The Political Corruption Of The United States

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

The Federal Court Case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee is a case with a controversial outcome. The Supreme Court came to the decision, through a 5-4 vote, that for-profit corporations have the same rights to finance political campaigns as citizens. The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limiting of independent advertisements by corporations, associations, or unions (CU vs. FEC). The Supreme Court Decision allows corporations and unions to use their financial resources to either promote or persuade against any political candidate on an advertisement. The ruling also allows corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns and does away with any limits on how much a corporate donor can contribute to a campaign (ibid). While the businesses may not give money straight to campaigns, they have the choice to persuade the population of voters as a whole through the use of advertisements, just as Political Action Committees do. The corporate funding of political advertisements is made possible by the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to free speech, and political spending is one form of that protected speech.

FEC) limiting campaign spending on the basis that PACs (generated by corporations) where in fact individuals in their own right. As such, all individuals/citizens of the US have a right to spend their money as they see fit, whether that is making a political speech by funding certain campaigns. Therefore, forbidding corporate spending on elections is a clear limitation on freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some argue that not limiting the amount of money into politics will inevitably lead to corruption. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not built to protect man against himself but against, the government he created. This topic also brings to light the dilemma over what we, (the people and government), consider a citizen. Webster’s dictionary defines determines that the legal definition of a citizen is “1: a native or naturalized individual who owes allegiance to a government (as of a state or nation) and is entitled to the enjoyment of governmental protection and to the exercise of civil rights” and “2: a resident of a town or state who is also a U.S. native or was naturalized in the U.S.” Based on what a corporation is in that definition; a corporation does appear to meet all the requirements: it is considered an entity in itself that can indeed be based in the US, but does it pledge an alliance to our government? Can a corporation

Furthermore, they must disclose that the candidate of which the advertising is about does not condone the message ("Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission."). The Supreme Court struck down the law, thus essentially allowing unlimited funding of candidates from corporations. The unrestricted access that campaigns have when funding grants legal impairment of those who are unable to donate money as a corporation would, thus making the votes of the people matter less.

No one knows how much of that money came from corporate treasures. The courts five to four decision said that is it OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The courts decision also stated that the first amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don 't think American elections should be

In 2010, a very controversial law was passed that has changed the way our elections are ran. Our Supreme Court led by Justice Roberts immediately jumped on passing this law called Citizens United. Citizens United allows big corporations to spend as much money as they want in elections. This means that the corporations can put all of their money towards one candidate or they can put forth all of their money towards advertising for elections. This is good because these corporations can encourage people to become interested enough in elections to actively participate. With more people actively participating there are more votes for each individuals most favorable candidate creating the best outcome for the President of the United States or for a new member in the House or Senate. Since Citizens Untied gives so much power to corporations, these corporations heavily influence who to vote for through their advertising and money. From all of this unconditional amount of advertising and money influences in our elections, corporations have the ability to make their vote overpower the people’s votes.

Corporations make America the money-hungry place that is critiqued worldwide. Without the major corporations we see today, like Walmart, Target, and Mcdonald’s, 27 million people would be unemployed and they are very well aware of that (Zillman, Claire). If these giants embody what is wrong in America, why should they have the right to contribute to the candidate they want to help elect? The CEOs of these companies have personal interests they want to protect. These individuals have earned money on the backs of the 27 million people, we should be protecting Main Street, not Wall Street. The Federal Election Commission should reserve the right to limit and close the checkbooks of the people that believe they can buy anything they wish.

With that in mind, the Citizen United ruling harmed the democratic process of the American people. This case allowed private corporations to donate as much as they desired to the lobbyists and interest groups, not the PACs, being independent from the candidate itself. However, lobbyists still are able to affect the outcome of the federal elections and the law making process. Their purpose is to take an attempt to influence the candidates in their decisions making. For the most part, the money that is being contributed circulates in Washington D.C, from 9,000 registered lobbyists who occupy 70 of the 126 townhouses near the capitol. Since they wine and dine with congressmen, the lobbyists suggest models as a bill in Congress (Fischer). Money

It was after Watergate, that Congress enacted legislation that limited the sum of money that individuals could contribute and the amount they could independently spend in support of or in opposition to particular political candidates. Congress’s purpose was to establish a more “fair” political process. The ultimate goal was to decrease the probability of corruption of candidates and equalize the influence between corporations and unions. In 2010, that would all change when the Supreme court would overturn this ruling in the Citizens United verses the Federal Election Commission. The Supreme court would now allow for corporations and unions to use their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures, which they

The regulations governing campaign financing in the United States have three essential features. These focus the imperatives confronting candidates and donors. The first important feature of current regulation is limits on contributions. All contributions over $100 needed to be reported. They also raised the limit on Senate spending to $25,000. Donors would just set up multiple committees, donating less than $100 at a time to each. The second feature of campaign finance regulation bans prohibiting public utility companies from contributing to federal campaigns. The third feature of current regulation is partial public funding of presidential campaigns. Outlawing corporations and unions from even making independent expenditures in federal

“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

It is commonly said that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Power can come in different form such as economic power or political power. When economic interests interact with policy made by the government this can very dangerous. As shown by the article by U.S News & World Report on January 21st, 2015 with the headline “How Citizens United Has Changed Politics in 5 Years”, when unlimited money is allowed to flow into government we end with a corrupt system. This article discusses the effects of the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision. The decision that caused the start of the destruction of our democracy. Policies once made in the public self interest now only benefit the corporations

Such as “in 1905 Theodore Roosevelt proposes a ban on corporate campaign contributions. The proposal would not apply to people who own or run the corporations.” “In 1907 Congress passes the Tillman Act, which prohibits corporations and nationally chartered banks from making direct contributions to candidates for national office.”(ProQuest Staff) All of these facts are leading up to show that the government of America does not want large corporations funding the races of specific candidates. If large corporations were to fund the candidates, they would then control the government by choosing certain politicians to be elected and in favor the candidates would pass laws benefiting the corporations that sponsored them. Just another reason that corporations should not fund races is; “In 1922, Sinclair Oil, a major contributor to President Warren Harding's election campaign, is granted the right, without competitive bidding, to drill for oil on the reserves at Teapot Dome, Wyoming. Public outcry over the ‘Teapot Dome Scandal’ leads to calls for campaign finance reform”(ProQuest Staff). So as previously stated, it is clear that in the past the government did not want corporations funding campaign races. As of what happened two years ago, a law just passed that completely reversed what had formerly been set to ensure a fair election. This law had

However, consider special interest groups and large corporations that provide campaign funding to particular candidates in governmental elections. In 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that the government “could not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections .” This means that some of the most powerful organizations on the planet can exercise their freedom for expression by providing unlimited funding to support candidates that further their business’s agenda. For all intents and purposes, those who accept conditional special interest funding possess the capacity to campaign with greater intensity, allowing them exposure other candidates fail to get. These candidates run the risk of being indebted to the 20% of the population that control 90% of the financial wealth in the US . It would seem that these corporations, while granted freedom of expression, hold great influence over candidates in US elections. This means that the 80% of the population, which hold 10% of the US financial