drugs testing for poor people

The government is always looking to ensure that its dollars are being effectively spent. One method to ensure this, that has recently been tested in florida, is drug testing for people who are on welfare programs. Many propose policies similar to this on a national level. This is claimed by many to be an effective way to make sure that lower income individuals do not abuse the welfare system. Others such as Vanita Gupta on the other hand claims that these are dehumanizing and put a disproportionate burden on poorer people.
I believe it is wrong to drug test for people on welfare. If we look to other social programs there is no testing required. Someone is not drug tested before a fireman comes to their house and they are not drug tested in order to use roads and bridges. to put this burden on people who need food is to take away their dignity. We do not see this lead to an overall decrease in crime or drug use so there is no reason for the government to do this. this is simply shaming the weakest part of our country who through no fault of their own are in a bad position and just need a little help.

Welfare Drug Tests

       The State of Florida has tried to pass a drug test on welfare. This would make it so that anyone who wished to receive welfare benefits would have to pass a mandatory drug test. However some say that this is a violation to our fourth amendment right of no unlawful search and seizure and that drug testing may lead to more crime because these people will have to get money from other places. Others believe that it is permissible to place conditions on welfare benefits because receiving them is voluntary and that it is not a violation of the fourth amendment right because they are accepting it voluntarily and not forcibly.
       I believe that Lawrence Mead is wrong in saying that it will lead to more drug use because some would have stopped using drugs when they got a job. In my opinion, it is dumb to assume that people who are on drugs would quit because they got on welfare. However, I do agree with Mead's idea to allow people who test positive for drugs to accept welfare benefits and counseling until some time has passed and they are retested. If they test negative, they can stay on welfare. But if they test positive they will no longer receive benefits.

Money in Elections

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/11/iowa-braley-ernst_n_5971390.html

Joni Ernst and Bruce Braley recently squared off in a debate and one of the topics that came up frequently was the topic of dark money and spending in the election. Braley initiated the attack by stating, "They (the Koch Brothers) are the biggest supporters you have in your campaign right now." He also brought up her visit to California where the Koch Brothers funded her campaign. Braley brought up how the Koch brothers have seven companies attacking him and how Ernst has credited them with backing her campaign. Ernst fired back with the fact that Braley is also being funded by billionaire environmentalist John Steyer. The candidates kept firing back and forth about the dark money and anonymous donations that have gone into each other's campaigns and it made me realize just how much money influences politics.

In my personal opinion the spending that goes into elections has gotten out of hand and should be regulated. Braley was said to have been funded by an 'extreme billionaire  environmentalist' and now that billionaire has some control over Braley. He may shift and shape his political ideologies to better fit what his sponsor wants so he can continue to get funding. The same goes for Ernst, because the Koch brothers almost single handily funded her campaign, so obviously she is going to tweak her policies so the Koch brothers will remain happy. Both parties are guilty and are allowing the powerful few to control them. Since their sponsors are allowed to spend a practically infinite amount of money on their candidate we are giving more power to the rich. The longer big fish are allowed to do this, the more candidates they can control and the more these fat cats can affirm their grasp on the government. Because then the powerful few will not be worried about anyone but will only look out for their own private interests.

Election Post

The 2014 Iowa Senate Race is going to go down of one of the most expensive in history. There are already has been 37 million dollars spent on the election and there is still 19 days till election day. There is so much money being spent on this senate seat because it’s the first time in decades that an Iowa Senate seat has been open. This seat could decide the majority in the Senate which will have long lasting effects on American Policy. Thus, why so many different interests groups such as American Crossroads, NRA, and the NextGen Climate Action Committee have spent millions of dollars on this race so candidates with their same ideals will win and will vote for legislation that helps them. Therefore, Super-Pacs have a bigger impact on elections now than they ever have, some believe that Super-Pacs ruin the integrity of elections and others believe that its their right to support and spend money on whatever they choose to, everyone can be their own judge.

I believe that Super-Pacs have a negative effect on elections because they can buy votes, from uninformed voters, through the use of negative tv ads and other forms of propaganda. Most Super-Pac ads are not supporting their candidate but trashing another through negative ads. Through these negative ads Super-Pacs can get uninformed voters to vote for the candidate that helps them. Thus, Super-Pacs ruin the integrity of elections through their use of negative ads which can win votes from the uninformed.

Money in Politics

The article I read was about the various Super Pacs that are involved in the Iowa Senate race. This seat has not been open since the 1980s so both Republicans and Democrats are working tirelessly to win this seat so they have a better shot of getting the majority in the senate. Numerous Superpacs on both sides have donated millions of dollars to both of the candidates running, with the money going to campaign adds, flyers, and other ways of getting out information to the people of Iowa. Most of these Super Pacs are intrest groups such as the NRA which supports Joni Ernst, and Nextgen Climate Action Commitee who supports Braley.

Super Pacs and the big money that comes with them can have many pros and cons when it comes to politics. The money that goes to campaigning can help inform the public where the respective politicians stand on certain issues. These issues can range from gun laws to abortion to education. However the money is also used to run campaign adds against the competing poltican. These adds usually dramatize events and attempt to make the person seem evil even though most of the quotes or facts are taken out of context. The largest problem with Super Pacs is once the optician is elected they usually must repay the Super Pacs that supported them by voting to pass laws that would benefit the large donor even if that is not what the majority of the people want. Although Super Pacs can be good by educatingt he public in political matters, they gave gotten out of hand and have a much larger voice than the common man when it comes to policy making.

http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/outside-groups-spend-millions-in-iowa-u-s-senate-race/article_101d396b-17e2-5660-a87b-69b0e6d682d9.html

Outside Groups funding Iowa Senate Race

QC Times Bureau writes about the importance of the upcoming Iowa Senate vote and how many super PACs are contributing to see their desired candidate win the race and have their party in control nationally. Because of the tightness of the race, the amount spent of funding candidates will continue to increase until after the final election of Braley vs. Ernst. According to , more than $37 million has gone into Iowa Senates race from outside groups. Ian Vandewalker includes that the amount spent by these groups is so important that once a candidate is officially elected,  favors will have to be returned and remembered. Campaign finance records from The Federal Election Commission share the main outside groups that are pouring money into the Senate race and their motives behind the outflow of money.
I agree with Ian Vandewalker when he says that the candidates have to know who spent money on behalf of them- this could bring up a negative side of outside group spending. Out of "human nature", the candidate will have to thank or return favors to that outside group instead of initially focusing on problems threatening the people. I think that money does have a significant role in the process, but in the end it doesn't matter as much. Americans who are strong members of one party will vote for their candidate whether or not they have seen a questionable ad about them. The only Americans the ads/commercials affect are those who go to either side in voting. Because both parties end up generally spending the same amount of money building up or putting down specific candidates, these Americans will be influenced to vote for the candidate based on what they stand for- not necessarily the party they are. Overall, the money spent on the senate races can only effect the general public to an extent, but mostly just discourages citizens from being politically active.

SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY WEEK 2 POST

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs GO to the above site, and read the first article that is the debate intro., then choose a second one from the yes / no arguments below - this second choice should challenge what your first instincts are. Finally, post 2 paragraphs, the first a summary of the main points of the two articles. The second paragraph is your opinion, and the arguments that best support your opinion at this point.

Money in elections owen weber

Money in Elections
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/us/late-surge-of-money-buoys-republicans-in-races-that-will-decide-control-of-senate.html?_r=0
The ted talk showed how an increase in money in elections can create greater corruption in politics. this is being proven true in Iowa where many interests are at stake so outside groups begin to pour huge amounts of money into these elections. A republican senate could have huge implications for many businesses and interests groups explaining why even if democrats are raising more money as the article says the majority of republican support comes from these outside groups. these groups see what races can be won and strategically place money in areas like Iowa to give candidates like Joni Ernst a chance of winning.
In the end i don't believe that money will have a huge implication in the election. No amount of campaign adds will effect voters opinions on the main issues at stake. Where its effects can be seen are in the post election political world. Joni Ernst and Bruce Braily will never be convinced to drift from their core issues but as more money comes into play in their elections they can easily mold their views to smaller changes regarding corporate tax law and agricultural regulations that would not become major voting issues in upcoming elections. No matter the candidate they weigh these seemingly small issues under the huge amount of possible campaign contributions. These end up giving enormous tax breaks and huge loopholes that slow down the rest of the government. The biggest harm of campaign spending is hard to be seen but poses one of the greets risks to a well functioning government.

How Money in Elections is Causing a Corruption in our Democracy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/11/iowa-braley-ernst_n_5971390.html

Lawrence Lessig spoke in detail of how he feels the money in elections has caused a corruption that is taking away power from the people. This is clearly the case, especially with the current Iowa Senate election. In a recent debate between Braley and Ernst, the two verbally accosted each other in reference to their different monetary sources. Said Braley, "The truth is you attended two secret donor meetings in California that were hosted by the Koch brothers...You credited them with launching your Senate campaign. And these are the same Koch brothers who have seven different organizations attacking me right now." This shows a correlation to the points that Lessig was making. He showed that the elections are supposed to be in the power of the people, and on paper, they are. However through donations that are largely from a small number of funders donating large sums of money, the people do not actually have complete control over the election at all.

In my opinion, I completely agree with Mr. Lessig. I think there needs to be a shift in donations in our country's elections. There is corruption in the way elections are run now. In my article, Ernst combated Braley's accusations about the Koch brothers by saying that Braley, himself had a majority of his funding in thanks to a 'extreme billionaire environmentalist'. Assuredly, with the evidence from this article, neither candidate is innocent. Both are using a small number of funders, and are bending their decisions to keep those funders happy and in result, funding. In order to solve this corruption in every election, not just the Iowa Senate race, there needs to be a shift from the 'small number of people giving large dollars' to a system that is funded through 'large number of people giving small dollars'. If this were the case, we would have a system where the candidates would still look to please their funders, but they would be pleasing the citizens, and not deep-pocketed investors who have private interests.

Money's Effects on Elections

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/indexp.php?cycle=2014&id=IAS2

          Lessig talks about how there are two elections, a money election and a general election. This means that the "Lesters," or the funders, pick who the general public is going to vote on.  As you can see in the article listed above, the Republican Candidates who fought for the Republican Nomination and lost had less money than Joni Ernst. Also, Joni Ernst is currently ahead in the polls and has almost $10 million more spent in her favor. Political Action Committees are not even allowed to coordinate with the candidates, which mean instead they coordinate with each other. This means that each candidate is treated more like a pawn and less like an individual person. Funders are not electing candidates because they agree with their views or what they stand for, but because they will vote in their favor.
          While I think spending that much money on a campaign is crazy. I do not think that the government has any right to regulate it. I also disagree with Lessig's idea of providing citizens with vouchers so that they can fund campaigns for multiple reasons; such as the fact that our government does not have the money to do so and that if every citizen gets a voucher, they will essentially just be casting their vote earlier. Also the voucher would solidify their stance and voters would be less likely to be swayed by debates or commercials if they had already effectively cast their votes. So, while I will not be donating millions of dollars to campaigns, I do not believe that the government should regulate the flow of money into campaigns.

Money in Elections

I used the QC Times article: http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/outside-groups-spend-millions-in-iowa-u-s-senate-race/article_101d396b-17e2-5660-a87b-69b0e6d682d9.html

Lawerence Lessig in Ted talks makes a fantastic comparison that I am sure helps many more people who have watched this video understand exactly what our government elections actually are. Lesterland, as he called it, was the same thing as America with the general elections and the money elections. According to the article, an estimated 37 million dollars are spent on the senate elections. With Tom Harkin retiring it is a big deal in Iowa, in fact, it is the second most expensive Senate seat race in America with a really close race with Kentucky. Everyone that is running for the seat, as Lessig calls it, are "shape shifters", they are saying some things to get the most money possible that they can.
I think that too much money is being put into this election. I understand that for Iowa, a race hasn't happened lie this in a long time, but political races should not be all about the money. With people becoming "shape shifters" they are not saying what they really want to be/do in their time in senate. Also, for people who want to genuinely run for senate, they would be pushed out by the people who have the most money. In my opinion, the race for the senate seat is at least 25% based on money now.

Outside groups spend millions in Iowa US Senate race

In Iowa's US Senate race, outside groups have spent more than $37 million to influence votes. Because these funders have the financial means, they have more of a say in who the candidates are going to be than others. These funders cannot directly support certain candidates, however, their use of commercials to negatively shine a light on the opposing candidate is in favor of the funders preferred candidate. In the TED Talks video, Lawrence Lessig explained how these funders support the candidate who agrees with their views. Whoever wins the race is expected to "return favors" to those who spent money on their campaign.
I think that money will always play a large part in politics. However, I believe that the rich should be able to alter the balance of who's in the lead. Money always complicates things and I don't believe that the rich and elite should have more influence in the candidates race than other people. In a current race, Joni Ernst had a commercial where she talked about her values and in response, someone made a commercial bashing her commercial. That's clear evidence that money is not used in a positive way for more campaigns.
http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/outside-groups-spend-millions-in-iowa-u-s-senate-race/article_101d396b-17e2-5660-a87b-69b0e6d682d9.html

National Groups Spend Millions to affect Iowa Senate Race - http://thegazette.com/subject/news/national-groups-spend-millions-to-affect-iowa-senate-race-20141019

     
    According to thegazette.com, national groups are spending millions of dollars in an attempt to influence voters, as well as the outcome of the senate race. This is proving that Lessig is correct when in the video, Lessig talks about how the majority of the people that fund candidates are large groups, or Super PACs, and not individuals. These huge groups are donating millions of dollars and it affects the outcome majorly. For example, The National Republican Senatorial Committee has spent over 4 million dollars in Iowa alone. The sole purpose of this is to get republicans elected to the U.S. senate. In the video, Lessig talks about the "Lester Election" (the money election) and how it ties into the general election. In order for a candidate to even participate in the general election, they first must do well in the "Lester Election," where the "lesters" are the funders.
          I think that Super PACs have too much power and I don't think they should have any involvement whatsoever. They have too much influence and control over the candidates, or who is even going to be a candidate. They influence extreme views of their party. I also think that they take away from important issues because they are too busy trying to make their opponent look bad.

Super PAC's impact on Iowa Senate Race Logan Lira

Outside Groups Spend Millions on Iowa Senate Race

According to qctimes.com outside groups have spend almost 40,000,000 dollars to help with the Iowa senate race. With that number still growing with only a couple days left until election and the race is still to close to call for some. But with help of these nameless groups and Super PAC's. The reason for all this money being poured in to the race is because as of right now its a toss up. With the former democratic senate chair stepping down that could be disastrous for the democratic party to lose a spot on the senate. Iowa is only behind Kentucky for the importance of this seat for senate and just behind in money given. However wins this could easily make it so their party controls the chambers. That is why millions are getting put into this election. Ernst vs Braley could be the most significant election this year and the winner owes it all to their sponsors. They don't know who they are but without them they don't get near as much money to promote themselves and to hurt trier composition. And with "betting on your horse"  having benefits for you it could be bad if they lose. All money spent would be wasted, You lose the seat, and the person who did win will remember you being against them and could show bias to those who helped him/her if they get elected. All of this is to all promote self interest by the super PAC's so they can win the seat and hopefully get a bigger say through there candidate. Overall money talks and is now more important then ever before. Personally i liked it better when money was as big of a key reason for election but with the society we live in there will always be the people wanting the slightest  edge and that will only keep getting bigger. We will see who is not only better on election day but who had the better sponsor and super PAC's on their side as well.

Other sites used were https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=R
and http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Senate-midterm-elections-Super-PACS/2014/04/16/id/565926/
I also feel there was little to no bias in these and were properly displayed and equally carried out

                                                                                                                      By Logan Lira

Groups spending millions to affect Iowa's senate race

http://thegazette.com/subject/news/national-groups-spend-millions-to-affect-iowa-senate-race-20141019

      Money and the senate race or any other political race go hand in hand. Lawrence Lessig compared the U.S.A to his made up Lester world and how the politics are twisted in favor of the richer people who pay. In the article it stated  over $37 million has been spent on the race this year. The article and Lawrence Lessig the senates will have to lean with what their founders would want. Whoever wins, they’re going to have had millions of dollars spent for them, and they’re going to remember those favors. … That’s not to say they’re bad people or corrupt,” said Ian Vandewalker. As Lawrence said only a small of the population fund the races. So many senators are in debt with the people who funded them.
        I agree that the whole population should fund the politics instead of big groups. That will help influences of just a small group of people go down. People are not sure who will win right now but who ever win owes favors to the spender not the people. This kind of thing must stop if our senators will not truly represent the people if the more often represent the funders. Over 19.9 million is spent supporting  Ernest against Braley. Over 17.1 million is spent on Braley against Ernest. This money should come from the people not the funders.

Campaign Financing, Democrat’s ‘Farmer’ Affront Draws GOP Money to Iowa Senate Race by Brandon Alpern

According to the Wall Street Journal republicans are sponsoring a 250 thousand dollar campaign called, "Not for Sale." The ad is accusing Braley of insulting Senator Chuck Grassley. This proves Lessig's core point that the "Lester's" have all the say in politics and are able to manipulate the public to inform them on non-important issues. Furthermore,the article exemplifies the use of Super Packs to communicate to the public their own personal agenda. For example,the National Republican Senatorial Committee is issuing 305,000 robocalls to Iowan households targeting him for "insulting Iowa's farmers." Money should not be used to voice your opinion for several reasons. First, money used to finance ads are generally non informative. For example, the 250 thousand dollar campaign ad was used for accusing Braley on insulting farmers, instead of focusing on important issues. Second, Super Packs come at an opportunity cost. For instance, low socioeconomic households will have trouble voicing their opinions on policies because their voice will be drowned out by money from corporations. Lastly, the money used to finance insulting ads creates an arms race. Braley has fired back against Ernst with numerous ads financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars to insult her. Money should not be used to to project your voice because it causes more harm than good.

Election 2014

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim view the Ted Talk, Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim. Then research "money and Iowa Senate race" or something similar. Find and read an article from a quality source. Write 1 paragraph that connects the content to the video - how does it support or refute Lessig's message? Explain. Write 2nd paragraph on your opinion... of politics and the role of money - in current race in particular.