Download Essay_Contest_2010_1st_Place

LWVPA Essay Contest - 2010
1st Place
Since the time of our Founding Fathers, America has struggled to find a balance
between individual liberties and the well-being of society. For the writers of our
Constitution, one of the most contested issues was the tradeoff between the rights of
the people and the powers entrusted to the government in order to maintain peace.
Similarly, today, many of the most contentious political issues, such as gun control
and abortion, center on this tension between our personal liberties and societal
needs. From the national level to the local level, such tensions are visible in debates
over numerous topics, including corporate political spending, the legalization of
marijuana in California, and the Santa Clara ban of Happy Meals.
Although the importance of individual liberties is widely accepted, arguments remain
over the extent of those liberties, as seen from the recent Supreme Court ruling on
corporate campaign finance limits. The regulation of corporate political spending has
been a controversial political subject. At issue is the balance between individual
rights, specifically the freedom of speech, and the well-being of society, including the
maintenance of our democracy. Proponents of the removal of regulations argue that
corporations are protected under the freedom of speech and deserve the right to
express their political ideas, such as through campaign advertisements. "If the First
Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or
associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," wrote Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy, indicating that the previous political spending limits on
corporations infringed the rights ensured by the First Amendment. (i.)Yet, although
freedom of speech is one of the most celebrated freedoms in America, the divided
Supreme Court decision of 5-4 for the removal of corporate finance regulations
indicated that such unbridled freedom is not supported by all. For many, the issue is
not simply about if corporations deserve freedom of speech, but about the limits of
this freedom in the interest of the common good. "The court's ruling threatens to
undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation," wrote Justice John
Paul Stevens in response to his colleagues' ruling. (ii) To many opponents of the
ruling, the decision hurts American democracy by allowing wealthy corporations to
unfairly influence elections. Thus the issue of corporation campaign financing cannot
be simply considered on the basis of individual freedoms, but also upon the interests
of the nation as a whole in preserving American democracy.
On the state level, Proposition 19, regarding the legalization of marijuana, recently
illustrated the friction between individual rights and the needs of society. One
argument for supporters of the legalization of marijuana, aside from the economic
benefits, was the individual's right to self-ownership. Supporters argued that if
individuals desired to use marijuana, it should be their freedom to choose to use the
substance. However, although individuals have a right to make their own decisions
regarding their own bodies, the well-being of others must also be taken in
consideration. Marijuana use would not only decrease the health of society, but also
endanger other citizens, as marijuana users could drive under the influence.
Ultimately, the election results this November indicated the importance of limiting
certain individual freedoms in the interests of the common good.
On the local level, Santa Clara recently banned toys, such as those in Happy Meals,
from being sold with food that did not reach nutritional standards, unleashing debate
over the rights of individual parents to regulate their children's diet and the need to
protect children from unhealthy foods. For those in favor of the law, this is a
necessary regulation in order to protect our posterity from the unhealthy meals
offered by fast food restaurants. Such a law is in the interests of the health of the
common people, in order to curb the alarming trends of obesity facing our
community today. Yet, at the same time, it infringes on the rights of fast food
restaurants such as McDonalds to sell what they desire. It is also limiting the free will
of parents and children to buy the meals they desire, preventing the parents from
purchasing Happy Meals for their children at their own discretion. Thus, even on the
most local level, debates over the limits of individual freedoms occur.
Ultimately, the tensions between personal freedoms and societal well-being will
never disappear from our politics as they are a necessary part of a continuing
dialogue in order to maintain a healthy society. Neither the needs of individuals nor
the needs of society are more important than the other. Only through maintaining a
healthy medium will America continue to prosper and remain the strong democracy it
is today.
i Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Spending." NY Times 21
Jan 2010. iiVicini, James. "Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political
cash." Reuters 21 Jan 2010