Those Green Pieces of Paper

Health care v. Afghanistan; Education v. Foreign Affairs.

Which issues should be dealt with immediately? However you decide, that is how you should vote. How you should not vote is choosing whichever candidate has the most commercials. I think the role campaign money plays in elections is absurd. A candidate should not lose because he couldn't raise enough millions of dollars. Think about it. In the Presidential Elections in a contemporary light, if one doesn't raise enough money so that his/her face and name is plastered on every billboard in America, one's chances of winning decreases significantly.

We constantly complain about those dreaded campaign commercials. Whenever they come on, they make use want to hurl our TV through the upstairs window. Yet, these commercials that cost ridiculous amounts of money increases name recognition which ultimately gives the candidate an instant upper hand in the election. This is an example of how money plays into our choosing. Do those candidates who don't have the money to buy out a television network--unlike their opponent--have an equal chance of winning the election? The answer is no. And in today's world, an alternate solution seems impossible.

Even if America came to their senses and decided upon an alternate solution, what would they entail? And this is where the Feds come in.

In the court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission to protect its film, Hillary: The Movie, from John McCain’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act included several provisions:

1. Ended soft money

2. Electioneering communications must be disclosed if the direct costs of producing and airing the communications aggregates to $10,000 or more.

3. Political parties may no longer make both independent and coordinated expenditures but now must choose between the two

4. Contributions to candidates - $2,000, contributions to state, district and local party committees $5,000 per year, Contributions to national party committees - $25,000, only $37,500 may be contributed to candidates and no more than $37,500 to other committees that are not national parties

5. The new law may raise the individual contribution limits for Senate and House candidates who are facing self-financed candidates

Citizens United argued that the BCRA violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. In a decision that could have a dramatic effect on the upcoming elections, the Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group. The case hinges on whether corporations can be barred from pouring money into election campaigns or whether they have free-speech rights -- and the right to spend their cash to influence elections, just like individual people do. This case is significant to campaign financing because the result of the decision could increase spending for corporations, unions, and nonprofits in the election.

The ruling came down to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who gave the majority the fifth vote. In the wake of the ruling, Justice Kennedy states, “[o]ur nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights.” Allowing corporations to flood our elections by buying influence slowly degrades this nation’s democratic principles. Over time, the dominant force in politics would become money and corporations—not the people.

The amount of money a candidate raises should not be the indicator of his success or failure. The determinant should solely be based on the issues he/she believes is most significant.

Our lives are controlled by those green pieces of paper, but that doesn't mean it should control who we choose to run our country.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml#Disclaimers

http://www.globalissues.org/