The American Anti-Corruption Act: A Case Study

Lobbyist interference from multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies has heavily influenced Washington lawmakers’ policymaking. These pharmaceutical companies have their hand in much of the United States lawmaking practice. These powerful corporations stand to make a lot of money from the sale of drug testing supplies and services to the U.S. government. Macdonald reports:

Dating back many decades, it appears that lobbying and politics have always gone hand and hand on any political stage. Lobbying has always had a strong presence in the legislation system. Lobbying is the process of offering campaign contributions, bribes, or information to policymakers for the purpose of achieving favorable policy outcomes. Conventional wisdom suggests that lobbying is the preferred mean for exerting political influence in rich countries and corruption in poor countries. The legislation is meant to benefit society and ensure that citizens are having their voices heard, instead of hindering them in favour of the multi-national corporations. Lobbying has a negative influence on legislations in both developed and developing

Since the creation of the United States government, political lobbying has played a large role in influencing the creation and modification of laws. The act of lobbying is to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body (Dictionary.com). There has always been controversy surrounding the political lobbying system, due to the potential of corruption through bribery. Two important pieces of legislation became laws as a result of this controversy. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 and the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were created to prevent potential abuse within the political lobbying system.

Many controversial topics have surfaced recently, but one that tends to fly under the radar is lobbying. Lobbying is defined as a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to a group’s special interests (“Lobby”). Although average citizens are not fully aware of the issue, it is quite contentious in politics. For those who are against it, they believe that restrictions should be placed on lobbying because it distorts democracy. Lobbyists use money and cost-effective strategies to sway the opinions of lawmakers. Others see lobbyists as effective, political tour guides who help pass legislation. An analysis of the lobbying process reveals the outcomes are often

The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act (S. 2011) would amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for the negotiation of drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for those medications covered under Medicare Part D. The policy would be enacted at the federal level, and the policy tool used to do so would be federal funding. Under this bill, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) would be given the power to negotiate drug prices as well as establish and apply a specific formulary for Medicare-covered prescription drugs. Past rhetoric had implied that Donald Trump would have supported this bill; he condemned the role of pharmaceutical companies creating high drug prices as

The pharmaceutical and biotech industry agreed to contribute billions of dollars to healthcare reform. Having agreed early in political negotiations to contribute any-where from an estimated $80 billion to $105 billion in fees, rebates, and discounts to help move the legislation forward (Nussbaum, 2010). By agreeing to support healthcare reform with their money and policies, they were able to avoid issues that had plaques their industries for years such as drug importation and the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare D. In return, the pharmaceuticals and biotech firms would agree to discount drugs purchased by Medicare beneficiaries, affected by the doughnut hole, of the Part D program by 50 percent (Spatz, 2010). Congress also proposed additional government subsidies to be added to the discounts that would further shrink the gap; beneficiaries will pay 25 percent copayment

Due to many events of corruption within the economic system of America, the government was starting to fear that these ultra-powerful corporations was starting to interfere with the system of free competition among businesses, and free trade between the states. To help bring these institutions under control, Congress first passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in the year of 1890. It basically stated that no company or corporation was allowed to compromise between trusts or agreements that would mess up the system of free trade between states and other countries. Along with this, the federal government attempted to prosecute many industries in the Supreme Court, motivating Rockefeller to back down and get rid of his trusts. Unfortunately, this new

Once elected, politicians are inundated with constant reminders from lobbyists, of whose money helped elect them. According to the Office of Public Records, in 2009 there were almost 14,000 lobbyists who were supported by $3.5 billion of corporate money (geekacademy.com, 2010). With the combination of lobbyists and political donations, corporations are able to pressure politicians to help frame issues that are more favorable to them. And at the same time, keeping critical issues from being brought before Congress which those corporations are against. Political donations and corporate lobbying have proved to be an excellent

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.

I believe the Constitution is too vague. The dilemma lies in the details or lack of details. If the objective is free speech, it is much easier to just simply say free speech then to try and express every single instance where free speech is and is not allowed. While vagueness does allow for flexibility, it also allows some corruption, but corruption only comes from those who abuse the system. One example of corruption is in December 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union reported what they believed was one of the worst abuses of the Constitution since 9/11, the National Security Agency tapped into telephone calls of American citizens without a warrant, which violates the Fourth Amendment.

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

The Pharmaceutical lobbyist has a very powerful impact on the outcome of Medicare Part D. They were the ones that wrote the bill and presented it to the House and ultimately, it was passed. However, the tactics that were used were extremely questionable and unethical. A Democratic Representative from Michigan stated: “I can tell you when the bill passed, there were better than 1,000 pharmaceutical lobbyists working on this” (Singer, 2007). The

America has always been a land of freedom, prosperity, and rules. Save the times of the Wild West the United States government has attempted to exude a persona of ethicality. It seems that whenever a financial crisis/fraud/bribery scandal arises new laws are passed to help prevent future problems. Such is the case with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - passed with the purpose of keeping companies that do business in the US ethical in their business dealings. The main purpose of the act is to prevent companies from paying bribes to foreign officials, though there are other provisions included. It is only fitting that Wal-Mart, the largest retail store in the United States (2013 Top Global Retailers) has had allegations of wrongdoing related to the act. Wal-Mart was reported to have paid over $24 million in bribes to officials in Mexico. Why would Wal-Mart need to be bribing Mexican officials when they are so large and powerful themselves? And how did the US government get involved? These questions are the purpose of this paper.

The United States has a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in place, which prohibits U.S. firms from bribing foreign officials or business executives. So, if the mining equipment company would move forward with this deal with “cash under the table,” they will breaking a law and their ethical business culture. The possible successful expansion into Mexico will be out-weighed by the unethical ramifications. The unethical behavior will actually hurt them more because they will have to deal with the fines from breaking the law, and they will lose ethical value in their customer’s eyes, which translates to loss of customer profits. I would not go along with the unethical deal, I would simply keep lobbying with the government to get the act repealed.

The Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): Nike Inc. must be aware about RICO sections §§1581-1592, which deal with peonage, slavery and trafficking in persons. The company can have serious consequences with long imprisonment sentences and high fines. It is a great tool for prosecutors to use in human trafficking cases and it may be destructive for business.