Over the last several years, millions of Ameri- cans have signed up for affordable health insurance — many for the first time ever, many for the first time in many years. Millions of young people have stayed on their parents’ insurance plans while they pursue higher education to start their first jobs. Millions of senior citizens have saved money on prescription bill, they average about $1,200 saved, each senior — and tens of millions of women have access to free preventive care. Americans who were once denied insurance because they suffered from something like cancer or something as simple as acne were able to buy quality health insurance they could afford and they could trust. Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. We heard about the evils of Obamacare, about the lives it is ruining in the Republican stump speeches and in ads paid for by oil magnates, the Koch brothers. But those tales turned out to be just that — tales, made up from whole cloth, …show more content…
The Koch Brothers are trying to buy America. They not only funnel money through their phony Americans for Prosperity, they funnel money into all kinds of organizations to do the same thing that they are doing. I honestly do not believe America is for sale. But as soon as these two power-drunk billionaires are called out, they say, “It’s free speech, what’s wrong?” Most actual Americans trace their free speech to the Constitution — not a bank account that has lots and lots of zero’s at the end. A prominent pollster once said, “When does the pursuit of victory exact to a higher price? When does dishonesty distort democracy?” Politicians, political parties or media that fail to condemn these tactics — as well as broadcasters that air these ads and the consultants that make them — are all complicit in the Koch’s immorality. We as American’s should not stand idly by while the Kochs and their Republican henchman trash this country with their false and mislead- ing
The Koch network, clearly, has Americans best interests at heart. These wealthy brothers have no idea what it is like to be an average American, and their ideas only advance their own
Corporate Domination in Political Culture: An Analysis of “Dividing Citizens United: The Case v. The Controversy” by Lawrence H. Tribe Corporations have become an influential source of political financing as a result of the controversial 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which stated that corporations are protected under the First Amendment to spend unlimited sums of money in support of campaign advertisements, so long as they are not directly connected with any political candidate (Murray Digby Marziani 1). In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, by allowing corporations to use general treasury funds for unlimited political advocacy, the Court overturned several financial precedents, in addition to allowing for-profit corporations to conduct financial affairs in secret through the use of independent expenditures (Groonwald 1). The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling represents an unjust and unpatriotic view of American politics, which has led to severe corruption through the use of electioneering communications, secret money, and independent expenditures.
Nancy Maclean’s book Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America credits Charles Koch’s manipulation of American politics to the early history of the “radical right’s” master plan to take over American politics. Overestimating economist James McGill Buchanan role in the upsurge of the libertarian movement, Maclean having painted a portrait of an uncompromising and arrogant man, theorizes that there exists a need to expose James Buchanan’s underlying secretive, political establishment; an establishment, that she credits with the implantation of the “radical right’s” polarized plan to change the rules of American democratic governance. However, her desire to unfairly illustrate Buchanan’s policy beliefs
FEC (2010) has left an indelible mark on the landscape of campaign finance regulations and the boundaries of political speech in the United States. The logical framework and reasoning employed in the case have been subject to intense scrutiny and debate. While the majority opinion asserts that corporations and unions possess free speech rights, limitations on their spending infringe upon those rights, and independent expenditures do not lead to corruption, critics raise valid concerns about the potential for undue influence, the erosion of political equality, and the corruption of the democratic process. Work Cited United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Balkin, J. M., & Levinson, S. (2010).
People often think business and politics are separated from each other. However, both of them influence one another since they have a very deep connection with economics. Jane Mayer, the author of a book “Dark money”, focuses on the fact that businessmen affect politics in her book. Mayer reveals unknown history of affluent and prosperous people and how their political view have influenced American politics, and why they took such actions. The author mainly talks about Koch Family from Koch Industries to give readers specific examples of the affluent and prosperous family.
The quote, "Candidates cannot run for office in America unless they have millions upon millions of dollars," is true when looking at the
Humans are entitled to freedom of speech and when workers don’t have a voice because of the government’s oppression, isn’t the American government corrupt? Additionally, “The only policy solutions offered by the GOP would mean more misery for fast food workers and greater financial hardship for middle- class Americans”(Logan, pg.2). In his electoral campaigns, President Trump’s main motto was “Make America Great Again.” He promised that through businesses, America would be considered a great country. How does the Republican Party do this if the
Unfortunately, through the freedom granted to corporations/the wealthy through Citizens United, this spending will “distort our democracy, tilting the playing field to favor corporate interests, discouraging new candidates, chilling elected officials and shifting the overall policymaking debate…in the direction of giant corporate interests,” (Sanders and Weissman). This is one of the many reasons American citizens feel a general distrust toward “Washington” and “Wall Street.” The people in power will remain in power with no new opportunities for anyone else. Congress and the States should retain the highest powers, certainly not highly profitable corporations. Citizens United “is about dominance…by wealthy people and corporations and about legitimizing a…system that is unrepresentative, money-driven, corrupt, outmoded, and dysfunctional,” (Kairys).
The Court upheld disclosure requirements, voluntary public financing provisions, and limits on individual contributions. The Court did not uphold the caps on campaign spending, caps on spending by a candidate and family members to their own campaign, and limits on independent expenditures were abolished. Additionally, Buckley ruled compulsory acceptance of public financing unconstitutional taking an option away from campaign reformers. As demonstrated, Buckley was a monumental ruling that attempted to protect individual’s rights of expression while also protecting the integrity of American
In recent years, civil disobedience has not dropped in popularity. On April 12th, 2016, over four-hundred people were arrested in Washington, D.C. for protesting outside of Congress as a part of “Democracy Spring”, an organization with wide-ranging focuses and multitudes of supporters. On that particular day, the issue was campaign finance, and they minced no words in their disapproval of money’s influence on politics. While their demonstrations are still ongoing and their effects not yet entirely clear, one thing is certain: their voice will be
You wake up in the morning on time to go to work. The sheets are soft, warm, and soothing under your body. The sun is up and casting a gentle orange glow through your window and landing on your floor, creating an asymmetric pattern. You get up and get ready, taking a shower and letting the hot water penetrate your skin. You get dressed and eat breakfast, enjoying your morning.
Do you feel insignificant during elections? Do you worry that there is too much money in politics? Do you believe that campaigns are corrupt? All these common worries become real issues in 2010 with Citizens United v. FEC: a Supreme Court ruling that will forever be significant to elections. The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unrestricted campaign spending by corporations, but most importantly the case led to the formation of groups called super PACs: corporations or labor unions that have the ability to use its general treasury and unlimited donations to influence elections.
In a Charles Koch interview he stated, “I 'm more interested in the understanding, the education, the cultural aspects...that 's what 's going to drive what kind of country we 're going to have and whether we can really change the trajectory of the country”. (Fisher, 2015,
January 2010, U.S. Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that nonprofit corporations, for profit corporations, and/or labor union will not be denied their 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, at which their voice should be heard. They also go on to explain, for purposes of political speech, corporations speech can be identified through the use of money. In other words, U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person freedom of speech is equivalent to freedom to spend money to be heard. This was a decision that gave corporations the right to spend unlimited money on political ads that directly supported or fixed on specific candidates.
Birth control is a controversial topic and I never understood why. There are many American women who use birth control, Ninety-nine percent of all sexually experienced women have used it at some point in their lives. That’s a lot of women yet it’s not easily accessible. A 2010 survey found that more than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control.