Ethical Codes Across Cultures : Ethics

Another example of this is in New York City, where a "hospital for special surgery, paid Cassidy 140,000 dollars and obtained a 1 million dollar grant from HRSA" (Zeller 2006). This is what lobbyist companies are able to do they receive a sum from their customer and then in return try and give them a lot of government money. This affected Texas because not every time someone gives a lobbying group money are they guaranteed to receive anything in return. One of Cassidy 's clients were the president at the University of Dallas, and what probably took place is that they did not get the federal funding at one of the universities in the state and now the accountant or comptroller begins to wonder why public universities are giving a lobbying group in Washington so much money and getting nothing back, so she pulls the plug on allowing them to receive any more money. Cassidy certainly has not shied away from looking shady with their business. In the nineties they hired as CEO a man named Marty Pusso and he was "vice chairman of the house ways and means health subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over numerous healthcare issues and programs" (Zeller 2006). Being the Vice Chairman as well as CEO of a lobbying company that "in 1999 received 1.3 million dollars from 10 hospitals" (Zeller 2006) seems to create a conflict of interest problem or in Pusso’s case a solution. Furthermore, this questions as to how

In the case of William J Jefferson, Louisiana representative, was sentenced to 13 years of jail time due to 11 of 16 counts of corruption. This man use a number of fronts, to hide his bribery money, left a huge paper trail, and was even recorded in four different angles of accepting the bribery money, and have the audacity to try and prove he was innocent. He stated that the FBI gave him the money, so that he could give it to the Nigerian President, it was all part of the plan, and the only reason he helped the money will show all the facts of the plan would be understood. If that was the case, why did he hide the money in the freezer, inside a Pillsbury pie crust box? Its mind blowing that a politician, with all his years of education could

lawyer, how do we know if he is not like that towards other clients and judges. I understand that people get emotional when things like divorce and custody arises and things can get out of hand, but in this case, I feel he went a little overboard only thinking about himself and not considering the consequences this all had on his ex wife and minor child. He was definitely unprofessional and even one of the judges said “ if someone asks me what vexatious litigation looks like, the former husband's various filings in this divorce case, especially his antics in these post judgment proceedings, are an excellent example” (Judge Farmer, 1997). Judges and lawyers have a higher standard to go by, if this type of action is not tolerated when representing a client, then it definitely should not be tolerated by a lawyer in his own case.

Although the decision didn't affect contributions, it's still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) was the backlash against the dark-money disaster of the 1972 reelection campaign for Richard Nixon who "raked in $20 million in secret donation[s]" (Kroll, 2012). For one thing, proponents for less stringent rules are not denying that corruption exist because contributions given directly to candidates is, but independent expenditures are not.

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.

During this era, the reformers focused on large contributions. “The large donations were made to the committee to reelect the president and this was in violation of the disclosure requirements passed in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971” (Johnstone, 224).

In the setting of intensive party politics the candidates and their campaigns are often alleged to receive inappropriate donations or even to be involved in illegal investment. Public prosecutors are demanded to initiate an investigation into such disputes and to decide whether or not prosecute the candidates. Until now, three well-known non-prosecution cases have occurred before or during the presidential elections.

Moreover, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it unlawful for certain classes of people and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. Specifically, the anti-bribery provision of the FCPA prohibits the willful use of the mails or any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce to be corruptly in furtherance of any offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of money on anything of value to any person. While knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official to influence the foreign official. Through his or her official capacity inducing the foreign official to do or omit to do an act in violation of he is or her lawful duties, or to secure any improper advantage in order to

The Ethics Code is intended to support us in differentiating between suitable and deplorable behavior in regards to all individuals. When working with adolescents and children, the guidelines become a little more ambiguous. Adolescents require consent from a legal guardian in most cases to seek treatment, but confidentiality permits some information discussed from being released to the parent that requested the treatment. When working with youth the primary focus can include not only the ethical decision, but the legal and moral decisions, as well.

Campaign contributions destroy the marketplace by expelling the views of average citizens in exchange for the views of corporate donors that don’t have the opportunity to have their views scrutinized by the public. Their views are safe from criticism because they are able to shield their views through backdoor talks with candidates. According Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of Constitutional Law at the New York University of Law, in reference to political corruption, “the source of corruption was large expenditures capturing the marketplace of political ideas” (Issacharoff). The spread of ideas is essential to democracy and large donations to campaigns prevents ideas from average citizens from being considered. The corruption from large corporations needs to be regulated to allow for our democratic elections to be free and fair for everyone involved so that all suggestions can be heard.

Autonomy - this principle means that it is a form of personal liberty; the individual is free to make choices and to implement those decisions, free from deceit, duress, constraint or coercion. The nurse has the right to make choices that will benefit the patient and the decision to implement them without fear of being reprimanded. The nurse has gone to school to learn the trade of caring for people and has the competence to use what has been learned. Nurses are also learning everyday while on the job and their knowledge is continuing to grow from this.

Among those cases includes then President Bill Clinton and his Vice-President Al Gore though their campaign funds contributors were acquitted – Franklin L. Haney the idea that it is possible for politicians to be influenced or use illegal money for their campaign activities. The case of lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2006 is another figurative representation of how campaign donations can lead to fraud (Schmidt and Grimaldi) and may also encourage other forms of misappropriation and corruption among politicians and their quest for public office.

Yes, it is ethically ok to deceive humans when doing research on their behavior if you can justify the potential results you may find. However, there is the strict code of ethics that must follow to protect both participant and psychologists. The psychologist must follow the rules of conduct to protect participants and the reputation of psychology and psychologists. The most also ensure they get informed consent and debrief the participants to ensure they understand They must also protect all participants from physical or mental harm and ensure the do not embarrass, offend or harm participants. The risks during deception research cannot be greater than ordinary life and special care must be given to the elderly, disables, and hidden.

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