The Government Protecting Citizens from Corruption

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.

From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700’s you had to be a white male landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has over the election process and politicians. While money has it’s

The controversy surrounding political lobbying does not question the act of influencing public officials, but rather the ethics relating to how these public officials are influenced. It is important to distinguish the fine line between bribery and lobbying. It is illegal to bribe a public official in the United States. This would mean that an individual could not provide compensation to a public official for them to behave, or vote, in a specific manner. Lobbyists may donate money to a specific candidate’s political campaign, but they may only do so when there is no expectation that the public official will behave in a favorable way toward the lobbyist or their clients (Mackinder). Lobbyists may bring public officials, their immediate families, and staff on trips or out to dinner. While it is illegal for a lobbyist representing a corporate client from directly bringing, it is not illegal for foreign governments to sponsor for these said trips (Goldmacher). What has begun to happen is lobbyists representing corporate clients may bring public officials on these trips, if the trip is sponsored by a foreign government. The Senate Office of Public Records reported that $3.23 billion was spent on lobbying in 2013, with 12,300 registered lobbyists. Professor James Thurber, who teaches at American University, has studied congressional lobbying for over 30 years, and does not believe these figures are accurate. He believes

The United States has experienced fundamental changes that are dramatically detrimental to democracy. Voters’ ability to define political discourse has been so diminished that even decisive election results like Barack Obama’s in 2012 have little impact. That’s because powerful interests — freed to, in effect, buy elections, unhindered by downsized and diffused media that must rely on revenue from campaign ads — now set the rules of engagement. Lobbying involves working to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain favorable policy outcomes. In order to accomplish their goals, interest groups develop a strategy or plan of action and execute it through specific tactics. The particular strategies developed and the specific tactics used, however, vary widely both among and within political

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

Monetary value has had significant influence in determining the outcome of elections. The input and strategies put forward by different forces determine the organizational scheme and the ability to grab most of the seats. Although money has been linked to corrupt deals in many countries, with leaders amassing power through corrupt and underhand methods, especially in Africa, this is not the case of the same monetary influence witnessed in America. The conventions of the U.S.A raise a lot of money in preparation for campaigns and elections to constitute a good number of representatives. The paper, therefore, looks at the effect of money in the recently concluded elections of the Congress, giving a deeper view of the 113th and 114th Congress election of the two major conventions.

The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committee's

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.

Corruption has no place in our government, period. The American people have a right to hold their elected officials to high ethical standards, and when their elected officials fail to meet such standards, the people have a responsibility to hold them accountable. In addition to standing for election every two years, Congress has ethics committee procedures it can utilize to censure or otherwise reprimand members who violate the rules. Members of Congress have to abide by the same laws as everyone else, and when laws are broken, they should be held accountable.

Corruption can come from many different people. When the same group of people are always in government it becomes a situation where this group of people runs government. And when someone wants to be elected they might do whatever the group of people wants to be in there favor. The Federalist paper number 68 it says “He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessarily to the duration of his official consequence” (Hamilton). There are also people from foreign countries that want to be the leader of America just for the benefit of their home country. They

Vladeck (2002, para.14) addresses the issue of monetary power and its impact on universal health care coverage in the United States further pointing out that while politicians in the United States were able to succeed without huge electoral support, they couldn’t succeed without money behind them. As industry began to grow in the United States and contracts came up for large infrastructure projects such as the railroad, building canals or bridges and mining, the concept of political donations in return for lucrative contracts began to get established. Vladeck (2002, para16) also points out that wealthy groups and individuals have always been

New PACs formed with each election year and they had the ability to fund a candidate of their choice, and to force that candidate to try to carry out the organization's goals, no matter how detrimental. Ultimately, PACs lead to Super PACs, which, in addition to sharing many attributes to PACs, can raise and donate significantly larger sums of money, and hide the names of their donors for long periods of time. Additionally, Independent Expenditures organizations face no restrictions on the amount of money they can raise, and 501(c) groups can completely conceal the identities of their donors for the duration of an election season. In fact, 501(c) groups have become so powerful that they provide approximately half the money used during election seasons with the hope of swaying citizens to vote for their favored candidate. (Karlan 13) These organizations clearly demonstrate the effect and the power that money holds in both elections and the government in general. However, Pamela S. Karlan, a professor of law at Stanford Law School, shares this message: “However, money is only one symptom of a deeper political pathology.” This serves as a reminder that dollar bills can not singularly take blame for the uncertainty in our

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

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

Living in America people learn to live amongst some of the most corrupt human-being known to humankind. Anyone can be corrupt, weather he or she is a corrupt cook working for Burger King stealing money from the cash register to pay bills, or a corrupt politician who votes to raise his or her earnings while committing white-collar crimes against the American public. Theodore Roosevelt could not have been more precise when he said, “When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘present’ or ‘Not Guilty’.” Corruption has been around for some time in America, and the government has struggled to void this type of behavior when it comes to politicians. The government’s use of the FBI for investigations, the media