DISCLOSE Act: The Clash of the Viewpoints

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Because of the current situation in American economics concerning taxation and spending the governmental funds, people demand precise information on the money that has been spent on the electoral campaigns. Since people demand complete clarity in the political moves of the parties and the specified leaders, the government has decided to meet their numerous requests. The new policy has now being emerging; however, it has already awakened hot discussions in the political sphere.

On April 2010 the new concept was introduced by Chris Van Hollen in the House of Representatives. The solution that the new law suggested was rather simple, but demanding a lot of changes to be taken to adjust the new law to the sphere of politics and economics. It was expected to cause multiple consequences, both inspiring and not quite desirable; however, the main issue about it was that it promised the new democratic way of holding the elective companies on the territory of the USA.

The new law implied that the unions that represented the electors themselves (the trade union, and the communities alike) should have the right to control the funds donated for the election campaigns for the candidates for the presidents chair.

Earlier, this money was controlled only by the committees that did not allow ordinary people to see how the funds raised for the election campaigns were distributed. The purpose of the act was to make the campaigns as clear as possible following the principles of democracy proclaimed by the U.S. Constitution.

With this noble idea, Barak Obama proclaimed on April, 26 2010 that the new Act has come into effect with the new on-coming elections.

However, the procedure that preceded the act becoming effective in the USA was not simple. The numerous debates concerning the pros and cons of the Act are still going on causing a great stir in the political life of the United States. Like any other law, it does have its positive and negative aftereffects. Coming closer to analyzing it, it would be more reasonable to start with the drawbacks of the new law.

First, it burdens the ability to speak, as the opponents claim. With the trade unions controlling the funds, as the court claimed, there might be the tendency to give the necessary support to the preferred candidate, while another party might be left with very little opportunity to gain some weight in the eyes of the electorate (Legislative Background on Campaign Finance 201).

Second, it seemed quite doubtful that there will be no other mischief actions carried out. For example, together with the opportunity of controlling the elections campaigns the possibility of creating the so-called shadow groups can rise. The abovementioned groups can pose a serious threat to the existing democracy, taking control over the election process and pulling the necessary strings to promote the desired candidate against the will of the population.

Prohibiting independent expenditures and payments for electioneering communications by government contractors (Summary of the DISCLOSE Act. Major Provisions of H. R. 5175 p.199), the DISCLOSE Act unwillingly encouraged the notorious shadow groups to appear. The threat to the stability of the country would be enormous in this case. (Campaign Finance Timeline. Evolution of Current Policy 224)

Third, it has been argued that the additional money contributed to the election campaigns might float to those who will control the process of the elections.

As it can be easily seen, the risk that the Act would have a range of negative effects was substantial. However, it cannot be denied that it has a lot of reasons to be established as the guide to holding elections in the USA. Several arguments make introduction of the Act seem quite reasonable.

To start with, the new law has the advantage of being open and speaking to the democracy, which is supposed to be the basis for all the political and economical processes that are going on in the country. The fact is undeniable, and it speaks for the act to be adopted as the new law. (The Citizens United Ruling and the legislative Response 196)

Second, it cannot be doubted that the restrictions on the governmental control are much loosened in this case. Thus, the both parties, that are the nation and the government, are satisfied with the input that they make to the electoral company. The procedure itself stays open to the population, and the people have opportunity to observe it.

In turn, the government does not influence directly the opinions and actions of the citizen, but is able to observe the overall situation so as to mark the unjust events that may occur and correct them. Thus, the Act is the way to reach the harmony between the citizens and the governments interests (New Statutes Effecting Alterations in the Law).

Third, the DISCLOSE Act is expected to mitigate the impact of the Citizens United decision (Campaign Finance and Free Speech193). As the effects of the Citizens United are at the moment quite difficult to evaluate, there are concerns that the DISCLOSURE Act will be needed to manage these effects (The Citizens United Ruling and the Legislative Response 198).

To sum up, the new law has the points that can be taken as the factors of the positive effects. They are rather numerous, and they might contribute to the future of the country in the most positive sense. Those are mainly based on the ideas of the democratic rules that are the chief asset of the USA.

However, there are certain controversial moments that can drive the situation to another conflict and spoil the idea of the just elections. As it has been mentioned,

If the DISCLOSE Act fails to become law, the Citizens United decision is likely to have a major impact on the upcoming mid-term congressional elections and on how political campaigns are conducted in the future. (Campaign Finance and Free Speech 193)

It seems that only the time will show if the new law will help the country to advance the system of elections. But still the prerequisites tell that the new act will be a huge step towards development of a system of elections that will serve to the needs and interests of the population.

Works Cited

Campaign Finance and Free Speech. Response to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Decision. Congressional Digest Sep. 2010: 193. Print.

Campaign Finance Timeline. Evolution of Current Policy. Congressional Digest Sep. 2010: 224. Print.

Legislative Background on Campaign Finance. Recent Action in Congress. Congress Digest Sep. 2010: 201. Print.

New Statutes Effecting Alterations in the Law. The Legal Observer, Digest, and Journal of Jurisprudence. Vol. 46. Spettigue and Farrance. 1853. Web.

Summary of the DISCLOSE Act. Major Provisions of H. R. 5175. Congressional Digest Sep 2010: 199-200, 224. Print.

The Citizens United Ruling and the Legislative Response. Overview and Issues for Debate. Congressional Digest Sep. 2010: 195-198. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

DISCLOSE Act: The Clash of the Viewpoints

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)