The use of money in politics, especially in elections, is an issue sure to stir debate. This topic first came to political prominence during the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), in which the Supreme Court boldly upheld a constitutional right allowing corporations and Unions to donate to political campaigns without restriction. This case followed the Buckley v. Valeo (1976) decision, which came to the conclusion that limits on election spending, specifically found in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1976, were unconstitutional. Both decisions, in my opinion, were decided in an ethical and moral manner, despite what fear-mongering conspiracy theorists on the left may want you to believe. For example, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, in a 2011 video titled 'Survey: Massive Lobbyist Power After Citizens United,' is on record lying about the former case, Citizens United.

He first insinuates that lobbyists are now blackmailing United States Senators by threatening to donate to political rivals; though he provides no evidence. He then suggests that this type of blackmail has lead Senators to strike deals with these lobbyists, in the form of a quid pro quo. Not only is his evidence scant, and at times misleading, he is also defaming the characters of seemingly innocent public officials. These types of conspiracies degrade the trust we must possess with our Representatives, which has lead to an unfathomable amount of people calling for an abdication of the first amendment, as it applies to speech in politics. To illustrate, according to a New York Times poll conducted on May 23, 2015, 84% of respondents believed that money has "too much" of a role in political campaigns today.

According to the same survey, 77% of respondents also believed that the amount of money a person can legally donate to a political campaign should be "limited." But, the only possible way to limit the amount of money an individual can use in a political campaign, is to infringe upon the first amendment, which allows speech of all kinds, no matter the amount of speech used or the identity of the speaker. Also, proponents of this idea have yet to define what "limit" means in this context. This, of course, does not matter to the radical anarchist. They are content with letting the government decide whose speech is worth protecting, and whose is not.

This, in my opinion, is a slippery slope not worth traversing down. Therefore, we are left with two options: amending the first amendment, thus setting a dangerous precedent for other amendments in the Bill of Rights, or accepting and allowing speech of all kinds, even speech we disagree with. In my opinion, the latter option is the most ethical. Western Civilization rests upon the idea that everyone can contribute to the national good; yes, even people who have accumulated more money throughout their lives, or those who have been born into wealth.

Therefore, allowing debate, mostly through political advertisements, 'get out the vote' efforts, and general campaign spending, can only strengthen and help educate our society. But, unfortunately, trendy Senators like Bernie Sanders, who has garnered the support of millions of young Americans, has coaxed his supporters into believing the former supposition. This fact alone is not problematic, in fact, disagreement of all sorts is healthy in a Democracy, no matter the ramifications that such policy implementations will be sure to have. It is the process by which he coaxes them that is problematic. Bernie, along with much of the leadership on the left, demonizes those who hold contrary views.

This has created an enormous amount of polarization among politicians, but, more importantly, among ordinary citizens as well. This type of rhetoric spouted all too often by the Democratic leadership, specifically on this controversial issue, has created a cesspool in American politics. If left unchecked, the Democratic leadership will continue to pull our country apart. It is, therefore, our duty as citizens to stand up to the now mainstream radical-left, and reject their plea to uproot our country's values.