Calvin's Rant

There are, in my opinion, three factors that contribute to the election of any candidate. These factors are money, fame, and level of controversy. Money is a major reason because the candidate with more money to spend wins the election more often. Through contributions of “hard” money (money donated by supporters) or “soft” money (money “donated” under the table to encourage support for a certain issue or stance), as well as personal funds, candidates are able to by advertising spots to get their name out the most. This leads to the second factor, fame. Voters, especially in this day and age, are more likely to vote for the candidate they recognize more. A major influential factor in fame is media bias, which is when the media takes a side on a particular news story. Never was this more apparent in recent memory than the presidential election of 2008. The media (not counting the always biased Fox News) was more than a little biased towards Obama. It was because of this bias that he went from presidential candidate to international celebrity. One more reason that a candidate gets elected is level of controversy, or how much a candidate angers political action committees (PACs). These special interest groups, when angered, will do anything in their power to prevent a candidate they don’t like from being elected. Unfortunately, these groups win most of the time. When fame and fortune are the biggest reasons for a candidate being elected, democracy loses. The only solution is to require voters to give reason for voting for a specific candidate, though it would lower voter turnout, it would get candidates elected for the right reasons.


Definitions Not Included:
Political Parties – political groups that have specific ideals

When freedoms and protections collide, the result is a decision that ends up affecting life in the nation and viewpoints on particular topics. For example, when flag burning became a question of free speech in Texas v Johnson, the decision that came about as a result completely changed views on the subject. Johnson was arrested for burning the American flag in protest of the U.S. government. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court as a question of free speech. The court ruled in favor of Johnson and declared flag burning a protected form of speech. Today, flag burning is a common form of protest against the government, all because of that one decision.
However, certain types of speech are not protected by the first amendment, More specifically, speech in schools. In the case of Bethel v Fraser, a student was suspended for speech the school deemed inappropriate. This case also went to the Supreme Court, but this time the court ruled in favor of the school, stating that schools have a right to censor out speech that they deem “inconsistent with education.”
In the case of Mapp v Ohio, a person was arrested for having illegal materials in their home while the police were in the home searching for a drug dealer. The result of this case threw out the illegal materials as evidence because they were obtained by police illegally. The police now need a warrant to use any materials obtained as evidence.
The right to due process was contested in the case Goss v Lopez, where a student was suspended without a hearing. The Supreme Court ruled that education is property and due process is required to take property away. Hearings are now required for a student to be suspended.