Free Essay About Freedom Of Speech

The campaign finance reform consists of laws that regulate the extent and manner to which a candidate and political parties can receive monetary aids from corporations and individuals. These financial contributions are meant to fund both the party operations and the campaigns. Ever since the Civil War, the Congress at varied times, has attempted to control who can grant and the sum total that they are permitted to donate. America views free speech as essential for a democratic society. However ways of obstructing it can be innumerable and sometimes a well-meaning laws step over (Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Speech 1).
On the one hand, Proponents of the campaign finance reform debates that parties donating financial support do so in expectation of government favors thus, rendering the contributions as some form of legal bribery. This trend also presents unfair advantage to wealthier individuals. On the other hand, opponents of the reform argue that meddling with how candidates can receive donations and how corporations can financially support limits both the speech of the candidates and the supporters (Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Speech 1). Since voters will never elect a candidate they have never heard, and hence, the need for the politician to advertise. Therefore, it follows that the candidates’ needs money to facilitate communication and limiting payments limits free speech. They further maintain that the regulations are unconstitutional and that the first amendment of the constitution grants corporations and individuals the right to support parties and candidates with monetary donations. The amendment further denies the government the right to retain control over range and quantity of debate on public issues in a political campaign. Hence, the effort to deny the people this power is unconstitutional (Fekrat 2).
The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, although it promises to reduce corrupting influence is among the unconstitutional proposal which if passed will shake the First Amendment. However, the Congress could adopt constitutional measures that would address concerns such as lack of transparence in contributions as a result of evasions and distortions of the current complex reform finance laws. Congress needs to realize that the perceived abuses are predictable outcome of the past reforms in which the principal focuses was the suppression of political speech. Politicians spend a lot of money to win an election, and the value keeps rising with each election. It is beyond doubt that the amount a candidate has can determine his chances of winning. This has led to people becoming more concerned with the power the system can lend to the wealthy. A candidate finds himself in the temptation to promise corporations favors incase he wins. The legislators stepped up to stop the wealthy from gaining a grip over the elections, and passed the laws which limit people in how they can make monetary contributions (Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Speech 1).
Another famous legislation is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which restricts campaign advertising and funding. Although this move seems perfect corruption antidote, some contend that the money is a fundamental channel to get the words out and limiting it opposes the first amendment act. as candidates who have been already in office enjoy media attention, recognition and other resources that would help them campaign, others must spending more on marketing themselves. Basing on this argument, equally limiting the finances gives an upper arm to incumbents (Fekrat 3).
In conclusion, the current financial reform acts has greatly placed new candidates and a disadvantage compared to those initially in offices. It has limited their source of monetary donation and their ability to express themselves to their potential voters. Therefore the further amendments that may be adopted should take into consideration this fact.

Works Cited

"Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Speech." Wisconsin Law Journal (2014) PP. 1-3
Fekrat, Nasim. "War for Words: Freedom of Speech After America Leaves." OpenDemocracy Jan 21 2013 Pp. 1-3