Citizens Divided: The Corruption of Campaign Finance
With discussion circulating the nation regarding the 2024 presidential election, there is no better time to discuss the impact of the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. The Federal Election Committee (FEC). In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 majority that the federal government cannot limit private political spending as it violates the First Amendment. Prior to the ruling, independent funding to candidates was limited and had to be disclosed to the government so that corruption could be minimized. Today, independent corporations can donate however much they want to Super PACs (political action committees) which has increased campaign finance corruption. In order to right the wrong of Citizens United, mandates must be put in place to lessen corruption and keep Super PACs at bay.
1). Comment on the title. How does it offer a way forward on the issue? Does it hint at or echo the paper’s thesis? Make suggestions.
I really love how your title is a play on words relating to citizens united. The clarifying statement after is also good as it uses the word corruption to tell the reader that the way we are allowing campaigns to be financed right now is not working the way it should be.
2). Does this piece’s title and introduction respond to an exigence?-Does it make the issue pressing or connect to other pressing needs and issues? Make suggestions.
I think that you introduced the background of the case in a way that established a bit of exigence, but you could further connect the negative effects of the citizens united decision to the direct impacts they have on the American people. I think there is a bit of exigence missing in terms of how the decision is impacting free and fair elections/people’s rights to be represented in a democratic system.
3). Comment on the thesis. Does it set up a clear argumentative claim? Is it advancing a specific policy or practice? Can you imagine how the rest of the argument will unfold?
Your thesis was very clear and concise and gave me a good idea of what you will be writing about in your issue brief. I like that you explained the goal of the proposed policy so that the audience knows why you chose the thesis/policy that you did.
1). Comment on the title. How does it offer a way forward on the issue? Does it hint at or echo the paper’s thesis? Make suggestions.
I really love your title I think it really encapsulates what you have to say, it is concise, it is smart, and opinionated without being unprofessional.
2). Does this piece’s title and introduction respond to an exigence?-Does it make the issue pressing or connect to other pressing needs and issues? Make suggestions.
Yes both respond to an exigence! By pointing out the next election and mentioning the problem brought on by the supreme court decision it creates a pressing need for legislation.
3). Comment on the thesis. Does it set up a clear argumentative claim? Is it advancing a specific policy or practice? Can you imagine how the rest of the argument will unfold?
Yes, your introduction doe set up a clear argumentative claim. It does advance a specific policy, very clearly at the end as it calls for action. I can probably image how the rest of the argument will unfold.
Overall, I think you did a great job, the title was great and most of the introductory paragraph was perfect. I just did feel like you should point out some specific issues of corruption to make your argument more pressing and necessary.