Election

In today’s political environment it takes a lot of supporters, money, and hard work to get elected. The political environment is very demanding and is a very prestige system. In order to get elected one needs a big group of supporters. This would include political parties. Every candidate needs a political party. A political party is an organized group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office. The political parties have a huge impact on the outcome of the elections. Since in every election it is primarily a two sided party system either republican or democrat, political parties decipher between the two. Political parties join groups of people who have the same point of views or beliefs of how the government should be run. They then try to influence the government by having its members elected to a government position. In order to influence people or the government of who should be elected it takes a lot of money. Soft money and hard money are both used in today’s election. Soft money is essentially donated to political parties and in a sense leaves the contribution unregulated. Since soft money is not regulated by election laws anybody can give donations in any amount they prefer and give it to a political party for a purpose of party building which includes ads that educate voters about issues. However, in the ads that are made they may not tell voters which candidate to vote for. As for hard money, it is from political donations that are indeed regulated by law through the Federal Election Commission. This in other terms means that donations can only come in certain amounts and they have to follow all the rules and regulations that the Federal Election Commission imposes. In contrast to soft money, when making ads with hard money they may specifically tell voters who to vote for. Hard money and soft money are essential for elections. They gain money for each campaign, add advertising, and most of all gain VOTERS! Since money is power it is crucial for candidates to get and raise as much money as possible. Through recent years money has had a big impact on who wins the election. Besides from soft and hard money candidates can receive money from the Political Action Committees also know as PAC. Any corporation, labor union, trade association, or other organization may establish a Political Action Committee. PAC’s are allowed to give up to 5,000 dollars to a candidate committee per election and along with that they can also give up to 15,000 dollars annually to any national party committee per year. Also, PAC’s can receive up to 5,000 dollars from any one individual. The role that the PAC plays on an election is that it raises and spends money in purpose to elect and defeat candidates. Through the PAC candidates have a chance to become on top and be the number one spot. Besides from the money playing a role in the election, media has a big impact on the outcome as well. Media bias is an angle or slant that a person or an organization puts on a story or situation. When it is election year networks posts many stories that pertain to each candidate. They are able to put any twist they want on their stories which through a candidates eyes could be a good thing or a very bad thing. Through the media bias it allows each candidate to become advertised, which is vital for each candidate. When all said and done it is ultimately up to voters of whom they want to lead their country. I fully believe that this method solely democratic. Each individual is given freedom to vote for whoever they want. Yes, there is media and parties to persuade their decisions but when it comes down to it, it is their decision. They have the freedom to do what they want, which also means they do not have to even vote. That brings me to the last aspect of elections, is the voting turnout. Voting turnout is the percentage of eligible individuals who can actually vote. Among these eligible individuals only 50 percent actually participate. This is an exceptionally low turnout, but I feel it is good for America. First off, if everyone had to vote then it would be an unfair turnout. The people would just vote for any individual that they know nothing about. People would be carless with their votes and the wrong candidate could win. It is good that the people that do vote, do, they study who they want to vote for and are dedicated to it. Then last America gives its people freedom, if they do not want to vote they don’t have too! It is good that the few people that do vote really mean it and are sincere.

Civil Liberties Test

The first court case that illustrates when freedoms and protections collide is seen in the Texas v. Johnson case. In this court case Johnson burned an American flag as a mean of protest against Reagan administration policies. He was then tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration and was sentenced a year in jail and a 2,000 dollar fine until the case was eventually taken to the supreme court. It was found under the first amendment that Johnson's flag burning was a protected expression. Johnson's actions had conduct and political nature to it. Just because society disagrees and has different beliefs does not mean they are able to just arrest Johnson; it is freedom to express his beliefs in an orderly conduct. The next court case that displays when freedoms and protections collide is seen in the Vernonia School District 47 v. Acton. The background of this case is that the student athletes in the Vernonia School District took part in illicit drug use. As to their findings the Vernonia School District proposed the Student Athlete Drug Policy which reguired random drug testing of its students athletes. However, Acton and his parents decided to refuse the idea of drug testing and he was denied participation to play football. The parents then argued that the random drug testing violates the fourth amendment under the reasonable search and seizure clause. In the end it ruled that drug testing did not violate the amendment. The governments concern for the safety of its students under their supervision overrides any students privacy. This case really affects athletes out of school life. What they do outside of school drinking or taking part in drugs now affects their life in school and participation of sports. They do not have freedom to do what they want without consequences to follow. The third court case was said to have violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment. The New Jersey v. T.L.O. court case was an incident in which a fourteen year old girl was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school because the principle smelled smoke coming from the bathroom. The principle then accused her and searched her purse which then was found a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. The argument following the principle actions was whether the search violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment. In conclusion it did not violate due to reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind. The principle had the right to search due to her suspicion. The girl did not have the freedom to bring dugs to school and is not protected under any amendment. It is the principles responsibility to ensure safety upon her students and is able to search under her suspicion to ensure that. The last court case is Gideon v. Wainright in which Gideon was charged with breaking and entering, but when requested the court to appoint an attorney for him the court refused to grant his wish. He was later sentenced to five years in state prison. All in all when the state court refused to appoint a counsel for Gideon it did indeed violate his right to fair trial and was protected under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. It is a fundamental right for fair trial for a defendant to be granted a counsel. Gideon's freedom brought him far in this case. It helped in gaining a fair trial and dismissed his five year sentence to possibly less due to his freedom and getting an appointed counsel.