April 10, 2014
The Supreme Court recently decided that the cap on how much someone can donate to a politician’s campaign has been removed. In other words, those with money can shovel as much funding as they have and want to the candidates running for federal office. The argument in favor of this decision is that the limit was a violation of the free speech of the First Amendment.
Last year, voting restriction laws were set into place, such as voter ID requirements and changes to the absentee ballot process. According to How Race Factors into Recent Supreme Court Rulings on Elections, the strategies to make voting difficult for minorities were intensified in states that “went blue in 2008 and 2012”.
There is now no limit to how much someone can donate to a campaign. This essentially means that those with money can throw funding at the candidate who will make sure to benefit them while in office. So, instead of having a fair election, the excessive funding helps to skew the playing field in favor of the candidate preferred by the rich, instead of the majority.
Then, the voting requirements set in place impede a great number of people in their efforts to vote. These regulations allow people with enough time and money to access what they need to qualify to vote, while the rest of the country that may not be able to afford something, such as a State ID or aren’t able to take time out of their 50 hour work weeks to wait in line to acquire one, are unable to cast their vote.
That does not sound like a fair deal.
Written by Michaela Lies, writing intern at Three Rivers Community Foundation and student at Washington & Jefferson College.