The Influence Of Power Corporations In America

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

The First Amendment has been one of the most controversial issues surrounding the Constitutions since its ratification in 1787. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Many people disagree on the extent of power the First Amendment actually has on the right to free speech. One of the most controversial issues surrounding the First Amendment is how much influence a company can have over elections and

This is astonishing as it benefited these companies as they saved hundreds of millions from taxes. This hinders the political process as it then causes an issue for the citizens as tax revenue from the lobbyers decrease, it leads to taxes being increased on everybody else. Among Fortune 100 companies, the ten that lobbied most in 2010 paid an average effective tax rate of 17%; the 80 that lobbied least paid an average of 26% (The Economist, 2014). Tax revenue is required by any government to be able to operate. In addition to tax increases on others, a reduction in overall spending and services by the government can be used to compensate for tax cuts obtained by the corporations who lobby. If in this situation of lobbied tax cuts, the government wants to sustain its spending, while not increasing taxes or the government, it is able to use debt in order to operate. Although this helps in the short time-period, the long-term affects can negatively affect the country. Throughout the national and state governments, public institutions like schools have been receiving decreased funding, particularly if their services are geared towards those who have no lobbying presence (Sager, 2012). This makes sense, as corporations who use lobbyists wouldn’t let their services be cut when there are ways to offset the costs onto

It seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Constitution's Preamble, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derivative from one of it's oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? From originally consisting of only white male property owners, to eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. The word corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found it's way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the grasps for corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.

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.

The idea that corporations and unions shouldn’t be able to express themselves through independent expenditures directly violates the first amendment. The first amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” (Document C). Explicitly stating that no laws may be made to violate the people’s freedom of speech the first amendment itself practically declares the denial of independent expenditures by corporations and unions unconstitutional. Both corporations and unions are formed by the people, they are simply groups of people with similar interests and by denying them the use of independent expenditures it is denying them of their freedom of speech. The concurring opinion in Citizens United v. FEC however argued that, “The Framers didn’t like corporations, the dissent concludes, and therefore it follows (as night the day) that corporations had no rights of free speech,” (Document K).

During local, state, or federal election there is a limited amount of time and information that a voter has to help him/her decide for which candidate he or she wants to vote. Before the ruling in Citizens United v FEC, private donations from voters were needed to provide candidates with financial means to create commercials, billboards, etc. In turn, this gave the voters a voice in who is to lead their government. Corporations were limited in the amount they could provide to their candidate of choice. After the ruling, corporations can now match every private donation and contribute an unlimited amount on top of that in order to support their candidate. This creates a problem because a corporation can potentially suffocate voters with campaign ads without the other candidates' ads being heard. Therefore creating an uneven debate and platform for Democracy to work.

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.

The national government’s original purpose was not to govern the states, but instead to monitor them and provide them with protection. During this time period the nation was run under the principle of Dual Federalism. Which meant that both the national and state government had an equal amount of power. However, over time the national government gained a grand amount of power while the states lost power, turning the once proud self-governed “countries” into nationally governed states.

The purpose of the textbook, Who Rules America? by G. William Domhoff, is to explain his theory of Class Domination. My essay emphasises the relation of social class to power, the existence of a Corporate community, the relationship of the Corporate community to the upper class, and various methods used by the Corporate community to dominate the U.S Political System. Furthermore, my essay will discuss the potential limits to corporate power in America.

Throughout the book, the writers describe the roles of the billionaires, corporations, politicians, and the media in the “money-and-media election process”. I believe the arguments that they made and the pieces evidence they use to support theirs claims are valid. I also believe that these problems are as serious as the authors describe within the key points they explain. There are many points made by these writers regarding these roles that these groups listed previously hold. One point made by Nichols and McChesney was that corporations hold the power to cast votes on issues with the money and resources that they hold. This is a product of the court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which gave powers to the corporations as if they were people. If the corporations vote with their money and resources, normal citizens’ votes seem to be obsolete, a common perception of American. This may be one reason why voter turnout is so low in this nation, people feel like they

1939: Germany invades Poland, France and Great Britain enter the war, and war rages all over Europe throughout the course of the year (PBS; 2007). During this turmoil and chaos abroad, the United States clings to its principles of freedom and democracy, described in Roosevelt’s 1939 State of the Union (“Franklin Delano Roosevelt”). So when the film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, criticizes the very governmental foundations the country so desperately clings to, the film is not met with enthusiasm but rather controversy. The movie criticizes the power of big business and its influence on public opinion, insinuating the shift from a true democracy to an oligarchical system of government (Levy 2015).

With reference to the levels and spheres of corporate power discussed in the chapter, how did the power of Standard Oil change society? Was this power exercised in keeping with the social contract of Rockefeller’s era? Corporate actions have effected society on two levels, on the surface level and deep level. On a surface level, business power can impact changes in the society, especially when corporations fire and hire employees or make and sell products.

Charles and David Koch, “the Koch brothers”, and their network allegedly raised over $400 million dollars in the 2012 election cycle. Most of that money was donated to the Republican party. For 2016, the Koch brothers are planning to spend even more money - nearly a billion dollars. So, who are the Koch brothers? What do they stand for?* And how powerful are they in the world of politics?

Since part of the money is being used to buy off politicians, it is corrupting our political system on all levels,