Due to some recent court rulings (such as SpeechNow v. FEC), specific types of nonprofit organizations are no longer legally required to list the names of their donors, who can now indirectly donate much larger sums of money to the candidates/parties they want to support. These nonprofit organizations had a significant amount of influence on campaign money. In fact, CBS News reported that $145 million dollars were donated to midterm election campaigns by anonymous donors. One notable nonprofit organization was the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which used $12.6 million dollars on advertisements for Mitch McConnell. Political advertisements are still required to state who made the add, but in this case either the candidate or the nonprofit organization who directly made the add have to be made public, not the anonymous donors. People against these new practices protest the large amount of influence it gives to wealthier citizens and the lack of knowledge Americans have regarding "who finances who". Those who support these new methods argue that the organizations are nonprofit and regulated, so the money is used to support politicians' campaigns, not to give money with the intent to influence politicians to do certain things. Proponents also argue that this gives citizens more freedom to spend their money as they please, without corrupting politicians.
1.Do you think that nonprofit organizations should be able to help donors anonymously give large sums of money to certain candidates and parties? Why or why not?
2.Will less restricted donations give the Republican or Democrat Party an advantage? Do you think the Republican party received more donations in this fashion during the recent midterm elections?
3.In SpeechNow V. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that curbing the amount of money someone can donate to an organization such as SpeechNow violated the First Amendment. Do you think the Supreme Court will eventually reverse or alter that ruling?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The CBS article you referenced talks about how the recent court cases allowed nonprofits to accept anonymous donations, but I don't think the courts allowed "much larger" donations as you mentioned. While those are two separate issues, the fact that so much of the advertisements and campaigns were funded by donors who chose to remain anonymous just suggests possibly un-ethical motives. As Allison says, there's nothing wrong with wanting to keep your political views private, but in this case, many donors are donating for specific candidates and for specific reasons. I believe that there is importance in having nonprofits' finances visible and understanding where they get their money (and to a certain extend how it's being used.) I also think it would be valuable to see the impact of revealing names; how it might change voters' opinions, how the media might analyze it, and what motives lie under it all.
Post a Comment