Masters Of Chicanery Analysis

Plunkitt seems to have a utopia planned for the entire City of New York; for it to become an oligarchy under the careful watch and guidance of the political machine, Tammany Hall. Plunkitt describes how no one, but the Tammany Hall leaders, would have to worry about anything if New York became its own state. Plunkitt even references President Abraham Lincoln, saying the government of Tammany Hall is one that Lincoln would have blessed. Plunkitt continues to talk about how he would do everyone a favor by helping them until he believes they can stand on their own two feet. To show what he means, he uses the analogy of how the federal government is looking after and helping the

7. On the Shame of the Cities- In Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities, Plunkitt says that he does not know how to make decisions. He talks about the Philadelphia Republican Gang and Tammany Hall being almost the same. Plunkitt thinks he is all wrong. Plunkitt seems to talk about politicians stealing, saying that they in 1905 are no worse than 1835 as a class. It just means that the old timers had nothing to steal, while the politicians in 1905 were surrounded by temptations.

Summary: The article, “Campaign Cash and Corruption: Money in Politics, Post-Citizens United” is mostly about exactly what it says. Mentioned is, among other things, the massive influence money has in political campaigns in the US, not just among national elections but in senate elections, representative elections, and even state and local elections. Another thing touched upon throughout the article is the revolving door with people becoming senators and then leaving their job as senator to become a lobbyist and make tons of money to in turn try to convince senators to create certain laws.

People of New York, I have come to you today to address a problem that has plagued all of New york for centuries. Beginning in the gilded age of 1870, the state government reacted to you, the people. However, they reacted based on avarice and individual interests. One of the central influences in the government during the New York gilded age was the democratic, political party Tammany Hall. This party was founded by Tweed Williams, a poorly taught democrat who went to jail for stealing roughly 25-45 million dollars from taxpayers in 1877. He was able to do this to the people because he had friends higher up who gave him the power to access the banking industries and bribe people with money and jobs to stay in office. He stole this money from men, women, and children to spend on himself, while the people he was supposed to represent lay in poverty. Tweed was essentially tearing the money out of your pockets, taking the bread off your dinner table, and all the while, smiling right at you while he took your votes.

In the latest of political scandal we find Dean Skelos a Republican New York Senator from Long Island. Mr. Skelos and his son Adam are being investigated on corruption charges stemming from extorting money and soliciting bribes from business’s that were coming before the state of New York. This investigation has caused Mr. Skelos to step down from his post as a Senate Majority Leader. Mr. Skelos solicited money to be paid to his son Adam for work he never performed. “Mr. Skelos is accused of extorting more than $200,000 in payments made to son.” (https://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/new-york-state-senate-majority-leader-dean-skelos-and-son-arrested-on-corruption-charges)

This scandal of course refers to Dinesh D’Souza, who is a (BWAHAHAHAHA!) Minority-Republican. Dinesh D'Souza, a “somewhat-prominent” conservative commentator (Not like Breitbart-level prominent, though). He was charged with making illegal contributions to a United States Senate campaign in the names of others. He was also charged with causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission in connection with those monetary contributions. D'Souza was accused of giving reimbursing upwards of $20,000 to individuals that donated to an unnamed candidate. (Lying to Congress is considered Perjury, by the way.) Now, Let’s talk about Televangelists (Who in my opinion are pretty crummy, in general.) According to a documentary made in 2014, a charity run by televangelist Pat Robertson (Who was actually quite famous a few decades ago) that was meant to help refugees fleeing from post-genocide Rwanda actually served as a front for Robertson's diamond mining operation in

It is not uncommon to have a candidate’s campaign to be funded by people who are not constituents, but are organizations or lobbying groups. While it is fine that a particular cause or organization support one candidate over the other due to their beliefs or even donate to their campaign in order to get the person elected it is however, not okay to let an organization or cause to dictate what side you will have on a issue or even how you will vote on a measure or law. This issue is not exclusive to presidential candidates or governors as there are senators and representative who receive funds from special interest groups. Nor is this issue only relevant to big districts such as Los Angeles, San Diego, or San Francisco. Alejandro Lanzo (2015) of the Wall Street Journal has stated that, “Political spending by outside groups on statewide and local elections totaled more than $80.6 million in

It is a reality universally agreed upon that there is a baseless aggregate of wealth that is expended in electoral campaigns in the United States of America. One does not need to investigate any further than the previous federal election, where the unmitigated sum of affluence was greater than the vox populi of Earth, to comprehend the actuality that the immersion of money in politics has developed into a concern that must be amended. Furthermore, if this issue is permitted to continue, then the entire American campaign system remains tainted due to the fact that the politician with more wealth is able to propagandize better. It is essential that the regulations of campaign finance are reformed in the United States; for in modern politics, money has an abundant amount of influence and sway over individual votes, which in turn abolishes political equality.

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).

It is difficult to be a politician in the United States today without accepting money from corporate interest. Democrats and Republicans accept money from groups like wall street, lobbyists, giant corporation, and the oil industry. These two parties claim that this money doesn't affect their policies or votes. A group named Wolf Pac was formed by citizens that believe this type of exchange is considered legal bribery. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) On January 21st, 2010 the United States supreme court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC authorized this type of exchange. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) Therefore, both parties can accept unregulated money and support from huge corporations and special interest in the form of Super Pacs. The CEO’s of these corporations that donate to candidates believe their corporations are individuals, and the money they donate is their freedom of speech.

Cities in the United States are changing rapidly every day with the advancements in technology and the growing number of industries. Some of the industries that have grown recently have been the railroad industry connecting the East Coast with the West and transporting goods like food and supplies to everyone near and far. Also, there's been an increase in mining and in the food packing industry. With the increasing number of industries, people in politics are willing to do anything necessary to get what they want.

they govern. Throughout history, the actions of powerful political officials has set precedent for future leaders. As a result of the high amount of political power officials often attain, there is a high amount of corruption throughout politics. Florida, for example, ranks as the number 1 state in the United States in terms of corruption according to William March of the Tampa Bay Tribune1. Humans as a result, have an incredible amount of power to create instability in politics. A large amount of laws & acts passed in Florida have been as a result of “big money” ­­ where large companies will bribe government officials in exchange for acts & laws that favor their enterprise. Government officials don’t have a limitless power though, as a new act passed in Florida shows. Voters in Tallahassee, Florida made history by approving the first city Anti­ Corruption Act. Movements by people like this exemplify that people have a large amount of power to create instability, but it does have its limits. An example of corruption on a grander scale includes lobbyists in America according to Juan Cole of Informed Comment. Lobbyists, or business owners who

Greed is definitely woven into our economy, this is the nature of business and the fact is corruption tends to be the result of greed. In this case people like Michael Burry were driven by greed to find a weak link in the market, which was the housing market, the idea of a market crash meant a great profit on the investments and the consequences of such an action were of little to concern to such people. Once the word spread it was like a domino effect, people started investing and the market crash occurred costing millions of people their homes and jobs. I remember hearing some people had commit suicide back in 2008, when they lost everything. However, these investors walked away with a fortune. It is true the investors were probably unaware

The reoccurring concept of the principal-agent problem can be defined as employees taking advantage of their employers, or in political terms, elected officials taking advantage of their constituents by hiding information and specialization. Specialization becomes problematic when the agent uses their specific knowledge, in which the principal is lacking, to manipulate the actions of the principal. This issue can be solved by hiring, monitoring, and firing the employees. This is done in politics by electing the official, monitoring their actions, and voting them out of office if the elected fails to do what they were elected to do. Politicians can specialize in certain areas to make themselves seem more desirable to their constituents, claiming to offer something no other politician offers, which in turn makes it easier to be voted into office.

The correct action is then chosen and influence is distributed accordingly. At least their predecessors has the moxy to accept white envelopes, these compartmentalizing preachers can attribute the money given as merely a contribution to their campaign. It is in this realization we enter into another odd conundrum, as similar to the CEO maintaining that in not acting in the best interest of those who sign his paychecks, he will no longer have the job. A politician has also been absorbed into this bubble, as the requirement for running a campaign in the reality television era of politics, has set the bar tab at millions just to play. While a Bernie Sanders may maintain his freedom from influence citing a majority of his contributions to smaller donations, opposite her opponent; often dubbed the Senator from Fannie Mae, Mrs. Clinton. It is a testament to the failing of regulations, that as a talking point and point of pride in your political career is that you are not as corrupt as your opponent.