Political Campaign Contributions Is Not A New Practice

Each year billions of dollars are spent on getting candidates of various offices of government elected. Many candidates have had tremendous success through the efforts of much needed monetary contributions to their campaign. Contributors range from unions, religious leaders, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and senior citizens groups. When these groups, known as special interest groups, donate to candidate’s campaign, they expect the candidate to respond to their issues. Because special interest groups, as well as private citizens donate more and more money to campaigns, there is some concern that there is a great need for campaign finance reform.

“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

Robert Michels believed that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. He called this the iron law of oligarchy. According to this school of thought, modern democracies should be considered as oligarchies. Unfortunately, Oligarchy Governments really hide under the name of democratic. As an example, a number of former Soviet states, including Ukraine. Officially, we live in a democratic state, but we all know who is at the helm of state power. Ukraine is called a democratic state, which governed by a few oligarchic clans.

The United States is no longer the democracy it stands for. Democracy stands for a government controlled by the majority of the population. The United States is no longer controlled by the majority. America is controlled by the powerful corporations and rich elite. The combination of an uninformed, disinterested public, a flawed election process, and an economy controlled by 1% of the population have all led to the formation of the American Oligarchy.

Of course, such influence establishes a tyranny of the rich that our forefathers clearly wanted to prevent. Senator Russ Feingold, a proponent of campaign finance reform, said, "The current campaign finance system is fueling the transformation of our representative democracy into a corporate democracy creating a political system that allots power in direct relation to the amount of money an individual or interest group can contribute" (Campaign Finance Reform). The horror of such a governmental system has fueled the cries for campaign finance reform.

Campaign finance has been plagued by continued deregulation. The system has long been anything but perfect,

With the introduction of “soft” money in politics, elections no longer go to the best candidate, but simply to the richer one. Soft money is defined as unregulated money that is given to the political parties that ends up being used by candidates in an election. In last year’s elections, the Republican and Democratic parties raised more than one-half of a billion dollars in soft money. Current politicians are pushing the envelope farther than any previous administrations when it comes to finding loopholes in the legal system for campaign fundraising. The legal limit that any one person can contribute to a given candidate or campaign is one thousand dollars. There is, however, no limit on the amount of money one

     After President Nixon and the Watergate controversy in 1971, the United States began to put limits on how much a candidate could receive and spend within a campaign. In order to enforce fairness between candidates,

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

In the 1700s when the United States had detached itself from British rule it was then seen as a plutocracy. The U.S established as a democracy; a government of the people and by the people. However, this establishment was in favor of the rich, educated, and powerful and anyone who was categorized or known as elites and it has remained in favor of these people ever since. Yes we can say we have witnessed variations and seen a semi-democratic rise in the past two centuries, but we have remained a plutocracy hidden behind the word that people use to cover its true identity, democracy. Those like the framers, the public opinion role, interest groups, and money all portray our hidden plutocracy.

6. Evaluate whether the changes in Exhibits 4 and 5 are likely to stop future foreign corrupt practices at Baker Hughes.

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

One of the largest issues that democracy in Latin America faces is bribery. This however is not entirely the fault of the corrupt politician trying to stay in power. Voters are also to blame for accepting these bribes. By accepting the

study claims our government is more like an oligarchy than it is a democracy at this point. An

In today’s society many Americans believe that there is corruption within politics. According to Jeffrey Milyo author of Corporate Influence and Political Corruption, a nationally representative opinion survey done in 2008 states that, “a little more than 50 percent of respondents agreed that corruption in the federal government is widespread and an extremely serious concern, while fewer than five percent considered corruption in the federal government to be rare or not a concern” (Konisky, Milyo, and Richardson, 2008). This leads many Americans to believe that politics is an “inherently corrupt activity” (Milyo, 2014). This of option of course can be looked at from many different perspectives. With many major corporations contributing to political campaigns; it is assumed that these politicians are being “bought” to further benefit the corporation’s agenda. Therefore, the perspective of Ethical Egoism; contributing to these campaigns is deemed justified since it would further benefit the company. A politician who invokes an ethical egoism view would believe that their actions of accepting contributions from a major cooperation would be justified since it helps them achieve their goal of entering their chosen political position. Since the politician is achieving what they wish then to them, their actions are justified.