Why Election Contribution Limit Should be Imposed in the US
The First amendment protects the rights of people to take part in political contributions. In 2002, the Federal Election Act was amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Act which introduced two type of election limits on the contribution for campaign functions this include aggregate and base limits. Aggregate limits dictate the amount that one should contribute in a total of all candidates. Base limits orders how much money a donor may contribute to a candidate. The First Amendment rules regarding the issues are not absolute and thus need to be updated.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) intends to amend the election contribution limits to a more efficient law for the 2017 -2018 elections due to inflation. Campaign finance is a complex and challenging body for an ordinary citizen to understand as it is the body that is currently pertained by the United States Constitution to make amendment regarding the election campaign finances. The amount of money that an aspirant is entitled to spend during the election or party contribution and group raises generates the concern that they challenge the free speech and association enshrined in the country’s constitution. This justifies the need of election limit that the court should thus input to prevent corruption and free will of people. In essence, equalization of the amount of fund that candidates use on the campaign and is funded through their campaign would be a good way to curb corruption or any appearances of bribery in the society. The FEC in the justification of election limit argues that the boundary as a goal of equality and creates an expressive balance as currently with no imposed rule that governs the amount funds only the candidate should spend.
According to the Republican National Committee and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA) it is unconstitutional that an individual can contribute $123 000to a candidate for a campaign which is more than double of the average income of all Americans income combined. They go on to claim that this makes citizens sees the government be corrupt as the elected representatives are responsible to their financial supporters than have the interest of the people. The US being a democratic state should have leaders who represent the people who elected them and not poetize the interest of their donors it thus clear that unless the government puts election contribution limit the violation the democracy will continue.
Promotion of political equality can be achieved through defining the amount of money that a candidate should spend on elections Chief Justice Robert explained that the role of money in politics should be reduced through a predetermined legislative reform. Initially, money was to be used to empower the voter on the manifests and agenda of the candidate. Today the aspirants use this funds as a bribery-like form of corruption to influence voters to vote for them leading to poor governance in United State. Citizens are not corrupt in this in case but the institution that governs the operations of the people within the organization. It is therefore that the finance campaign body to come up with the best way to determine the amount of money to be funded by contributors and number to be used (Bardes, Shelley, & Schmidt 2013).
Several organizations in the regard of the question of whether election limits should be implemented have opposed this proposal. Under the first amendment, Justice Thomas opposed the motion arguing that the aggregate limit that the government would put would cause difficulties on the aspirant to choose whose contribution and funds to accept and whose to deny to avoid exceeding the limit. As a result of a candidate rejecting the donors’ contribution, this would hinder the future government donors once the candidate is elected. The government should, therefore, disapprove this proposal of a base limit as it does not serve a meaning way in the State. Lack of public funding would affect the state economy.
Buckley, Supra, at 25 indicates that the limit is not jointly reported to avoid unnecessary abridgment of the Association freedom. Base limit encourages corruption from the election candidates as prevent him or her receiving many initial contributions. Later contributing is done and retained by the apparatus(Schmidt, Shelley, & Bardes,2017) The imposing of the limit thus diverts the priorities from helping out the people who will elect the candidates to other recipient’s personal goals. Quid pro quo definition of corruption is for a reason broadened by the committees and candidates funneling the excess massive amount of money to their accounts.
The proposal leads to constitutional constraints upon limitations of the donation in the sense that interferences with the political freedom of political communication. Through the limiting of the amount of information to be communicated which is against the constitution of the United States. The rule states that Such laws will only be held valid by the courts in case they are sensibly and appropriately adapted to helping and have a natural end in a practice which is well-matched with the United States system of illustrative and responsible government as agreed upon by the Commonwealth Constitution (Baldino, & Krieger2011). Therefore, this reform must be evaluated and compared against any agenda that has affected the high before and this test will lead to the disapproval of the change. One other reason for dissatisfaction is it limits the communication of the third party who in this case is the donor.
The United States are a democratic state which a rule for the people and elected by the citizen of the country. Therefore, it is crucial the governance should favor the taxpayer by ensuring that there is no violation of their rights and freedom like for instance free speech. Acquiring the information from the political donor is a difficult task. It is important that political scientist to link up the information regarding a total contribution and to who the donation was made so as the evaluation can be done. Getting the information would help the court make a decision by comparing the highest funded candidate and least funded and come up with a decision with the interest of people at hand. Additionally, citizens of United States should also be educated on the importance and consequences of being tricked by-election candidates who give them money in exchange for their votes.