Politics, News & Issues >
US Elections (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the government continue to allow children under the voting age to donate money to political candidates?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 31% | 93 votes | Total: 304 votes | |
| No | 69% | 211 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAbsolutely. The basis for our government's authority is respect for the rule of law that was established by the Constitution. The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees that citizens' right to free speech will not be infringed. The Supreme Court, in Mcconnell v. FEC upheld this principle by declaring the provision banning contributions by minors that was contained within the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I just have a few points I'd like to discuss-
1. Citizen minors have a Constitutional right to make campaign contributions. If we infringe upon that right, we have effectively ignored the principle of the rule of law. The purpose of the first amendment was to restrict government authority- by banning the rights of citizens to participate in government, we give the government more authority and power than it is entitled to.
2. Citizen minors who have jobs pay federal income taxes. That might not seem like a big deal-but do they have representation? They cannot vote, if they cannot donate to candidates, they lack all forms of representation in government. Taxation without representation- one of the main reasons our nation was created, and there are those who so quickly forget this? Restricting the right of minors to be involved in government is equivalent to taking away the right to publish articles online. Free speech is one of the building blocks of our nation, to brush it aside so unquestioningly seems, at best, foolish.
3. There is an insignificant amount of harm from allowing minors to contribute. In Mcconnell v. FEC, the FEC was unable to present a sufficient number of documented cases in which fraud had occurred through a minor's ability to contribute to an election campaign. Quite simply, very little fraud actually occurs through this channel. Therefore, considering that the harm to principle of not allowing minors to make contributions is much greater than the harm presented by fraud, the justification from a cost-benefit analysis falls on the side of the Supreme Court's decision- that minors have the right to make such contributions.
Our government was restricted in it's power for a purpose. Granting the government the ability to arbitrarily choose who can or cannot exercise the right of free speech leads us down a dangerous path- a path traveled by other nations such as the Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, or Hitler's Germany. Minors have every right to make campaign contributions if they so choose, and the government has no place to deny them that right.
Learn more about this author, Jonathan Patton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
At an age when life's worries consist mostly of homework, show-and-tell, the daily bath and how to spend this week's pocket money, politics doesn't play that much of a part. Sure, you might know who the current president is, but expecting a child to have an avid interest in politics let alone know which candidate to donate to is asking for a bit too much. Under such circumstances, how can we expect children to donate money to political candidates?
Donating to a political candidate is not like donating to your favorite charity. It means you have a lot of trust in your chosen candidate and you truly believe in their aspirations, goals and promises. After all, you are donating to a candidate that might not even win the election when the time comes. Essentially, you are taking a huge leap of faith. Thus, when choosing which political candidate to donate to, you must really know what you are doing as well as what the candidate is doing.
For children under the voting age, these requirements are way past their capabilities. While I concede to the fact that there may be little geniuses out there who can argue politics as well as an adult, the truth is, most children under the voting age don't really understand or simply don't care. Allowing them to donate money to candidates is simply a loophole that allows these children's parents to donate that little bit extra.
This brings forward another question? Why would children under the voting age donate in the first place? It's naturally because of their parents. Swayed by their parents' political views, these kids are essentially donating money in the place of their parents. After all, where did they get the money from? Who told them to do so in the first place (normally, kids enjoy spending money on themselves rather than on a political candidate)? Who will actually benefit from the donations and the publicity?
Since children cannot be expected to make informed decisions regarding which political candidate to vote, why would we expect them to make informed decisions as to which political candidate to donate to? Isn't that the whole reason why there is a limit to the voting age? Thus, the government should not allow them to donate because after all, it's not the children who are doing the donating, but rather their parents.
Learn more about this author, Y Tian.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Should Congress create laws to prevent political mudslinging in US elections?
- Is eighteen too young to vote?
- Should Senators resign their seats to run for President?
- Should there be limits on contributions to political campaigns by individuals?
- Should Congress have the power to vote no-confidence and remove a US president from office?
- Is it ever too early to run for president?
