**Be sure to answer all the questions, which are designed to stimulate your thinking and help you construct a coherent argument as you will be graded on the consistency and strength of your argument.
**The paper must be 800 words or more and must include 4 or more sources and must be cited (5 points).
Part I (10 points): This part of the paper should be a summary on all the controversies surrounding the Supreme Court decision on McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). In the summary you should include the following:
—What is the case all about?
—Who is the plaintiff and what is the constitutional issue that is being debated?
—How is the case Buckley v. Valeo related to McCutcheon?
—What is the argument of the majority decision?
—What is the argument of the minority decision?
Part II (15 points): This part should be your own position and argument on the decision in which you will explain why you agree or disagree with the decision. The following are relevant questions that must be explored and considered.
—Does money in the form of political contribution have influence? Or is this all just a form of bribery and corruption that should never be part of American political system?
—Do we have a corrupt and broken system?
–On one hand, many critics of the McCutcheon decision have charged that the Supreme Court is increasingly allowing bribery to be part of the political process. On the other hand, current associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the distinction between political spending and contribution is an inconsistent application of free speech and therefore calls for getting rid of all limits, including restrictions on direct individual contribution to political candidates. Is he correct?
—Should political spending/contribution be considered a form of free speech? If it is so, can there be any limits?
Part III (20 points):
Federal election law prohibits political candidates from taking donations from foreign entities and governments, but these groups donate millions to various US interest groups and American lobbyists, where it becomes their money and presumably their free speech, which is spent and contributed to US political campaigns.
—Do these contributions have influence? Is it all economic freedom and freedom of speech that must be protected too, since when the money comes into the possession of American interest groups, they become American free speech? Or is this all just a form of bribery and corruption that should never be part of American political system?
—Come up with a general principle that explains and addresses the balance between the concern for bribery and protection of free speech which will not lead to corruption.
—Or make a case and explain why money and free speech are separate matters.
