Soft Money: Constitutional or Unconstitutional?.
When President Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law in 2002, he did so in high hopes of limiting the usage of soft money and other forms of corrupt government procedures. Already political activists are arguing the constitutionality of the law. They say that the law limits our 1st Amendment right of free speech, even though the candidates" rights are not restricted, only limited. The law decreases the chances for corruption, and increases fairness. The U.S. Government has done its job of maintaining democracy by establishing this constitutional law.
The right to freedom of speech is given to us in the 1st Amendment, Article 1, section 4 of our constitution. Those apposed to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform say that it violates the right of free speech. They say that limiting "informational ads" by non-profit organizations, along with regularly checking each candidate's bank statement is unconstitutional. The law was partly made to protect fairness. Without this law, the other not so well-known candidate, for he may not have the connections and/or money that the incumbent is able to obtain. The law is also in place to protect elections from corruption. Without it, big businesses could buy political favors from candidates in turn for campaign spending money. Elections would become a race for control, rather than a contest for the leader of our country. .
Banning the use of soft money is an example of congress" right to regulate its own elections, a right given to the government in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The government is maintaining its democracy and providing defense against corruption. It is government's job to protect our country by ensuring it has a leader in office that is committed to our well-being, rather than someone in office who is only there because of corrupt reasons.