Elections Quiz

In today’s political environment money, advertisement, and organization of committees are the key essentials to winning an election. Many parties and delegates receive money and funds through two main sources, hard and soft money. Hard money is from political donations that are regulated by law through the federal election commission. The maximum limit of donations from businesses is regulated to $5,000, and for individual donations they are limited to $2,000. The other way candidates receive support is through soft money. Soft money is money donated to political parties in a way that leaves the contributor unregulated. Another words its money pumped into political campaigns through loopholes in the law. Political Action Committees (PACS) are directly connected to specific corporations, labor groups, and recognized political parties. As for voter turnout it’s safe to say we would not want everyone voting. There are a good percent of voters in America that just vote without knowing what the candidate stands for. This can lead to the wrong man in the white house and could affect many hard working Americans. The main political parties that stand out are Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are considered liberal, and want more government involvement. Republicans are considered more conservative and favor less government. In the documentary we watched on Jeff Smith we saw how his biggest asset was advertising. The man went door to door discussing and spending time with voters to get their vote. This is important because the more a candidate stands out the more attention is giving to him and ultimately people will start recognizing his name and what he stands for. He also had many signs and posters given to neighborhoods and business to draw attention from the public. He also had rallies and went to schools and other places to talk to voters in person what he stands for and what his beliefs are.

Civil liberties test

"Civil Liberties Test"
Freedoms and protections collide when someone’s freedoms are hurting or offending other people. A good example of this is the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942. It states that a person will be penalized if “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place," or "call him by any offensive or derisive name". This shows how even though people have the freedom of speech due to the first amendment still cannot say bad things to others which goes against their protection.
A case that differentiates freedoms and protections in school vs. freedoms and protections outside of school is Bethel v. Fraser. This case was a result of Fraser making a speech to nominate a student tor elective office and used very graphic metaphors that the school found inappropriate and suspended him for two days. This shows the difference of freedom v protections inside and outside of schools. Even though Fraser can speak his thoughts while being protected under the first amendment the school found that speech very offensive towards its listeners and prohibits the use of vulgar. Whereas if he gave that speech outside of school he would not have be accused of anyone.
Another prime example of protections v. freedoms is the case Georgia v. Randolph. This case was a product of Randolph’s wife calling the cops to search her house for drugs because she thought her husband has been talking them. When the police arrived they did not have a search warrant and Randolph refused to let them in. But his wife brought the police to the bedroom where they found traces of cocaine. The court concluded under the fourth amendment "the consent to conduct a warrantless search... given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another occupant who is physically present at the scene." Mr. Randolph was protected even though his wife had the freedom and right to have the police come in because he denied access of police to search his house. Also because it was an illegal search due to no search warrant.
I think that the case Escobedo v Illinois has impacted our lives the most. Escobedo was arrested under suspicion of being involved with a murder. Police brought him to the interrogation room where he was not allowed to see his lawyer. Even with his lawyer making an attempt to come to the station the police refused for him to have any contact with his lawyer. Then without having a trial Escobedo confessed to that he was the man responsible for the murder. Then he appealed this to the Supreme Court, where they concluded that his confession could not be used as evidence because he was not given the right to speak with his lawyer. This case impacts us the most because today if anyone is ever convicted of a crime they have the right to speak with their lawyer before being questioned or interrogated. This allows many people to prove their innocence in a fair trial. Without this case going to the Supreme Court we would have people being forced and accused of things they have never committed in not a justified way. This had violation with the sixth amendment.