What do you want to hear from President Obama on Tuesday night? Do you support sending in the 35,000 additional troops that is being reported as his decision? Do you think the president should lay out a timeline for withdrawing troops in the region? Do you want to know how he plans to pay for the escalation of troops?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Money and Politics
The U.S. Congress in 1973 and again in 2002 has passed legislation that attempted to control the amount of money spent in political campaigns. The legislation attempted to regulate how much an individual could contribute (currently $2000), how much Political Action Committees (PACS) could provide a candidate ($5000), as well as, regulating what outside groups could do in support of a particular candidate. The 1973 law also limited how much candidate's could spend on their campaigns. That provision was deemed unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
In his bid to win election to the presidency Barack Obama spent over $760 million, a record for a presidential candidate. In fact, Obama spent more than George Bush and John Kerry spent combined in 2004. Of course, campaign spending has soared well past the cost of living in all election contests. Many reformers are concerned as campaign spending increases and candidates are pressed to raise funds at an increasingly alarming rate that the candidates become more indebted to those who provide the money.
Others, however, argue that how one spends one's money is nothing more than expression of their support for a particular candidate and thus should be considered speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Further, they argue that the only way that challengers have of defeating entrenched incumbents is to raise large sums of money to overcome the advantages that an incumbent naturally has from his position in office.
Is there a way to stop the influence of money in politics? Should we try to regulate how much is spent on political campaigns?
Some have proposed that the Congress establish a partial public funding mechanism for House of Representatives and Senate races. When candidates reach a threshold amount of fundraising, which would vary from state to state based on population, they would receive government funding for their campaigns. They would have to meet the threshold with contributions of $100 or less. They could continue to receive funding through this arrangement by gaining $4 for every $1 they raise through these small contributions.
What do you think of such a proposal?
In his bid to win election to the presidency Barack Obama spent over $760 million, a record for a presidential candidate. In fact, Obama spent more than George Bush and John Kerry spent combined in 2004. Of course, campaign spending has soared well past the cost of living in all election contests. Many reformers are concerned as campaign spending increases and candidates are pressed to raise funds at an increasingly alarming rate that the candidates become more indebted to those who provide the money.
Others, however, argue that how one spends one's money is nothing more than expression of their support for a particular candidate and thus should be considered speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Further, they argue that the only way that challengers have of defeating entrenched incumbents is to raise large sums of money to overcome the advantages that an incumbent naturally has from his position in office.
Is there a way to stop the influence of money in politics? Should we try to regulate how much is spent on political campaigns?
Some have proposed that the Congress establish a partial public funding mechanism for House of Representatives and Senate races. When candidates reach a threshold amount of fundraising, which would vary from state to state based on population, they would receive government funding for their campaigns. They would have to meet the threshold with contributions of $100 or less. They could continue to receive funding through this arrangement by gaining $4 for every $1 they raise through these small contributions.
What do you think of such a proposal?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Life Sentences for Youth Offenders?
Next Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Graham v. Florida, a case that will determine whether giving juveniles life sentences is considered cruel and unusual punishment. In 2005 the Court ruled that executing any one under the age of 18 was unconstitutional. Court watchers are interested to see if the Court follows up that case by likewise declaring life sentences for juvenile offenders.
Terrence Graham was sentenced to life in prison after he committed two felonies within a year of his turning 15.
Across the country, 111 people are serving life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles that did not result in a death, according to one report; 77 of them are locked up in Florida, for crimes including armed robbery and carjacking. The state took a get-tough approach in the 1990s in response to a crime wave that was "compromising the safety of residents, visitors, and international tourists, and threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry," Florida's brief to the court states.
Terrence Graham was sentenced to life in prison after he committed two felonies within a year of his turning 15.
The National District Attorneys Association, supporting Florida, said that while life without parole for juveniles might be unusual, "permanent incarceration for the most violent, hardened juvenile offenders is by no means 'cruel.' "
Sullivan and Graham are supported by a wide-ranging group of organizations: the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and academics and social scientists who argue that juveniles cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are. For the same reason, they say, younger teenagers are not entrusted with decisions such as voting, marrying or drinking.
A group of educators and social scientists told the court that such research was crucial to the 2005 decision that juveniles should not be subject to the death penalty. "The principal purposes of sentencing -- punishing the culpable and deterring the rational -- are not furthered by denying the possibility of parole to adolescents," the group said.
Should juveniles be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of ever getting out of prison? Should juveniles be held for life for crimes that fall short of murder? Should the age of the juvenile come into play?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
