Media

Vito Martinelli

In today’s political environment, in order to get elected great amounts of funding is needed. A candidate who does not have the financial means compared to another will have a greater difficulty in being elected. Money is needed to promote the campaign, pay workers, and fund every aspect of the campaign. One who is financially stable can spend the extra money to have extra signs made, or hire more workers to speak to citizens around the community. One who does not have the money to purchase such tools to promote the campaign will not have the same opportunity as one who is wealthy and running for a position is office. This high demand for funding created the regulations between hard money and soft money. Hard money is a direct contribution from a business or organization with regulations on how much can be donated. Hard money creates fair competition between candidates, in order to win over funding. They are not simply winning over votes, but money for their entire campaign, as well. Soft money, however, is not a fair or legal way of obtaining funding. Soft money is an indirect method in which an organization can use resources willingly to build for the candidate, or anything he or she would need for the campaign. Using this method, and working around regulations to obtain money may show the “dirty” side of politics, creating desperate measures to get elected. Organizations create a Political in Action Committees which they attempt to advance the outcome of a political issue or election. PACs are able to make contributions to a campaign, although having restrictions on the amount of funding they are allowed to donate.

As well as having funding for the campaign, candidates need to influence the media in order to win votes. If a news organization is biased by the individual they are interviewing, or following on the campaign trail, their biased views of the candidate will subconsciously transfer into their writings or speech. When an organization has biased views on certain topics, they greatly influence their viewers. Once the viewers are impacted, the candidate has a greater chance of obtaining votes and winning. Winning over a news organization, and having their reports swayed to benefit the candidate will greatly promote his or her campaign.

Voter turnout, or the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election, is very important to a candidate. They must attempt to influence as many people as they can, and getting people that may not have voted at all, promotes the candidate greatly. A low turnout is not good for American politics, this an indicator that people do not agree with the political process, or do not trust the system. Although a low voter turnout may not be good for America, making voting a requirement will only harm the political system. People who do not have strong enough beliefs to vote will be forced to make an irrational decision, and politics will become even more of a popularity contest, rather than focusing on a candidate’s true beliefs.

Political parties, in which a group is formed based on similar interests with expressed ideology. In the United States, we have a dominate two party system. This not only creates the competition within the primaries, but the general election serves to make a just choice between parties. I think the party system is a truly democratic way in politics because a candidate’s personal beliefs are expressed. Although the party system may be a fair way of getting elected, the means of gaining political popularity and funding has disrupted the true meaning of politics.

Free Until Conflict

When freedoms and civil liberties collide, the government and individual being controlled by law must follow the restrictions set in place to protect not only the individual, but the community too. The government has to protect the individuals to the best of its ability, while still allowing citizens rights of their own. If the government becomes too powerful it will be viewed as a communist control, but if not involved in areas with laws and protection of individuals, the nation would be chaos. In many cases the government has a vast amount of control to protect the individuals, but in while doing so, must not infringe upon the rights of the convicted.

In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. The court cannot convict Mapp with possessing these obscene materials, and all evidence was not able to be used in court. The police were searching for a fugitive, and the illegal search of her home violates the 4th amendment laws. Although it is necessary for the police to protect the community, they cannot convict Mapp for any reason other than the fugitive they were on the search for. This protects the individual by informing them what is being looked for in their home, they have the right to be informed, and acquired evidence cannot be used in court.

In regard to 1st amendment speech, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag destruction. He was sentenced to one year in jail and was given a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. The police felt that this was against the law, and arrested him for such actions. The Supreme Court decided that this speech was protected, and was expressive in a political nature. Although many individuals frown upon the burning or destruction of the American flag, the court cannot justify the legality of the actions. Lee was symbolically speaking, and did not cause a safety hazard to the community, allowing his speech to be protected.

In situations where increased restrictions, such as in school systems, the school has total control over how the school is run, and with safety regulations. They are able to create this authority due to the need to protect the children from harm. While in school, the faculty has the authority of a parent, and since many children in high school are minors, the protection is necessary. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O a student was accused of smoking in the bathroom, and after her bag was searched marijuana products were found. This is not a violation of the 4th amendment because the school only needs probably cause to take action with students. Although the complete control of a school system over a student seems too powerful, it is needed to protect other students in the facility.

Schools must completely protect minors while they are in school. In the case of Vernonia School District v. Acton, regarding drug testing in athletic competitions. The school is able to test for illegal substances without probable cause due to the fact that sports or clubs are extracurricular events held by the school. The court decided that drug testing does not violate the 4^th amendment because the government must protect minors, even though they may feel their rights are being violated. If they do not agree with the actions of the school, they can decide not to participate in such organizations.

As freedoms as protections collide, the individual is protection so long others are not put in jeopardy. All laws and regulations are designed as safety precautions for the community, and if one’s speech or protest is limiting the safety of the citizens, they must be controlled under the law. Many may argue they civil liberties are being destroyed by the total control of the law, but it had been completely necessary to protect all. I believe the majority of laws do not infringe on the rights of individuals, and all have regulations to promote needed safety.