Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/297523
Title:
Campaign Finance Reform: A Critical Blow to the First Amendment
Author:
Carstensen, Morgan Elizabeth
Issue Date:
2013
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
Freedom of speech is one of our most valued rights; however, it is also one of the most contentious. Whether rightly or wrongly, the courts continuously try to find the balance between an individual’s right to speech and the functioning of society. It is this reason that one is not permitted to yell "fire" in a public place. Doing so could incite chaos, resulting in the destruction of property and personal harm. Freedom of speech, then, is often weighed against other rights to determine how strictly it should be protected. In regards to campaign finance, the argument goes that those with greater economic standing have a monopoly on speech. Therefore, it is in the interest of democratic equality that restrictions are set in place as to prevent any undue influences. While this might restrict the speech of a few, the benefit will be greater to many. In this paper I contest this notion, and instead present a positive relationship between money and speech and how embracing such a concept is ultimately more respectful of the individual right to freedom of speech. In order to do so, a brief legal history on campaign finance law will be detailed, following an in-depth analysis of key court cases, including Citizens United. The egalitarian justification for campaign finance reform will be included as a response to the Citizens case. Lastly, and most importantly, this paper will prove that money is a necessary component to speech, and to restrict it is to violate the protections guaranteed under the First Amendment.
Type:
text; Electronic Thesis
Degree Name:
B.A.
Degree Level:
bachelors
Degree Program:
Honors College; Political Science
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Dovi, Suzanne

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleCampaign Finance Reform: A Critical Blow to the First Amendmenten_US
dc.creatorCarstensen, Morgan Elizabethen_US
dc.contributor.authorCarstensen, Morgan Elizabethen_US
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractFreedom of speech is one of our most valued rights; however, it is also one of the most contentious. Whether rightly or wrongly, the courts continuously try to find the balance between an individual’s right to speech and the functioning of society. It is this reason that one is not permitted to yell "fire" in a public place. Doing so could incite chaos, resulting in the destruction of property and personal harm. Freedom of speech, then, is often weighed against other rights to determine how strictly it should be protected. In regards to campaign finance, the argument goes that those with greater economic standing have a monopoly on speech. Therefore, it is in the interest of democratic equality that restrictions are set in place as to prevent any undue influences. While this might restrict the speech of a few, the benefit will be greater to many. In this paper I contest this notion, and instead present a positive relationship between money and speech and how embracing such a concept is ultimately more respectful of the individual right to freedom of speech. In order to do so, a brief legal history on campaign finance law will be detailed, following an in-depth analysis of key court cases, including Citizens United. The egalitarian justification for campaign finance reform will be included as a response to the Citizens case. Lastly, and most importantly, this paper will prove that money is a necessary component to speech, and to restrict it is to violate the protections guaranteed under the First Amendment.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeElectronic Thesisen_US
thesis.degree.nameB.A.en_US
thesis.degree.levelbachelorsen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineHonors Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePolitical Scienceen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorDovi, Suzanne-
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.