Eng 102 Informative Research Paper

ENG 102 - Online Informative Research Paper Requirements Due dates: The Informative Research Paper is a report comparing and contrasting information from a minimum of 8 reliable and current sources, as explained in the course. Unlike your next research paper, this paper is an informative research report (NOT an argument research paper). All parts of the paper must be included or the paper will not be accepted: Paper Requirements (all must be in MLA format): 1. Title page (instructions will be provided in class) 2. A formal outline, including a Main Idea statement at the top of the outline page (this paper has no thesis) 3. Body of paper must be a minimum of 4 full pages, typed, double-spaced, 12 point Times/Times New Roman font (6-page maximum) 4. A minimum of 15 citations from a minimum of 8 reputable sources 5. A Works Cited page using MLA guidelines 6. Submit the paper and its supporting research as a single document by pasting the articles into the end of the paper, beginning with a new page after the Works Cited page. Highlight the parts that you are summarizing, paraphrasing, or directly quoting in your paper. The paper should contain: *An introduction paragraph that provides an appropriate opening statement, some general history and background of the topic, a preview of main points, and a main idea statement that addresses what the issue consists of. *At least 4 well-developed body paragraphs that address the following key points: -General history and background regarding the general topic and the specific issue -A detailed and in-depth explanation of the parties involved directly and indirectly, as taught in the course -A detailed and in-depth explanation of the major points of debate (pro/con) within the issue, including an analysis of disagreement as discussed in the text -A detailed and in-depth explanation of what is at stake for the immediate parties involved and for broader society in the outcome of action taken on the issue *A conclusion paragraph that summarizes the information presented, discusses the significance and brings the paper to an appropriate close. Rev. 11/13/11 Krivitz i Citizens United: Does It Protect First Amendment Rights or Undermine Democracy? By Brandon Krivitz ENG 201/70834 Jennifer Waters Date Due: October 23,2019 lnformative Research Paper I II Krivitz ii Outline Mqin ldea Statement: Although many corporations and political action committees argue that Citizens United should not be overfumed because the political donations of corporations are protected by the First Amendment and because political spending does not guarantee a victory, many citizens argue that Citizens United should be reversed because the unrestricted spending of corporations on political campaigning undermines democracy and causes politicians to put the interests of their biggest donors instead oftheir constituents. Introduction Campaign finance regulation has varied greatly across the world and in the United States and these regulations have had a range of effects on political spending and democracy. A. Campaign finance before Citizens United l. Gifts and donations in early America a/ Ben Franklin example B. Overview of the Citizens United Case 1. What caused the case t Hillary the movie ilt. 2. What the judges decided The main parties involved in the campaign finance debate are men and women in congtess, the Supreme Court, corporations, labor unions, political action committees, and American voters. A. Directly affected l. Politicians ru Krivitz iii 2. Corporations 3. Labor unions 4. Political action committees 5. American voters B. Indirectly affected 1 . American voters 2. All american citizens Parties that argue to overtum Citizens United claim that unlimited donations by corporations allow them to have unfair inJluence over elections and restricting the spending of corporations on political campaigns does not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights. A. Large donations by corporations and super PAC's cause politicians to put the interests of the large donors in front of their constituents 1. A small amount of people hold an extremely large amount of power 2. Large amounts of money droun out the voice of constituents 3. Donations are often seen as a favor that needs to be repaid. ay' Lesal "bribes" 4. Politicians are more loyal to donors a) Calling experiment B. Restricting the spending of corporations on political campaigns doesn't infringe on anyone's first amendment rights. Krivitz iv 1. A corporation doesn't have the same rights as a person and restricting their spending doesn't restrict the first amendment rights of its employees or sharehoiders . 2. Employees and shareholders are still tree to donate to any political campaign themselves. a) The r.iew of the corporation is otten very different from their ernployees. Ex. higher pay for employees and w'orkers rights 3. Corporations are not ai?orded the same constitutional rights as citizens C. By rulirrg that all shareholders of corporations the right to fund political campaigns rvould allow fbreigners to have an inlluenee over American elections. 1. This is illegal 2. This rnay allow foreign goverrunents to influence American elections af Obama quote 3. This could also allorv foreign corporations int-luence in our electiorrs Large corporations and labor unions argue that political spending is protected by tiee speech and does not determine the results ofelections. A. Campaign Finance laws infHnge on the First Amendment 1. Large groups of people still have rights a)" Citizens United Ruling 2. Money is viewed as a form of speech and therefore is protected by the first amendment ,J Abortion .tunlple from the article VI. Krivitz v b) Taking away the dght to spend is almost the same as taking away t the right to sPeak B. Political spending does not influence an election if the people do not like the candidate. l. Jeb Bush example 2. Data about political spending and election results ?) 1970 election example 3. Arnplification syslem example The rnain things at stake for the parties involved irr this debate are corporate profits, politicians campaign funds, more fair elections, and the possible election ofa different elected official, A. Corporations and Labor Unions 1 . Election of an ofticial that does not line up with their values ai An official may legislate on something tha! cuts into a corporation's profits or hurt the rights of rvorkers 2. Lost profits or pay for uorkers a) Corporations may have to lay ot-f workers because of their reduced Profits b,) A decrease in profits will lead to a decrease in the stock price and hurt the economY 3. More regulations B. Politicians 1. Ferver campaign funds a/ A larv that limits campaign donations rvill reduce all available carnpaign funds 2. Politicians rvill have to please their constituents more for donations 3. A limit on spending may huft nerv candidates a/ incurnbent's advantage b) Established connections 4. Conserwative vs Liberal spending ali Liberal candidates would most likely benefit from a larv that reduces colporate spending Krivitz vi Politicians witl be more likely to legislate against corporations now that they do not receive large donatiof,s from them C. Voters VII. Conclusion l. Fairer elections I d Elected officials will be more accountable to the peopie and will have to have the full support ofthe people to stay in office bJ Elected officials will be more loyal to conslituents 2. Politicians will rely more on constituents for donations 3. More consumer protections against corporations "f Krivitz 1 The argument about iland how campaign spending should be regulated has been dehated since the inception ofthe United States. Over the history ofthe United States, many difll'erent Iaws and couft cases have shaped hou'campaign finance works today. Some of the laws and court cases that have greatly influenced oampaign finance laws include McConnell r,. I--ederal Electittn Commission (McConnell v. FEC). the Federal Bipartisan Campaign Retbnn Act (llCR.A), and Buckley v. I:aleo. But the most significant Case by 1-ar is Citizens, United r. Federal Elections (lommission (Citizens United). Citizens United overtumed many previous Supreme Court rulings including Mc(ionnell v. FEC and deemed that limiting corporation's donations to political causcs is unconstitulional. Although many corporations and political action comnrittces argue that Citizens United should not be ovedurned because the political donations of corporations are protected by the First Amendment and because political spending does not guarantee a victory" many citizens argue that Citizens lJnited should be reversed because the unrestricted spending of corporations on political campaigning undermines democracy and causes politicians to put the interests of their biggest donors instead oltheir constituents. Political donations and gifts have bsen a major topic of debate in the United States since its inception and many different strategies have been used to try and regulatc thesc things. During thc founding of the country, when Beniamin Franklin was departing France as a diplomat fbr the {Jnited Slates. [.ouis XVI gave him "A portrait o1'King I-ouis" surrounded by 408 diamonds . . . and held in a golden case ofa kind sometimcs called a snuff box" (Teachout 1). This was olconcern to many othcr people in America because "We expect that gitis lead to some warmth and generosity, toward the giver. ifnot official favors. Such private generosit_v, however. could violale the posture that the diplomat is supposed to have towards the leadership ofthe host country" (Teachout 3). This problem introduces a problem that is still debated today. do gifts to Kriv\l2 2 politicians r.l ithout any demands fronr the giver still sway the actiol.ls of the recipients of thosc gifis. the goal of many campaign finance regulations is to curb this type of behavior an<1 lirnit parties' influence in elections. Some ofthese laws came under scrutiny in the 2010 Supreme Court Case. Citizens United v. Federal Elections ()ommission. The organizalion Citizens United was banned from making a documentary called Hillary': The Llovie because it was within 60 days of an election and was supported by a corporation (Smith I 39). ln the end, the court ruled that this was unconstitulional becausc it violated th(] First Amendment (Simpson). 'Ihe main palties involved in the campaign llnancc debate are men and women in congress. the Supremc Court, corporations, labor unions. political action committees, and Amcrican voters. Politicians and law-makers havc been vocal on both sides of the debate but the,v- have passed many campaign finance regulations in the past including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002(BCRA) (Price 419). Many senators have advocated tbr carnpaign tinance retbrm including presidential candidate Bemie Sanders (Irrice 412). Despite this. rnany oftho laws passed by Congress have been overturned by the Supreme Corlt. The supreme court has struck down parts of the BCRA and many other campaign finance laws which has reduced Congress's power to regulate campaign linance (Price 412). If Citizens United werc to be overtumed it wouid bc likely that more regulations u,'ould be passed because the majority of Americans are against the Citizens Uniled decision (Price 416). Voters also have a large involvement in the campaign llnance debate b1, choosing i.l,ho they elect. I'his can be seen by the popularity ofDonald 'frump and Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election who both funded their campaigns with their own money or through small individual donors (Price 411). The two main parlies in the dcbate over the Citizens llnited Case and campaign spending are concemed citizens and politicians, and corporations. super PACs. and advocates ol liee Krivitz 3 speech. Those who oppose the Citizens United decision give many reasons for thcir opposirion. First" they won)r that too much money in politics can corrupt democracy. Richard Ilasen says, "When thc money comes from too few donors that have too much influence- that creates a distortion of our political process" (qtd. in Price zll3). Many wory that allowing unlimited corporate donations, the voices ofregular Americans will be <lrowned out (Weintraub). Scnator Lindsey Graham also rvories that "We are turning campaigns over to about 100 people in this countrr', and are going 1o be able to advocatc their cause at the expense of your cause,'(qtd. In Price 414). Evidence lor this uas shown in a study where 2000 indivicluals requested a meering with an eleoted representative, the ones who identified themselves as political donors nere five times more likely to get a meeting (lrrice 414). Lastly. many view-large eonlributions to campaigns as so-called "legal bribes" becausc..jt.s pretty tough to tease out lhe person who says, 'Because you support this tariffthat really benefits my in<iustry. I,m going to give y.our can.tpaign a bunch o1'money.' liom the guy who says, 'lfyou suppofi this tariff, I'm going 1o give you a bunch of rnoney"'(Smith 145-46). In the ruling ofthe Citizens United Supreme Court case, the judges rulod that restricting corporate and union spending on political campaigns infringes on the first arnendment (Kairi s). But many who oppose the Citizens United decision argue that limiting the spending of corporations does not infringe on the llrst amendment because corporalions do not have the same rights as citizens. But many arguc that restricting the rights ofa corporalion to donale to political causes does not infiinge on the rights of shareholders or employees because the interest ofa company is often very different from the interest ofthe employees and shareholders (Joo 346). Thomas Joo argues thal corporations' shareholders do not have significant po\,'er to choose vr..hat spcech the corporation makes and therefore their rights cannot be infringed on (346). Krivilz 4 Additionally. the Supreme Court argued thal monev should be viewed as a form of speech. br_rt opponents of this decision disagree because "Traditional speech-law analysis would separate the speech from the conduct (or "nonspeech") elcments ol'campaign spending and donation and allorv considerable leeway to regulatc the latter" (Kairys). l-astly, many argue that by giving all shareholders the righls oftrce speech. this gires fbreign shareholders an undue influence over American elections and as president Barack Obama said. "open the lloodgates for special interests including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our elections" (q1d. In Doyle). Ellen Weintraub points out that ..Individual lbreigners are barred fiom spending to sway elections" (Weintraub). But ifcorporations get thcir rights to speak from their shareholders therr how can the corporations contribute if sorne shareholders are specifically barred from spending in American elections (Weintraub). l-his has many'"vorried that lbreign nationals and corporations may be able to have undue influence over Amcrican elections (Weintraub). Corporations who support Citizens United often argue that their spending is protected by the flrst amendment because of individual rights and corporate democracy. They argue that indir"iduals should not lose llieir right to free speech simply because thcy join a corporate cntir) (Simpson). The Supreme Court said that "such complex laws, the necessity of hiring law-lers to interprel them. and the lawsuits to whioh they lead inevitabll, chill free speech', (Simpson)_ The court also argued that "Speaking out in loday's world oftcn requires large expenditures oflmoney, so a ban on corporate indepcndent expenditures amounts to an outright ban on speech', (Sirnpson). Bradley Smith suggests that money should be protected by the First Amentlment because "if a legislature passed a law saying it shall be illegal to spend an.v', monev to procurc or provide abortion services, I think most ofus would recognize that that would infringe on any Krivitz 5 right that might exist to obtain an abortion" (Smith 144). Additionalty, former senator Iiugone McCarthy, says that large political donations increase democracy because, ,.There is clear historical evidence that large contributors have been highly important in supporting controversial and maverick political movements" (qtd. In price 425). David Keating also points out that by limiting political spending, incumbents antl people ra..ith name recognition get a huge advanlage (qtd. In Price 425). Another main point argued by those who support the Citizens United case is that political spending does not always influence an election and oniy informs voters atrout what they may not know. There are many examples ofone candidate outspending another but still losing the election. In the 2016 election the largest super PAC used their i'unds to support.Teb Bush, who later ended his campaign because ofa lack ofvoter support (price 413). In many senatodal. gubematorial. and house races. there are plenty of examples of the loser outspending the winncr including 16 govemors" 206 house seats and halfofthe senate seats in the 1970 clection (Diamond 2l-23). Many super PACs also believe that speech by corporations, labor unions, and super PACs simply gives the voter more information and does not unfairly swal, the elections. Steven I-aw, the president of a large super PAC said "Super PACs are onl1, 'the amplilication system, so . . . if the musio is lousy, it doesn'1 matter if you tum it up. It's still not going to sound all that convincing" (qtd. in Price 41 4). Groups that support the Citizens [Jnited decision. assert that their political speech simply allows voters to become more inlormed and does not unfairly inlluenge elections. There are serious concems fbr w'hat is at stake for parlies on both sides of this tlebate. On one hand. it is important to proteot the rights and profits ofcorporations. lf polilical donations by corporations, unions. and super PACs were limited it could lead to the election ofoandidates that Krivitz 6 pass legislation which could hurt corporations and the economy. 'l'he passing ofregulations that limit election spending would also likely benefit liberals and hurl conservative because the majority of corporate money goes to conservativc politicians (Price 413). Candidates would also flnd it rnore difficult to firnd their campaigns therelbre giving incumbents an advantage ovcr newromers (Smith). On the other hand, it is also very important to protect the integrity of democracy and make sure the voices ofall Americans are heard by politicians. If corporations are fiee to donate money to any politioal cause, politicians may be inclined to oniy caler to the demands to those who donate to their cause and could lead to the decline of American democracy (Price 425). Politicians could become less reliant on their constituents fbr support. Policies that hurt the public could be passed because they help large donors. Politicians and thc supreme court are €sked with protecting their constituents while also protecting the rights ofeveryone and boosting the economy-. Many politicians may argue that by protecting the interests of corporations they are protecting the economy which in turn bencfits their constituents. Many others will argue that corporate money is oonupting democracy and is drowning out the voices of the constituents. As long as there are organizations that are willing to try and inllucnce elections with large amounts ofmoney, this will continue to be a heated debatc by politicians, voters, corporations. PACs. and labor unions. Krivilz 7 Works Cited Diamond. Robert A., and Stanley N. Wellborn. Dollar politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1971. Print. Doyle, Kenneth P. "Campaign Finance Reforn.r Is Still Necessary Afler the Citizens Unitcd Ruling." Opposing l/ielopoints (2010): N. pag. Gule In Conlext; Oppo,sing l/iewpoints. Web.1 I Sept. 2019. .loo, Thomas W. "Corporate speech & the rights of others." ()on,ytitutional (lommentary (2015): p. 335-60. Gale In ()ontext: Oppo,sing Viev'points. Web. I I Sept. 2019. Kairys, David. "The Citizens United l)ecision That Supports Super PAC Spending Is Flawed." Super PACs (2014): N. pag. Gale In Context: Opposing Vie\4lpoints. Web. i 7 Oct. 20i9. Price. Tom. "Campaign Finanoe." CQ Researcher 6 (2016):409-32. Ce Re,searcher. Web. 1i Sept.20l9. Simpson, Steve. "Citizens United and the Battle lor Free Speech in America." Civil Libertie; (2013): N. pag. Gale ln (:ontext; Opposing Viev,point,s. Web. 11 Sepr. 2019. Smith. Bradley A. "Campaign Finance and Free Speech: Finding the Radicalism in Citizens Llnited V. Fec." Horvard Journal of Low & Public Policy 4 t.l (201S): 139 151. liBSCOhost. Web. t9 Sept. 2019. Smith. Bradley. "The Incumbent's Bane: Citizens United and the 2010 Eleotion." Wull Street .hurnal25 Jan. 2011. Eastern ed.: A15. ProQuest. Web. 19 Sept.2019. Krivi2 B Teachout. Zephyr, Corruplbn in America: fi,om Benjamin I.'runklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United. 2074. Print. Wcintraub. lillen I-. "Taking on Citizens United-" Ney, York Times 30 Mar. 2016. ProQuest. Web. 21 Sept. 2019.