The Pros And Cons Of Australian Political Donation

This type of government has remained up to this day. The reason why some Australians say that we should become a republic is because they believe that we have become independent as a country and that we deserve to own our own name, instead of being another part of Britain. Some say we should delay becoming a republic until the Queen dies or retires, or the global financial crisis is over, or until all the other important issues facing Australia have been dealt with. As we all know, tomorrow never comes.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.” (Madison, Fed.

However, the group was prevented from doing so: because prior to the ruling, doing so would violate a federal statute that prohibits the use of advertisements to promote or discriminate against any candidate in an election. But because the First Amendment prevents the making of any laws preventing people from practicing Free Speech, the Supreme Court eradicated this federal statute; this made all political ads legal, regardless of nature. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated after the decision “With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues." (McConnell v. FEC) For this reason, many believe that overturning the Citizens United ruling would be unconstitutional and by doing so would the Supreme Court would be limiting Freedom of

Caused by the flaw in the federal law that electors do not have to vote for whom they have pledged for. However, a punishment is given if they choose to go down that route "($1000 fine)". The issue with this is, when voting, rather than directly voting for the campaigner a voter is actually voting for his/her elector. And in return, the elector will vote for that campaigner. Rendering citizen votes useless in elections if the citizens don 't even get to choose who they wish to be president.

As citizens, the only thing that we can do to help fight against gerrymandering would be to use our legislative powers and fight for more transparent and public system within their states to hold elected officials accountable. Even if we were able to fix gerrymandering, it still would not be enough to fix gridlock. If we were able to fix gridlock, it still would not solve close to any of the problems rooted in Washington. It seems as though we are waiting for the problems to fix themselves, but we need to realize it isn't a problem that can fix itself. Each state needs to work within itself every ten

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he warned against the danger of political parties to American democracy. However, for better or worse, political parties are linkage institutions that dominate our politics and election system. Many Americans define their political identity and views by their membership in a political party-generally Republican or Democrat. These two parties capture the vote of the majority of American voters, however the influence of third parties should not be discounted. The Green Party was founded in 2001 and is based around social justice and environmentalism.

Technically under this system we do not directly vote for our President/Vice President. Instead they select a group of people who have pledged to vote for their chosen candidate. These groups of people that

The Voting Rights Act was passed in order to stop states from prohibiting any laws or actions that could potentially hinder the ability for a minority to vote (DMS Chapter 3). This act gives the federal government more power in how states run elections. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is what defines a state’s ability to not being able to pass a discriminatory disenfranchisement law. This section centers on voter dilution, which are the processes that make voting for candidates difficult for racial or ethnic minorities (Clark lecture, Jan. 25). On the basis of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, felony disenfranchisement laws can be seen as a form of voter dilution because these laws are disproportionally affecting a large number of African American minorities in prison.

Whenever I hear the word politics, I think of the generalization of the word. I do not just think about the presidential elections because it is just a small part of it. Politics means citizens argue or converse about issues, such as abortion, gun control and illegal aliens. It also is for individuals to dispute over the concerns of citizens in order to gain power. Politics also means the activities of the government such as law making.

In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.

In Unions NSW v New South Walese the argument was about the rational connection between the challenged provisions (EFED act) and the legitimate end. McCloy case however was more focused on political donations and preventing undue influence and corruption of the government. The most significant implication of the McCloy case is about re-writing of the test in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Commission

Limiting independent expenditures is circumscribing the money spent by individuals and groups such as 527s – types of U.S. tax-exempt organizations organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code – and super PACs – types of independent political action committees which may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals, but are not permitted to contribute to or coordinate directly with parties or candidates – for candidates and parties that the individuals and groups are not directly affiliated with. Proponents have several viable arguments in favor of the proposal. One of the cogent

4. They are source of ideas and innovations. Lobbyists can’t introduce bills, but they can introduce an idea to and politician who will be eager to attach the lobbyists name

For partisan judicial elections, candidates are selected by and affiliated with a political party whereas nonpartisan judicial elections “require candidates to campaign unaffiliated with any political party, and they appear on the ballot without a party designation” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Partisan elections allowed for judges to be responsive to the same forces as those given to other elected officials; therefore, the concern of this feature caused for a shift leading away from partisan elections to nonpartisan. This is because these elections “reduced the influence party politics have on judicial elections, they also remove party identification as a basis for voters to cast their ballots” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn,

Super PACs are kind of political action committee that are funded by unions, corporations, and individuals. They are allowed to raise unlimited sums of money, then spend that money discretely for, or against a campaign(“super PACs”). The result of two supreme court rulings, Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commision, and Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commision, said that the afore mentioned groups could not be kept from donating any amount for Super PACs. PACs are not allowed to communicate and plan their spending in accordance with a campaign, although this is nearly impossible to uphold.