In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled on "Citizens United" a case stating that during elections independent contributors, while unable to give money directly to candidates, are allowed to spend as much capital as they choose on advertisements for or against them. These SuperPACs, as they're called, require no oversight from the candidates they claim to speak for- indeed they are not allowed to work with these candidates. Thus they are allowed to make more spurious claims farther removed from their candidates stances. The Supreme Court left too much room for claims unsupported by both the candidates and facts.
The supporters of Citizens United claim that SuperPACs help keep voters more informed, as any group making the ads is able to spread "arguments that voters may find useful in casting their votes" (Chicago Tribune Editorial Par 8). While this is technically true, it leaves out the mitigating factor of money. Any group is able to make ads about any subject they choose, but ad space and ad time goes to the highest bidder, the wealthiest "donor". As such, candidates with the most funding tend to be white older men, usually with previous experience (incumbent or known publicly) with stances more in line with the donors. They also "increase transparency" by making these donors more visible- as they are the names behind the ads, rather than the candidates they are supporting. The billionaire minority funding the ads are required by the act to be visible, and are thus the most easily researched sources for campaign ads.
Those opposed to the act note that as the act is designed, it almost encourages inaccuracy. Candidates are prohibited from interacting directly with the campaign ads creators, facilitating their mistruths and misleading. Another issue is the ads are unregulated with regard to content. "Attack ads" (ads used to discredit or insult candidates) are encouraged through this. Just as donors can decide which of their candidates stances to push and which to embellish, so too can they embellish and push stances that candidates they are against would not.
Frankly, I believe SuperPACs go against the principles of democracy. A true democracy requires fair and balanced time for all candidates to present their ideas- something that is impossible in the best possible situation. Allowing time to be purchased precludes minority and lower class candidates from meaningful discourse. Allowing groups such as the Koch conglomerate to decide which candidates get the most support and time to air their issues maintains the current status quo of our government- something we've seen for too long needs to change.
Franky,
ReplyDeleteVery well written and informative post. It seems like you have a great grasp on this topic, as you can present the basics of it very well.
However, your post is missing some critical facts that would give it key credibility. Again, try to infuse statistics, dollar amounts, specific names (Koch is a good start), and specific SuperPACs that raising money and spending it on ads. Where are they doing this? Iowa? Think about these very specific facts - find them - and use them to strengthen your post.
Also, your opposing viewpoint paragraph is your strongest and longest paragraph. Be sure, that if you are going to convince your readers otherwise, that your supportive paragraph (your analysis) is stronger, in that it has more facts, more bold (thesis-like) statements, and more length than the opposing view.
You have to prove your thesis, so these supportive paragraphs should be the stand outs.
Lastly, please insert at least 3 pictures in every post, so that your post is eye-catching and well-designed. See if you can Google some images that fit your theme/topic.
Overall, I think that you have the foundation. You have great writing skills. Let's just infuse more facts and strengthen your analysis, and your posts will be near perfect.
GR: 83