Car Donation Orange County

I haven’t written many essays so I’m not sure if this is effective, please help I have few friends who can really critique my work. thanks.
A democracy, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”(1) The issue of public funding of campaigns strikes at the very heart of not only the definition of democracy but also our society’s fundamental ideals and the foundation of the government with which our society is inseparably intertwined. On the one hand we have a system in which the concept of “free elections” becomes increasingly obscure with every passing election. The funds for the campaigns of both prospective and established candidates are apparently supplied, at least in part, by pharmaceutical giants, absurdly affluent oil cartels and the $73 billion the insurance industry made in 2007 (2). Donations by such corporations and industries wins favor and thus influence which can greatly undermine the solidarity of official and constituent which is absolutely necessary for a functioning democracy. On the other hand, there is proposed reform that may violate our constitutional rights in the hope of developing a sort of utopian campaigning system. Funneling tax-payer’s money into various political factions, which are not at all mentioned in the constitution, including those which may not be in the majority or particular individuals favor, teeters far too close to the edge of the constitutionality precipice for comfort. As flawed as our current system of campaigning may be, this proposed campaigning-socialism conflicts with far too many constitutional ideals to be practical without amendments being made. A far simpler solution, void of the threat of unconstitutionality, exists.
The proposed reform calls for not only limits on how much money a candidate can spend advertising his platform and position on various issues, it also does away with large private contributions replacing public funding in its stead. Ideally this would result in a dramatic decrease in big business influence which would allow for the passing of legislation which would benefit constituents instead of already well-to-do CEO’s and the like. The reform would also allow for easier access to the media by the candidates (44). These provisions would facilitate balanced exposure of candidates and could result in a more informed voting body which could lead to the consistent appointment of qualified and competent officials.
America’s founding fathers never intended for political parties to develop and they certainly did not intend for such complex campaigning practices to do likewise. The support of political campaigns, impartial or otherwise, by the government through the use of taxes can almost be likened to supporting various religious sects so that they may be on fair ground. A free and open society such as our own should not be fettered by legislation seeking to even out natural imbalances which support the very progressive values this country has been built upon. Reform of this scale should not be considered lightly especially when brought about upon grounds and accusations which have yet to be justified or proven. (47)
The system as it is today is thought to be, despite a lack of substantial evidence, corrupt and a misrepresentation of the will of the people. Our elections are supposedly tainted with the dirt of corruption and our officials live only to serve big business interests. First and foremost, before considering reform of any kind a substantial amount of evidence supporting the necessity of said reform should be garnered. If deemed appropriate one would proceed with developing a plan within the structure of the government in question. This is where the plan for public financing of political campaigns fails horribly. The first amendment of the constitution guarantees freedom of speech among other things. As of late, the freedom of speech has been interpreted to mean the freedom of expression. The freedom of speech/expression does not include the quieting of some voices in order to accomplish uniform influence and participation (48).
During a time of inflated gas prices, increased unemployment, and outrageously priced but absolutely necessary insurance on everything from your car to your life; the prospect of an elected official who serves the interests of those who exert the most influence on the populations finances is not a particularly pleasant one. Although proper evidence hasn’t been gathered to either support or disregard such claims, the general public feels the effects of major industry “empire building” and won’t be convinced the government doesn’t facilitate it until their practices are checked. Voter knowledge and turnout are scant, and the practice of quid pro quo corruption is deplorable. Flaws do exist in the system an