Corporate Political Campaign Spending: Is Democracy for Sale?

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

While there is a limit to the amount an individual, group, or corporation can give directly to a political candidate, there is no limit to the amount of money one can give to a super PAC. These super PACs work closely with a candidate’s campaign and pay for many of the candidate’s expenses. Super PACs spend a lot of money on expensive television advertisements to endorse their candidate and degrade their candidate’s opponents. While candidates often have to disclose their direct campaign contributions, super PACS do not. Super PACs are able to keep the sources of most of their funds hidden from the public. Some Senators and Representatives have been working on passing legislation to remove the cap on individuals’ direct campaign contributions. This would allow candidates to campaign without super PACs, making the sources of campaign funding more clear (Price

“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).

FEC) limiting campaign spending on the basis that PACs (generated by corporations) where in fact individuals in their own right. As such, all individuals/citizens of the US have a right to spend their money as they see fit, whether that is making a political speech by funding certain campaigns. Therefore, forbidding corporate spending on elections is a clear limitation on freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some argue that not limiting the amount of money into politics will inevitably lead to corruption. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not built to protect man against himself but against, the government he created. This topic also brings to light the dilemma over what we, (the people and government), consider a citizen. Webster’s dictionary defines determines that the legal definition of a citizen is “1: a native or naturalized individual who owes allegiance to a government (as of a state or nation) and is entitled to the enjoyment of governmental protection and to the exercise of civil rights” and “2: a resident of a town or state who is also a U.S. native or was naturalized in the U.S.” Based on what a corporation is in that definition; a corporation does appear to meet all the requirements: it is considered an entity in itself that can indeed be based in the US, but does it pledge an alliance to our government? Can a corporation

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

No one knows how much of that money came from corporate treasures. The courts five to four decision said that is it OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The courts decision also stated that the first amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

The Federal Court Case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee is a case with a controversial outcome. The Supreme Court came to the decision, through a 5-4 vote, that for-profit corporations have the same rights to finance political campaigns as citizens. The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limiting of independent advertisements by corporations, associations, or unions (CU vs. FEC). The Supreme Court Decision allows corporations and unions to use their financial resources to either promote or persuade against any political candidate on an advertisement. The ruling also allows corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns and does away with any limits on how much a corporate donor can contribute to a campaign (ibid). While the businesses may not give money straight to campaigns, they have the choice to persuade the population of voters as a whole through the use of advertisements, just as Political Action Committees do. The corporate funding of political advertisements is made possible by the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to free speech, and political spending is one form of that protected speech.

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

The federal government occasionally passes legislation intended to regulate the amount of corruption that occurs during election season. However, the effects of these regulations have not at all been collectively positive. These regulations have unfortunately encouraged the increase in campaign contributions and spending by various nefarious influences.

Debates about the just and proper financing of campaigns for public office can be traced as far back as the Federalist Papers. On one side are those that believe any restriction in the frequency or amount of individual, corporate or union donations is an unconstitutional assault on the freedom of (political) expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. On the other side are those that worry about the fair stewardship of elections. Do those with the means to make more

After the Citizen United vs. the FEC Supreme Court ruling, in favor of Citizens United, political campaigns have the ability to raise much greater funds through organizations called super PACs. According to Michael Beckel a political reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, “Officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees”— and unofficially dubbed “super PACs”—these political action committees are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations” (Beckel 655). On top of the ability to raise unlimited funds, the individuals donating are not required to disclose their names. This could lead to some serious corruption. Super PACs can run as much advertisement either for or against a political candidate, seriously swaying the way citizen’s vote and view a candidate. In fact “super PACs are allowed to use 100 percent of the funds they raise to influence elections” (Beckel 656). No one expected this Supreme Court ruling to have an impact so fast. As stated in an article published by The Nation, “The total number of TV ads for House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in 2010 was 2,870,000. This was a 250 percent increase over the number of TV ads

Democracy (n) - “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (Merriam-Webster, 228). This is the textbook definition of the type of government Americans are led to believe that they have. There is much evidence, however, that states otherwise. To argue that the United States is a pure democracy would be totally irrational due to the ever increasing proof that contradicts the very definition of democracy of which this country is built on. The largest factor affecting the deterioration of democracy is corruption of government officials, and said corruption is perpetrated on the most part by corporations. Corporations have far too much influence on the direction of campaigns, perhaps more than that of the people. Once they put a candidate in office, they can gently push the passage of laws that benefit them through the legislative system. This can be viewed through many angles, such as campaign funding, donations, or just outright bribery. This brings up another question: Should such acts be tolerated? If white-collar crimes committed by individuals are heavily persecuted, shouldn’t like crimes committed by large corporations be persecuted in the same way, if not in a more astute fashion? The answer to both of these questions boils down to the same fact- Corporate

Bribery can be defined as when one is offered money or some other incentive with the intention to corrupt a person’s actions.¬ Bribery is the main component, if not the basis, of government corruption.