. The campaign ads part was ruled unconstitutional.
c)The Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. FEC, ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want to influence elections, because any restrictions are considered to violate the First Amendment.
2. The Citizens United v. Fec case established that corpoartions can spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates. This affects politics today because it gives these big corporations much more power over the vote than a regular person.
3) The biggest take away that I have is that money is the biggest influence on who gets elected. Elections are expensive, and even though a vast number of people can run for office, only those with a lot of money behind them really stand a chance.
4) B
5) a) There are many different techniques a lobbyist can employ to influence policy makers. One legal thing they can do is use statistics and facts to influence members of congress. They also befriend lawmakers to try and gain access to members of congress.
b) Madd: Lobbyists would use statistics about drunk driving and victims of drunk driving to try influence members of congress to pass stricter drunk driving laws.
NRA: Lobbyists would show crime statistics and sponsor speakers on rising crime rates and how people need to protect themselves.
1.
A)Buckley v. Valeo (1976) was a Supreme Court case in which parts of the Federal Election Campaign Act were revoked, giving independent individuals and groups more freedom, but kept limits on an individual's contributions to a specific campaign.
B)The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act limited the contributions by political parties and interest groups and required the "stand by your ad" provision which meant if an advertisement was from a candidate they had to state who they were and that they supported the message.
C)The Citizens United v. FEC case has ruled it legal for corporations to spend as much money as they would like endorsing candidates. They rule this as a first amendment right, even though corporations are not individual people.
2. The effect of the FEC today is that corporations have more influence than anyone else because they have such unlimited resources and the ability to use all they have to endorse a certain candidate and sway an election in their own favor, taking away the influence of the voice of the people.
3. Since the 1970's, there have been numerous laws and acts to try to regulate campaigning and with each one there are loopholes. Each new law typically revokes or changes the rules set forth by the previous legislature.
4.D
5.
A) Lobbyists can legally meet with politicians and describe their issues to them in order to attempt to sway the politicians towards their own opinions. Lobbyists can also support other campaigns or hold fundraisers for the person they are trying to persuade.
B) The best methods lobbyists for MADD would use would be publicizing as many specific stories as possible and meeting with congressmen and women to publicize the issue, since sympathy is likely to follow, and with it, support. AARP can lobby the most effectively by advocating for individuals (over 50, especially) who will be supportive and who then will persuade politicians to follow.
1.A) Buckley v Valeo (1976) held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance democracy by guarding against unscrupulous practices. The Supreme Court ruling stated that the limitation on expenditures from their own private resources and the limitation on total campaign expenditures were unconstitutional.
B) The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) included several provisions designed to end the use of nonfederal, or "soft money" for activity affecting federal elections.
C) In Citizens United v. FEC the Supreme Court overturned well-established judicial precedents that upheld restrictions on unlimited corporate and union spending expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Therefore, corporations could spend unlimited money on influencing the people’s vote for their candidate.
2.Citizens United v. FEC ruled that corporations could spend unlimited money on campaign ads. The Supreme Court classified corporations under the same First Amendment right as regular citizens, therefore protecting their ability to produce more campaign ads that influence the people’s vote. This impacts todays elections because it increases the power of corporations and muffles the opinion/votes of the people.
3. In the last decades, the growth of campaign finances has resulted in an increased power of the wealthy in running for office and more campaign ads that influence the vote close to election time. Under this system, and cases like Citizens United v. FEC which ruled parts of the BCRA unconstitutional, there exist loopholes for corporations/lobbyists to exploit.
4.D
5.(A)Two legal methods lobbyists use to influence public policy makers are fundraisers and direct contact. Fundraisers allow lobbyists to overcome the limitation of “gifts” and give large amounts of money to lawmakers in order to influence their decisions. A lobbyist is able to gather a large sum of money under a “fundraiser” which then goes to the lawmaker who will insert new policy into their legislature. Direct contact or personal relations are an internal form lobbyists use to influence public policy through meetings, dinners, drinks, and letters. This personal relationship or mutual partnership benefits both parties and solidifies a lasting relationship.
(B)The NRA, after mass-gun violence, spends millions of dollars on independent expenditures at the federal level on messages advocating for or against political candidates. This support for those who defend gun-rights allows the NRA to prohibit/limit gun reform within legislature. Also, the NRA funds campaigns of those who advocate for gun right activism, therefore rewarding lawmakers that support gun rights with monetary gifts. The MADD’s best form of lobbying is advertisement or personal contact due to the emotional effect of discussing accidents. In addition, the MADD can publically spread the need for drinking restriction, or greater punishments on a national level through these advertisements.
1. a) The Buckley v. Valeo preserved the limits on individual contributions to campaigns, but it was declared Constitutional to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections under free speech.
b) The Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act banned 'soft money' contributions and was more restrictive of campaign ads.
c) Citizens United v. FEC of 2011 is the reason why corporations can fund campaigns as much as they want.
2. Thanks to Citizens United v. FEC, the influence and power of the people has been greatly lessened. Giving corporations the same rights as human beings, they have the money and leverage to put lawmakers they want into positions of power. This helps the corporations boost their profits, since the lawmakers they essentially elected are able to change laws on environmental control and fair jobs.
3. The election process is basically ran by the incredibly wealthy, and we seem to be creating more loopholes for the wealthy than for the commoners.
4. D
5. a) Lobbyists are lawfully allowed to use their influence to sway public policy makers. They can do this through campaign advertisements and promoting politicians through e-mails or telephone calls.
b) Getting celebrities to sponsor or even just put their faces on organizations such as guns and Medicare (NRA & AARP) would easily sway people who were on the fence if a respectable celeb backed the issue.
1.
a. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) was a case that struck down many provisions that limited expenditures by campaigns, by individuals and groups, and by candidate from personal funds.
b. Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns.
c. Citizens United v. FEC (2011) the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.
2. Citizens United vs. FEC case used the First Amendment in order to allow corporations to spend as much money as they wish on advertisements to get the public’s vote for a certain candidate and that candidate is only there to help that corporation prosper. So, basically corporations are running the government because they can spend millions getting law makers elected and by this the voices of the people are not getting heard. As long as corporations run the government the people of the U.S. won’t get what they want.
3. With every new case that challenges old cases more loopholes are made which makes it easier for candidates to do or spend as much as they would like. This makes it easier for wealthy candidates to win the election because they have more money to spend on advertisements that can attack their opponents, but these ads can also misinform voters.
4. D- Promising to hire a member of a Congressperson’s staff in the future.
5.
a. Two methods lobbyists use to influence public policy makers are assisting with campaign finance by arranging fundraisers, assembling PACs, and seeking donations from other clients; and the other method is becoming a big donor themselves.
b. For the MADD, lobbyists could make advertisements that would play real people talking about how mothers who drink and drive affected them. For the NRA, they could play advisements that would talk about how the people have the right to bear arms; have a famous person share their views on gun rights.
1. A) Buckley v. Oakley: Supreme Court case which ruled that there is no limit to the amount of money a political candidate may spend on their campaign, as long as the money comes from private donors.
B) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act: an act that introduced many changes to federal campaign finance laws; its two main tenets were a ban on all soft money contributions, and the prohibition of corporations and labor unions from buying advertisements mentioning a political candidate's name within 60 days of a federal election.
C) Citizens United v. FEC: case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.
2. Citizens United v. FEC was a case in which large corporations argued that putting a limit on the amount of money they could spend to influence elections was an infringement on their First Amendment rights, and this logic was agreed on by the Supreme Court. The lasting impact of this has been diminishing the voice of the American people, and allowing corporations to get whoever they want elected simply through excessive spending.
3. The biggest takeaway here is that for as many times we revise and reform campaign finance laws to close certain loopholes, the system creates more problems and new loopholes for people and organizations to exploit for their benefit.
4. D
5. A) Lobbyists may use fundraisers as a legal means to influence policy makers and make their positions known. Another legal way lobbyists can exercise influence is through direct contact with policymakers, such as through email or via phone calls.
B) For the NRA, lobbyists could utilize ads which defend second amendment rights in order to sway public opinion. The MADD primarily tries to elicit emotion about accidents to lobby for its cause, which is generally successful.
1. a. The Buckley v. Valeo decision made it so lobbyists and other groups could donate as much as they wanted to a cause, but not a candidate.
b. The Bipartisan campaign reform act placed limits on donations and also limited the types of adds that could be run.
c. Citizens United vs FEC basically gave corporations the ability to campaigns.
2. The Citizens United vs FEC made it legal for corporations to donate to campaigns as they saw fit.
3. While the government has tried to patch all the loopholes, it is an almost an impossible task, and because of that corporations still have a lot of power in elections.
4. I would have to say B, while there are other example of bribery listed, flying someone to Scottland for golf, is definitely a bigger bribe, and a more blatant one then most of the other options.
5. Lobbyists are most effective economically, they are able to use their personal/group's wealth to pay for advertisments and put on fundraisers. One popular method that was mentioned was finding celebrities that agree with your cause. Big names can draw big attention.
A) Buckley v. Valeo in 1967 held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA promote democracy against these practices. The Supreme Court limitation on total campaign expenditures were unconstitutional.
B) The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002, including several ideas to end the use of nonfederal,for activity affecting federal elections.
C) In Citizens United v. FEC the Supreme Court overturned judicial precedents that upheld restrictions. With unlimited corporate and union spending expressly advocating the election.
2. The FEC today is that corporations have more influence than anyone else because they have such unlimited resources and the ability to sway and persuade to one side, and without letting the people vote.
3. Democracy will always stay true. People will find loopholes in Campaign Laws and manipulate them. But it does not demonstrate true democracy.
4. D
5. Lobbyists are very effective when it comes to economics. They are able to use the wealth of others when paying for advertisements/fundraisers. You celebrities and relating them to the average person. Organizations such as the AARP, NRA, and MADD.
1) Define
a) Buckley v. Valeo (1976) was a case where the Supreme Court struck down several provisions from the 1974 amendment that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions
b) The bipartisan campaign Finance Reform Act prohibits the national parties from raising or spending soft money. It also made it illegal for corporations to run campaign ads, so as to limit their influence.
c) In Citizens v FEC the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money on candidates to influence votes/policies. The Courts reasoning for this ruling was that by prohibiting corporations from doing so would be a violation of their first amendment rights.
2) Citizens v. FEC allowed corporations to spend unlimited amount of money on candidates and on ads for that candidate. This impacted the elections by giving corporations a stronger influence in elections then the people.
3) The laws that regulate campaign financing are usually under revision because of the loopholes that exist. But these loopholes are exploited by many especially corporations which means the average person and people who are less fortunate can’t get their voice out there.
4) D
5) FRQ
a) Two legal methods lobbyists could use to influence public policy makers are; donating to a candidate’s reelection fund or meeting with them face to face to bring important issues to light. These two methods would make the policy maker want to help the lobbyists so they can continue to support them in elections to follow.
b) The NRA and AARP lobbyists can gain support from celebrities who share the same views. These political issues can be challenging, but with a celebrity supporting it, people may follow the star which would influence the politician.
1) Buckley v. Valeo (1976): This case eliminated some parts of the FECA and added two rules of campaign finance. The first rule—the Independent Expenditure—stated that an individual cannot contribute unlimited money to a campaign; however they can spend unlimited amounts influencing the elections. The second rule was that ads have unlimited budgets if they are neutral, otherwise there are regulations.
Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002): This act closed the loopholes of previous acts such as FECA and Valeo. It also allowed for PACs to spend unlimited money, but only if they do not coordinate with the candidates. Lastly, the act stated that ads allowed in Valeo must be stopped thirty days prior to a primary election and sixty days prior to a general election.
Citizens United v. FEC (2011): The Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional to limit the money corporations spend influencing elections because it is a violation of their first amendment rights. Therefore, part of the BCRA was unconstitutional.
2) In the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional to limit the money corporations spend influencing elections because it is a violation of the first amendment. With this spending power, corporations can crush candidates that do not support their own interests. Corporations have the ability to drown out the voices of the public and make their issues priority.
3) Campaign finance processes are strategic and manipulative in order to promote a specific candidate. This Prezi emphasizes the fact that elections and politics in general are easier for the wealthy to gain power.
4) D
5)
a. Lobbyists use inside and outside lobbying in order to influence public policy makers. The strategy of inside lobbying focuses first on developing contacts with legislators. When the relationship is established, lobbyists can then work to provide key information and proposals to officials that cater to their interests or their group’s interest. On the other hand, outside lobbying looks for favorable media coverage in order to gain support for a particular candidate and gain PAC contributions. This strategy also focuses on encouraging their members to write or call representatives in order to bring attention to certain issues.
b. For the AARP, grassroots lobbying is the strategy that would be used. This is so that government officials can be convinced that the group’s public policy position has strong popular support, which would result in legislation concerning retirement issues. MADD would be more inclined to use outside lobbying with its strategy of news coverage. By publishing stories about teen deaths related to drinking and raising awareness through television, they could gain more support.
1a) Buckley v. Valeo determined that regulating how much an individual can donate to a campaign was unconstitutional.
b)Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act banned soft money contributions, and set regulations on campaign ads.
c)Citizens United vs FEC ruled that it's unconstitutional to restrict corporations' donations to campaigns.
2) Citizens United vs FEC gave corporations the right to donate as much at the want to campaigns, because based on the first amendment, they have the same rights as people. This gives corporations the power to promote a candidate that would benefit their company, without any regulation. This impacts us today, because many of the candidates that are elected and that are running are being promoted solely by corporations, rather than people.
3) As more and more money is spent on campaigns, superpacs come more into play. A candidate must have the support of superpacs to have finances comparable to those who do, so there cannot be a candidate that has only the support of the people anymore, because of silly loopholes.
4)D
5a) Lobbyists do many legal and illegal things to influence public policy makers. A major one is fundraising, which, as stated in the video, makes it legal to buy food for and give money to a policy maker in order to sway their view. Another big thing lobbyists do is join together with large companies to donate money to campaigns and to advertisements in order to promote an opinion for policy makers.
b)For MADD, Lobbyist could make ads that would easily provide a sturdy ground against Drunk Driving. NAACP would best promoted through celebrities, seeing that they have much influence over society and the media.
1
a) Buckley v Valeo-This got rid of some parts of the FECA and added two new rules. It upheld the law concerning limited contributions. Individuals are limited as to how much they can contribute. For example, Obama has a limit on how much he contributes to his campaign, but a group that supports democrats for example does not have a limit.
b) Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act- limited/prohibited the use of “soft money” which is money that is donated to a political party, not a candidate.
c) Citizens United v FEC-This was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money influencing people’s vote for a certain candidate as long as they do not talk with shareholders.
2. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for companies to have a cap on how much they pay for campaign financing because it violates the first amendment (free speech). This impacts elections today because corporations are treated like people where they can freely express their opinions, however, there are no limits on anything so their influencing/advertising really stands out arguably more than the people's opinion which is what a true democracy is about.
3. The biggest takeaway is that there are constantly loopholes that we can see through history in all of these cases from the past, and currently. Once we fix a loophole, another is created, and we are constantly battling this cycle. Another takeaway is how important it is to realize how much power money is through candidates or corporations and how much that unlimited use of money in some ways can greatly affect the public's opinion.
4. B
5.
a) Two legal methods that lobbyists can use to influence the public policy makers include organizing statistics in favor of the legislation and giving them policy statements or reasons that someone should vote. Another way to influence is to directly communicate via phone, email, mail, face to face etc with their public policy makers to keep the public informed and create a personal connection.
b) MADD or Mothers Against Drunk Driving use pathos, or emotions to appeal to their audience. They testify about their true life's experiences and share their stories or sickening statistics to get the attention and the awareness that topics like these deserve.
The NAACP can use this strategy as well, but more importantly they can strive to use important current and historical figures to help promote their cause. People tend to be able to relate to famous/well-known people, and in order to advance African Americans I think in this case it would be very influential to have a lobbying strategy including numerous successful colored people and their stories etc.
1a. a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds.
1b. a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns.
1c. a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions
2. That video was ridiculous. Anyway, in this case, corporations were being criticized for their significant influence on voters through campaign funding and support. However, these corporations defended their right to spend as much on a campaign as they see fit by treating the corporation like an american citizen whose right to free speech shall not be infringed upon. This impacts elections today because voters may often be swayed by corporate advertising in favor of a candidate instead of making their own decisions. Because corporations are just like pure evil, man. They will likely support a candidate that will benefit their own economic interests (like many everyday people like to do) instead of the nation's needs. But they don't vote the president in so...
3. Basically, a whole lot of money is put into campaigns through each election. This could show that emphasis is being taken away from actual political positions and is being placed on basic voter appeal through advertisements and public appearances. kinda sucks.
4. D
5a. the most basic form of influence for lobbyists would be through finances. They could hold a fundraiser or in a corporation they could just provide the finances for advertisements and public appearances. Lobbyists can also influence public policy makers by through their own public appeal. if a lobbyist is popular among the people, they have a sense of power, because this government is supposed to be run by the people.
5b. Lobbyists would would take advantage of the bill of rights as well as an argument centered on the foundation of America in order to support the NRA. Lobbyists would probably use the bill of rights with regard to civil rights and equality along with financial support for the NAACP.
1.
A) Buckley v. Valeo: Passed in 1976, this case stated that rules in favor of candidates to raise campaign financing, however funds must come from private donors. Great controversy as to the amount of money private donors could donate to campaigns.
B) Bi partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act: This act brought reformed the Federal Election Campaign Act by placing specific restrictions on campaign financing and advertisement. A way of equaling the playing field for all candidates.
C) Citizens United v. FEC: A Supreme Court Case that overturned parts of the BCRA. Corporations argued the BCRA was a violation of the first amendment because of limitation of press. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the corporations.
2.
Citizens United v. FEC has a large impact on today’s elections because of the amount of money put towards presidetial campaign. Many feel it is unfair for corporations to be able to support candidates with their wealth, however I see it just. Obviously corporations will support the candidate they feel will help them the most if elected, similar to “regular humans.” Also, it’s important to understand that corporations are the only donors during campaigns. In the 2012 campaign, President Obama raised the majority of his money from universities and tech companies; Romney’s top funding were Wall Street banks. Interestingly enough, Obama won the support of these same banks in 2008. What happened four years later? He lost their support because he couldn’t fix the economic recession, therefore had to find new contributors for his re-election. It humors me to see a video like such bashing corporations when universities and tech companies, everyone uses the same tactics to try and have a little pull in the oval office.
3.
The history of campaign financing and political advertisement. It's clearly been an issue since the '70s and will continue to be as seen in the three supreme court cases.
4.
D
5.
A) A Lobbyist will try to persuade a legislator to vote for legislation in the lobbyist’s employer’s favor. For example, Corn farmers of America will donate money to employ lobbyist to send to Washington to persuade congressmen to pass a bill to help the corn industry. Effectively, special interest groups, in this case Corn Farmers of America, fund Lobbyists. There are three types: inside-direct lobbying or personal persuasion, inside-indirect lobbying or contact through other individuals, and outside lobbying or public relations campaigns.
B) The best choice for lobbyists would be outside lobbying or public relations campaign. Being able to run television ads and popular individuals to preach their message, can significantly help the cause. "We Are the World," was a popular form of help to raise awareness for AIDS back in the day.
1.
A) Buckley v. Oakley: Was a case decided by the Supreme Court, in which there is no limit to how much a candidate can spend on their campaign as long the funding comes from private donors.
B. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act: Act passed by Congress that reformed campaign finance laws. The two major points were banning on all soft money contributions and prohibiting large corporations, unions, etc. from creating advertisements that say the politician's name within sixty days of the election.
C: Citizens United v. FEC: Was a case decided by the Supreme Court, in which upheld that the first amendment restricts the government from regulating and prohibiting any independent political expenditures from large corporations, unions, etc.
2. Citizens United v. FEC was an important case because the Supreme Court recognized the power of the First Amendment in regards to campaigning. Corporations have no limit to how much they can spend to bash other candidates and promote their candidate. Because of this one might argue corporations can overspend to get their candidate in office, which may limit how average Americans may have voted without the explosive campaigning.
3. As of now, the Prezi demonstrates how campaign processes are strategic and also manipulative, especially when regards to funding by large corporations. The more money you have the easier it is to get elected. However, even if we try to continually reform the system, there always seem to be loopholes, which will only cause an increase in the exploitation of democracy.
4. D
5.
A: Lobbyists participate in inside and outside lobbying. Inside lobbying includes the lobbyist creating contacts and relationships with legislators. They can then give the legislators facts, information, proposals, etc. that match the group's interests. Outside lobbying utilizes media coverage and fundraisers to gain recognition of a candidate and support from PACs.
B: For the NAACP, teaming up with influential sports players or celebrities will help gain more coverage for their policies. MADD attempts to gain coverage for accidents and prevention of such situations. By publishing articles, showing clips, etc about drinking driving and other topics then people would grasp how serious this issue is. Hopefully the amount of emotion will encourage people to support this campaign.
1. a) Buckley v. Valeo was a Supreme Court case which upheld federal limits on campaign contributions. However, the court said that individual candidates can contribute an unlimited amount of money to their own campaigns.
b) The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 amended the FECA in regards to spending soft money to finance political campaigns.
c) Citizens United vs FEC stated that the government cannot restrict political expenditures by companies and other organizations as a result of free speech from the First Amendment.
2. Citizens United vs. FEC impacts elections in the U.S. today, as it provides more political power to corporations. Since corporations have vast amounts of money and resources, they are able to assist candidates in new ways. The court case affirmed the right for corporations to vote as regular citizens which further enhances their influence.
3. Despite all the measures put into place to even the playing field for political candidates, loopholes will always exist. Because of this, an increasing amount of wealthy people have been running for office, as they have a greater chance of winning.
4. D
5. a) Two ways to influence public policy makers legally would be to contribute money to campaign funds, and contacting/meeting up with the person face to face.
b) In order to influence MADD, lobbyists could use the media to their advantage to spread their intended message. Lobbyists could also use celebrities to help support AARP.
1.
a. The Buckley vs. Oakley case was decided by the Supreme Court. The outcome of the trial was that a candidate is now able to receive an infinite amount of money for campaigning, as long as the money comes from private donations (corporations).
b. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act changed the game for campaigners. This act was put in place to equalize how much a party could spend on their campaign. This act was a reform to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
c.The Citizens United versus the FEC basically allowed private corporations to have financial input on elections through their large and very effectual private donations.
2. The Citizens United vs. FEC has probably influenced our government a lot. As the video said, companies can sway elections and legislations in order to maximize their profit. This case basically gave private companies the power to impact government with unlimited funding. It is interesting to consider what our government would be like without the support of private companies.
3. This prezi shows how campaign funding regulation has changed throughout the years. One of the main themes of the prezi was the topic of loopholes being created and cut out. It is clear that private political financing is a very volatile topic; the opinions are always changing along with the laws restricting how much a party can receive and use. Our democracy will forever be unstable as long as these policies are continually changing.
4. D
5.
a. The two types of lobbying are basically direct and indirect communication with fellow legislators and votes. Inside lobbying is basically social networking between legislators and other lobbyists, information is traded and shared by word of mouth or through personal interactions. Outside lobbying is when a candidate rallies support through media outlets like commercials and appearances.
b. Lobbyists in support of the NAACP would probably use powerful African Americans in pop culture, government, and social action to lobby for their cause for the advancement of African Americans. This would require outside lobbying through various media outlets and public speeches. AARP would also utilize outside lobbying to gather support for their cause through powerful seniors who are in support of their services.
1. Define
a. Buckley v. Valeo- A US Senator filed against a member of the FEC to overturn amendments to law made in 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act. Supreme Court upheld several parts of the act, but struck down the limits on candidates personal spending and on individual/group “independent expenditures”(not directly affiliated with candidate) on the basis that it was a violation of separation of powers, and compromised democracy.
b. Bi-partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act- An amendment to 1971 Federal Election Campaign act prohibiting corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” (ads, public statements) 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
c. Citizens United v. FEC- Conservative lobbyist group tried FEC about 2002 B Bi-partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Supreme Court decided that limiting spending and ad space corporations can spend on political campaigns violates the first amendment (free speech).
2. The decision of the Citizens United v. FEC case was just; the act violated parts of free speech and media, however it created some of the problems our government has today. The three branches of US government have a check and balance system which keeps each other in check. Corporations can be just as powerful as government, yet nothing keeps them in check. This means large companies and corporations have an unlimited effect on elections; they can say and spend however much they want on candidates, making or breaking a campaign, therefore elected officials are more inclined to defend the needs of big businesses than “we the people.”
3. We can take away from the Prezi that there has been an ongoing clash between our laws (first amendment, separation of powers) and the desire to keep monetary influence out of elections, making them as fair as possible. A common theme is that there are always ways around the law; corporations will find new loopholes in the amendments meant to fix other loopholes- and campaign spending will continue to rise.
4. D: Promising to hire congressman’s staff
5. FRQ
a. Lobbyists and special interest groups have many options when it comes to protecting their interests, the most straightforward being persuasion and information. Lobbyists can go right to government officials with data and evidence to support their cause, or indirectly influence elections and policy making by publishing data and propaganda to the public. Another legal strategy of lobbying for some special interest groups is disruption; protesting or picketing to disrupt activities of their opposition, and to generate publicity.
b. NRA- Gun laws are a very positional issue; therefore spreading information wouldn’t change many opinions. Lobbyists for the NRA should use the power of their organization to influence lawmakers by contributing to campaigns/advertisements, and by stressing to officials the number of voters backed by the NRA.
NAACP- This special interest group has used and should continue to use litigation to defend their interests; law suits skip the entire congressional progress, and most of the values they defend are already existing rights. The NAACP can also gain public support by publishing data about continued discrimination, or even positive ads about the organization’s immense success.
The above anonamous comment belongs to Carly LeRoy
1)
A - Buckley vs Valeo was a supreme court case in 1976 that ruled that candidates have no limit on campaign spending from private donors.
B - The Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act banned soft money contributions to campaigns and disallowed corporations from buying ads for candidates within 60 days of an election.
C - Citizens United vs FEC was a supreme court case that allowed labor unions and corporations to spend as much money as they want to influence the public to vote for a candidate (freedom of speech).
2) The Citizens United vs FEC decision has large implications on elections today. Corporations and labor unions now have no limit on the amount of money they can spend for influencing an candidate's election. They are now free to pour money into politicians who will represent their interests, usually at the expense of the public majority. Unfortunately, the candidate who spends the most money usually wins. Thus, this supreme court decision has made the election process very corrupt today.
3) The Buckley vs Valeo decision closed some of the loop holes from FECA, but still left some open. BCRA came along and closed the soft money loop hole, but there are still loop holes (PACS can spend unlimited money). Citizens United vs FEC overturned much of still declaring it unconstitutional and allowing unlimited money to be spent on ads.
4) D
5)
A) Lobbyists entertain politicians by taking them golfing, to sporting events, fancy restaurants, etc. Politicians are allowed to accept these kind of gifts up to a certain limit. Also lobbyists can contribute of a politician's campaign. While they can't directly pay a politician to vote a certain way, their monetary contributions can definitely still have influence.
B) Lobbyists for the NRA would spend money running smear campaigns against any politicians who support gun control and regulation. This is the majority of Americans are in favor or more regulation (like background checks for example) so they need to make their client (the NRA) heard over the majority. For the NAACP lobbyists might look to get celebrities to support their message of equality since many people look up to famous figures as role models to set examples.
1) a. Buckley v. Valeo, in this Supreme Court case, the court ruled that the candidates can spend as much money as they wish, so long as it is raised through private donors.
b. The bipartisan campaign reform act banned soft money contributions to campaigns.
c. Citizens United v. FEC was a supreme court case that ruled that corporations can fund a campaign for however much they want, because restricting them would be infringing on their freedom of speech.
2) The Citizens United v. FEC case allowed corporations to spend as much as they want on a candidate, and in elections today, has allowed for the major influencing of political elections due to corporations massive wealth.
3) The biggest takeaway I got was that despite our best efforts, people will always find loopholes and manage to take advantage of the system. Also that our political system is surprisingly easy to manipulate.
4) D
5) a. Lobbyists can take a politician to a fundraiser and give them money there. They could also meet with the politicians face to face and talk with them, influencing their decision that way.
b. Lobbyists can hold fundraisers, or produce gun rights advertisements for the NRA, and have celebrities make public endorsements of various civil rights issues for the NAACP.
I am 100% done now with this campaign finance blog.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
1) Define:
a)Buckley v. Valeo was a case taken to the supreme court that dealt with the spending of money to influence elections. It challenged the FECA which limited what one could give to a campaign. The campaign upheld provisions that set a limit to the amount of money one could donate.
b)The Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002): An act that amended the FECA by eliminating the use of “soft money”, prohibiting parties from raising or spending nonfederal funds.
c)Citizens United v. FEC (2011): Case ruling it is unconstitutional (Disregarding 1st Amendment) to limit corporate spending and support on campaigning.
2)The Citizens United vs. FEC case was brought about because corporations’ influence on campaigning became larger and larger, with corporation spending more money supporting the election. Restrictions on these companies’ influence were gone because the court ruled it unconstitutional. This issue impacts election today because companies continue to contribute to campaign funding, which is creating bias and “first impression” voting by the people. It has made campaigning more about the advertising and less about the candidate’s values.
3)The biggest takeaway I get from this is that funding continues to rise and it continues to effect the election greatly.
4)B-Taking members of Congress golfing in Scotland
5)FRQ:
a)Two legal methods used to influence public policy makers are through actions of meeting and giving opinions, and publicly funding a certain organization associated with the policy maker.
b)The best methods for the NRA are using statistics and opinionated speakers to protect their rights. It also may be a good idea for members of the NRA to accept compromise (better background checks, no guns in public facilities, etc). The NAACP could simply use support from celebrities, many of which would feel strongly on various issues.
1.)
A.)Buckley v. Valeo challenged the FECA. Sustained limits on contribution, but struck down limits on spending.
B.)The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act prohibited the use of soft money and prohibited ads payed for by corporations.
C.) Citizens United v. FEC decided that it was un-constitutional to prevent corporations from spending as much as they want on campaigns.
2.)
Citizens United v. FEC is a very important case because it allows corporations to spend as much money as they want on campaigns with no repercussions. Since corporations have access to almost limitless funds, it allows corporations to have a HUGE amount of control over the elections. The voice of corporations can now easily drown out the voice of the people.
3.)
The more access a candidate has to funds, the more power they hold in elections, and corporations can easily determine elections through their unlimited funds with unlimited donations. Also, whenever the government tries to fix this problem, a loophole is always found and exploited.
4.) D, as it gives more gain in the long run to the person being bribed
5.)
A.) Lobbyists can use influence to help pay for campaign ads or raise awareness of somebody, or they could meet with the policy makers and discuss the issue face to face.
B.)
Both MADD and the NRA could benefit greatly from celebrity support. A lobbyist could find a celebrity the agrees with the causes that these two organizations believe in, and the celebrity could do a PSA or commercial to show their support, and sway pubic opinion.
Post a Comment