Essay 10

     The fundamental goal of interest groups are to attempt to get legislation passed, which is in favor of one of the desires of an interest group. Such as, the NRA will do everything in their power to ensure looser gun regulations, and ensuring that anybody who desires one has an opportunity to receive a firearm; and the Susan B. Anthony List attempts to end abortion.

     The goals of the major parties generally stand in stark opposition to one another, with both sides attempting to make their "ideal" governmental system. The Republicans, generally considered to be conservative, wish to end abortion, allow for greater freedom of weaponry, desire smaller national government, and more power, and rights to the individual, while still supporting "big business." The Democrats on the other hand, generally liberal, stand for pro-choice, equal rights, and more power to the federal government.

     There are a number of ways in which interest groups help to support their party of choice. One of these methods is donating money to a particular candidate, or their party, in attempts to get this individual elected into an office of power. Another way interest groups support parties is in attempting to endear this party to the American public.

     When interest groups give money to a particular candidate, they have multiple ways in which to do this. There is directly donating to their campaign, which will allow for ads that directly say "vote for me," and puts someone who shares their view into power. The other way is through the usage of Issue ads, which are advertisements that do not directly endorse a particular candidate, but instead attempt to convince the people watching to vote based on a particular issue, such as guns, abortion, or taxes.

Economic reform essay

     There have been a number of economic reform discussed by the House of Representatives, and the Senate over the past several years. These reforms work in both directions, decreasing donations in politics, and increasing the amount that can be donated. The elimination of soft money, and the raising of limits on individual campaign contributions have both been discussed.
     Soft money, AKA the endless anonymous donations to a campaign, or candidate, often through the proxy of a Special Interest Group. Some of the possible reasons in favor of eliminating soft money are general arguments against corruption in the government, and more specific complaints against big business holding the government by the metaphorical throat. Some arguments cast in favor of keeping the usage of soft money are that removing it would violate free speech, and that it would take away the right of the people to spend their money as they wish. In essence, it would be difficult to eliminate soft money, due to those defending it, but there are still those attempting to abolish the practice.
     Raising the limits on individual campaign spending would allow for those in power to be granted more funding by others in power, who desire their views to be heard/ seen in a political environment. A reason to support the increase in donations, is that humans, especially American's, have the right to say, and do what they want, and campaign contributions allow for you to express your opinion by assisting someone with the same ideals to be put into political power. A good reason to stand against the increase in individual campaign contributions is that by increasing the amount of money that could be donated, they would increase the amount of power lying in the hands of the wealthy, even those whose views and opinions are purely self beneficial.
      Citizens United had a case, which reached the Supreme Court; the trial decided that it was against first constitution rights to restrict the amount of money that can be donated by individual spending.