Is it reasonable that the more money you have the more of a voice you have in elections?
When I was looking into the Buckley v. Valeo case, I I thought it was interesting that the more money you could give to candidates meant that you had more of a say on which side the elections swings. Researching more into it, in 1976 it was acceptable that one could give money and that was the same thing as a written consent that states one concurs with a candidate. The Supreme Court investigated if this simply goes against the First Amendment. This pretty much allowed the more wealthy to determine which way the election swings. Big finance companies could give unlimited amounts of money to campaigns. Letting money swing the election a certain way was considered as unconstitutional in the case. The court came to the conclusion that only one thousand dollars could be given to a candidate. However, that never really was followed through with. In addition, in the next few years, in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the court opened the campaign spending floodgates. The justices’ said that political spending is protected by the First Amendment. They thought that anyone could spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign members. Today, it is justifiable to spend limitless amounts of money on a political activist. This is protected under the First Amendment. In contradiction I do not agree with the fact that just because one has more money to give to a campaign member gives them an advantage of having more of a voice in the election. Some people are already set back in society with financial expenses because of their family they were born into, skin color, religion, or etc. Therefore, I think we should have restrictions on how much money is given to a campaign member and eliminating money as a factor in having the election favor a certain politician.