Corporate Influence And Political Corruption

“Corruption, improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another its forms include bribery, extortion, and the misuse of inside information. It exists where there is community indifference or a lack of enforcement policies.”(Encyclopedia Britannica). Today political Corruption in all forms exists in every country in the world. In some countries it is more prominent then in others, but no matter where you go it still occurs. Recently in mid 2013 some political corruption was brought to light in New York. “Since 2007, state senators have been more likely to be arrested then to lose their seats in a general election,” (New York Public Interest Research group). In April of 2013 New York State

Political corruption is a major problem in the US today. It involves almost all levels of government and affects people from all walks of life. Public office is a noble post and citizens put their trust in government officials to carry out their constitutional duties for the benefit of the citizenry. The problem comes in where both elected and unelected officials perform their duties with the goal of personal gain in full view of the law. The ethical and moral wrongs of corruption are unjustifiable in any context.

Canada has a federal constitutional monarchy. The English monarch is vested with powers of state, but the power is shared with a representative democracy in which people express their views by electing representatives who meet and discuss policies.

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

One of the issues I am most passionate about is that of money in American politics. Increasing campaign costs, coupled with a decrease in the number of donors contributing to those campaigns, is a disturbing trend which has caused many to feel the need to question the state of our democracy—myself included. The problem of mainstream political corruption and legalized bribery is one that I was made aware of three years ago, and has since become one of the things keeping me up at night most often.

I agree that, deep down, there is something wrong with the way in which campaigns in the United States are financed. There is little doubt that large corporations and/or special interest groups have a “quid pro quo” expectation attached to the outlay of large sums of money (an expectation of a direct exchange of campaign contributions for favorable government treatment).

The Gilded Age was an interesting time where the government implemented a laissez faire stance on companies and the economic world. Due to this stance there would be a frequent amount of unethical actions and policies applied to common practice for larger business. The bigger unethical players in the game included: the railroads, Tammany Hall, and even the Federal government itself.

It is unsensible to believe that even the upper crest of the US financially can keep up with a corporation. Therefore receiving donations from corporations is the candidate's main goal, while ignoring the many small donors that truly represent America’s views. While there is no solid proof of corporations influencing candidates decisions thee have been sketchy moment in which corporations money influencing candidates decisions have been suspected. In 2000 when Bush was running for president an energy company based in Houston, Enron donated a substantial amount of money to Bush. They donated 2.5 million making them the highest donating energy company and the 36th highest corporate donator. After Bush was elected he passed 6 bills extremely beneficial for Enron that multiplied their revenue by nearly three times. In all Corporations donating limitless to candidates forces a candidate to pass bills beneficial for their donors and not the majority of people. This needs to stop or the purity of America’s political system goes down the

As said in every economics class, the reason every business goes into business is to make money. The same can be said in criminal cases involving businesses. In the majority of cases, executives and people highly ranked in the company tend to bend the numbers in the financial/accounting areas of the business or corporation. They do not do this for fun, but rather to make money. Something needs to be done before corporations really get out of hand.

Considering the presidential primary season is underway, there is a lot of debate around whether or not Super PACs are considered a form of corruption in government. Many Americans believe that because of Super PACs, the elected candidate will favor the ideals of the large-contributors who helped fund their campaign “indirectly”. This paper seeks to analyze the extent to which Super PACs may corrupt democracy. Using surveys from the Brennan Center for Justice and data from both Yale and Seton Hall Law, we discover theories on how people view Super PACs and their role in American democracy. The conclusion of our research suggests that Super PACs are undemocratic in both the sense that only a very small proportion of Americans actually get to

People search far and wide all the time to find the truth. According to Shana Lebowitz, “humans actually judge people psychologically based on their face, if they are able to trust another person” (P1). Americans in-particular have had an issue all throughout their country with both corruption and money flooding their political system ultimately preventing positive social change. The questions on campaign finance reform stems in two very different directions in political debate. One, is “Money Free Speech?" Two does it actually promote corruption like some political observers say and if so can it be stopped? Politian’s are first and foremost supposed to be a servant to the people regardless of their background, not to business and or themselves.

When ruling in Citizens United, Anthony Kennedy stated that, “independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.” this has since been debunked (Appearance of Corruption). The appearance of corruption is everywhere within our current system. When politicians privately visit the home of billionaire industrialists in order to secure campaign funding it becomes obvious that corruption exists (Parker). In the state of Kansas, 76% of influential legislative positions are held by members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) (Mainstream Coalition). This group largely funded by major corporations allows corporations to exert considerable influence over the American legislative process. ALEC’s practice of providing lawmakers with talking points, and creating model bills for its members to later vote on, transforms our lawmakers from the representatives of the

In my opinion Progressive Reformers were motivated by the working class, political corruption, and monopolies. Progressivism in its early stages allied with the working class to oppose big business and their poor working conditions. In the late 1890’s working conditions for the average working American were appalling. The average person worked long hours for very little pay and this caused the need for multiple family members to be employed. Progressives sought reform in the form of unions that would fight for the working rights of the working class. Companies responded to unionizing by seeking out politicians and putting them on their payroll to stop unions. During the Gilded Age, political corruption was common practice of big business.

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.

Are donations to politicians and  political parties a form of corruption? Should donations be prohibited?