transportation, etc. So that is why most of these candidates, corporations, unions and wealthy people do anything to raise a lot of money because they want the person that is going to do the most for them to win, at any cost. People can go either way with this argument. Soft money does give the wealthier and more powerful the upper hand, but I dont think there should be a ban on soft money, just a limit or restriction. Because according to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise or abridging the freedom of speech or press (Janda/Berry/Goldman Chap. 1). So anyone has the right to give this campaign money to support the government in any way they want. The ability of corporations and special interest groups to contribute large sums of money to political campaigns makes our one vote seem like nothing, when our politicians are brought and paid for by the rich and wealthy. Once that politician gets into office they must pay back those interest groups because they are now indebted (Atlanta Journal and Constitution, October 1999). Now that this person is in office and they are indebted what are they going to do? What they have done so many times in the past, take it out of the people they were elected to represent. There should be a limit to these corporations and interest groups so that things dont get out of hand and we dont end up cleaning up the mess. We deserve to be represented by politicians that have our best interest at heart (Atlanta Journal and Constitution, October 1999).Imagine an election where there were limits on contributions and contributors. We could have fewer high priced PR representatives putting words in their candidates mouths in those far too soon, expensive and obnoxious TV commercials. Candidates would have to make low-key appearances in front of their constituencies, tell us their position ...
