What it takes to make it into office

To get elected in today’s political environment it takes much. It takes Money, popularity or a name, it takes volunteers, it takes time. To get into government now, the person going for it must have money, they must have a political party. A political party is a political organization that seeks to obtain and keep political power within the government; there are democratic parties, republican, and much more different sorts of parties. In order to get into government you must decide on what you are standing for and whether or not you belong in one party or another. Then there is money, if you do not have money then they must work 2-3 maybe even 4 times harder then the other people running. In this case money can buy people and workers to help spread the name. It can buy advertisement, posters, signs, stickers, and even put the person on TV. TV advertisement can be very expensive although, if used, it can get your name out to thousands of people very easily. In order to get money, you must receive hard money or soft money. Hard money is funding that is repetitive, not a one time thing. Soft money is money donated to a organization other than a particular person running for government office. But to receive Hard money or soft money you must have popularity and power. The people donating and fund raising for you must believe you are going to win. To win and be elected into political environment the media must be watching you, they must believe you are going to be elected and use their advertising/news powers to tell people about you. If people do not know what you fight for, or why you are running, why should they vote for you. Then there is media bias, which is when the media presents only a particular point of view, which can turn out changing vote turn outs and make a political person look well or bad. If media bias is used for you it may bring you up well in votes, but if it is used against you then it can bring you way down in votes. To raise money for a political candidate there must be a political action committee, which is a group of people large or small who raise money for a particular candidate. In particular the voter turnout can be the determinant. Voter turnout is the number of voters who participated in the election. If there is a large voter turnout there may be a lot of people who do not know a lot about the person they are voting for. Depending on how much people know about the candidates, voter turnouts if large can be very bad. To make it into political office you must be popular. If people do not know who you are they will not vote for you. Your name must be out, known, and your ideals should be known. Volunteers can be very helpful when it comes to whether or not you make it into office. A volunteer may work harder than somebody is being paid because the person being paid may not necessarily want you to win but is just doing their job. A volunteer usually wants the person they are helping to win, and do their best to make sure that they do win.

Freedoms Vs. Protections

When freedoms and protections collide it ends in different results, usually ending with freedoms ruling over unless it is endangering. Freedoms are only to a certain extent and protections are only to a certain point. When they collide it is up to the court, like in the case of Near Vs. Minnesota. When a man named Jay Near published a scandal sheet and attacked local officials, saying they were involved with gangsters. The officials attempted to stop him from publishing this with a state law that said any person “engaged in the business of regularly circulating an obscene, lewd, and lascivious newspaper was guilty of nuisance”. Although this was a state law, the first amendment allowed this and it was ruled unconstitutional. The Court established even the government could not censor or prohibit a publication, although it is punishable. Freedoms winning out against protections, the publication was allowed but if it endangered the lives of many people or accused people of acts they have not done it could be brought to court and would be punishable.
In the case of Texas Vs. Johnson, in public Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in the protest of Reagan administrative policies. Once again the the person was charged under a state law, this time the law outlawed flag desecration. He was to be sent to jail for a year and fined 2000 dollars. But the Texas Court of Criminals reversed the conviction and passed it on to Supreme Court. Although it was once again against the state law, the state law went too far in preventing amendment number 1. This case was ruled unconstitutional and Gregory was safe from punishment. He has the freedom to expressive conduct and this act was distinctively a political act against Reagan’s policies. The Supreme Court stated that even though they might take offense from the act it is not justifiable to prohibit speech. Nobody was endangered and freedoms won out again. The state could not keep him from using symbols as speech and his freedoms were protected.
Then in the case of Mapp. Vs. Ohio, the police illegally searched her home for a fugitive and tried to convict her of “possessing obscene materials”. She decided to fight this with the freedom of expression. The courts decided that instead of it violating the first amendment it more clearly violated the fourth amendment. Mapp was convicted on illegally obtained evidence, which is a huge issue on how far should a person’s freedoms protect them. This case was ruled unconstitutional, but if people’s lives were at stake this amendment might be ruled out and if Mapp was endangering other people, she might be in prison today. Her freedoms protected her but to only an extent, if the protection of other peoples was involved that freedom would not be hers.
In the case of Gideon Vs. Wainright, Gideon was for breaking and entering. He was unable to hire a lawyer and because of this could not prepare a defense. He requested the court give him a lawyer and they denied his request. He ended up defending himself and was sentenced to five years in prison. Due to the 6th and 14th amendments the court unanimously decided to overrule the decision because he had a right to be represented by an attorney. This time his freedom and his protections were combined. He had the freedom to have a court appointed attorney and he should have the protection of a court appointed attorney. The 6th amendment guaranteed counsel and this was a right needed to have a “fair trial”, which this was against the 14th amendment which gave the right of a fair trial. Overall, this trial denied Gideon of his freedoms and his protections the constitution gave him, and was ruled unconstitutional.
In all four cases freedoms and protections collided. Although freedoms won out most of the time it could not every time. When other people’s lives were at stake protections would kick in and kick freedoms out, which did not happen in any of these cases, nobody was threatened except for the person taken to court. If lives were in danger Protections would be put in and a person’s every day freedoms would be denied.