A Corporate Environment: Industry control in the US political system
In the United States, corporate powers and private interest groups have been allowed to take far to much control over the creation and enforcement of environmental regulations and policy. This overstepping of boundaries has influenced the actions of politicians on every level, but one dangerous overstep is into the world of environmental politics. Corporations and private interest groups have a lot to lose if stringent environmental policy goes into place in the United States, and therefore these groups are willing, and unfortunately able, to fight back.
Political Action Committee
Corporations and private interest groups have been allowed a voice in the political system in the United States in several ways, one being the creation of PACs.
A political action committee, or PAC, is a group allowed to make unlimited or near-unlimited campaign contributions to a specific candidate, acting in the interest of a certain union, corporation or group that otherwise would be unable to contribute in such quantity or such a manner as a PAC allows. This lack of limitation has not always been the case, however. (Wikipedia, Political Action Committee, 2014)
History of PACs
In 1947, in the Taft-Hartly Act, unions and corporations were banned from spending money to influence elections, in order to maintain candidate responsibility to the voting base. But in 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act (and its amendments in 1974) defined a political action committee and allowed them to make contributions to a political campaign, in the interest of a corporation or other group. According to the Federal Election Campaign website, “the FECA provided an exception whereby corporations a...
... middle of paper ...
...cb-be7b-497f-b648-153b2850bbe2%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=9710192632>
Bartlett, Sarah, and John Hickman. "'Critical Use' Exemptions and the Methyl Bromide Blues." Synthesis/Regeneration, 32 (2003): 29-30.
Nguyen, Ngoc. “Banned Pesticide Use Remains High in CA Strawberry Fields” New American Media (2011)
“The Phaseout of Methyl Bromide” United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014)
Large campaign contributions from individuals, groups, and corporations have always been a hot topic in politics. Money and popularity are how elections are won. Whomever has the most money, and the most contributions is able to get their name out into the eye of the public. Usually, in American presidential elections, the most well funded parties are the Republican, and Democratic parties. By November 26, 2011, Barack Obama along with the democratic party, and Priorities USA Action Super PAC raised 1072.6 million dollars for their campaign, while Mitt Romney, the Republican party and Restore Our Future Super PAC raised 992.5 million dollars total for their campaign. Almost
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
Interest groups, lobbyists, large corporations, and PACs try to influence the congressional committees' bills so they can have a say in the legislative process. When an interest group hears about a bill that is being debated on in a committee, they try to influence a members vote and they try to get a part of the bill changed. For example, a lobbyist came to me on a bill I proposed on making health care plans have no minimum requirement on benefits the company gives to its patients. He told me about how he did not get the right treatments and tests done on diseases he has and now is suffering badly from them. It was because the health plan did not have to give him anything extra. He changed my mind on the bill, and I changed the bill to setting a minimum standard on benefits given to patients.
Parties formed on the behalf of big businesses supporters never found a strong voice in politics. Instead of creating their own political power, businesses could influence politicians with their money. Contributions were made to campaigns of nonsocialist candidates in return for policies that would benefit businesses. Some candidates that were receiving contributions were running against Adolph Hitler (Turner 94).
The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA is the result of a 1970 executive order by President Richard Nixon for the purpose of protecting the environment of the United States through regulation on business and citizens. Public opinion on the Environmental Protection Agency has been divided fairly evenly across the population of the United States as of recently, as compared to the widespread public concern of the 50’s and 60’s that led to the agency’s creation. Recently the agency has come under scrutiny for its contributions of millions of dollars in grants to researchers in order to hide the potential trade off of its actions in order to further the agency’s agenda. The EPA’s ever-expanding regulation could end up harming more than it actually
employees to raise funds, give partisan public speeches, or volunteer for any candidate or party. Among its provisions,
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
Interest groups are an interesting part of politics that usually gets overlooked. The term interest group is self-explanatory but the definition can be a bit more politically thorough: An organized group that tries to influence the government to adopt certain interests, policies, or measures also called pressure group. Interest group refers to virtually any voluntary association that seeks to publicly promote and create advantages for its cause. America is a melting-pot of races, religions, languages, cultures, beliefs, and ideas, yet it only
Speechnow.org’s most leading argument was in the fact that they did not give donations to political candidates or political parties, a major component that is thought of be traditional standards to be labeled as a political committee. This argument was flawed, however, because the FEC defines a political committee as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons that receives contributions of more tha...
Soft money undoubtedly influences our government. National party committees are allowed to use the soft money funds for voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote campaigns, but these ads can easily be manipulated to influence presidential elections. Common Cause charges that "soft money contributions are laundered through the political parties in a way that allows federally illegal money to nonetheless be used to influence federal elections." While corporations make large [soft money] donations to political parties, they are also lobbying for various legislation issues before Congress.
The term “super PAC” (for groups officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees”) gained popularity in 2010 after the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case was decided in a 5-4 vote, and the decision argued that, under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit independent spending by corporations and unions for political purposes. Soon afterward, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission that no limits could be placed on contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors and are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates or agendas they advocate.
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
We elect politicians on the basis on the issues by which they stand, and these issues are either held up or weakened by the numerous interest groups that exist today. Interest groups target both major and minor issues, using all of their resources to sponsor or overpower the groups’ concern. Interest groups are composed of a limited range of the body of voters who have a great stake in the issues their group support. They make evident the issues their group supports. Their resources are used in an attempt to make their issue public policy. Interest groups are persistent; they do not give up until they succeed. They lobby congress, take legal action, and attempt to influence election results in order to benefit their cause. ”The AARP monitors local and national legislation of interest to its members.”1 The AARP, an example of a non-PAC interest group, focus their efforts to electioneering and media. They influence the elections through their voter guides, election forums and the large senior voting population. Through television, radio, and periodicals the AARP is able to achieve many of their goals to aid retired persons.
To conclude, corporations have the right to sue, be sued, own property, enter contracts, rights for debt and actions, particularly limited free speech, this includes making political expenditures under the First Amendment Law. Resp...
The statutory rules regarding political activity and lobbying were enacted in 1934 and 1954. The Revenue Act of 1934 required that no substantial part of an organization’s activities be lobbying. Furthermore, the Revenue Code of 1954 added the requirement that charitable organization cannot participate in political campaign activities. On the other hand, under present law, an organization will not be tax-exempt as a charitable organization unless “no substantial part” of its activities are attempting to influence legislation. Also, Public charities may engage in limited lobbying activities if these activities are not substantial. In contrast, public foundations are restricted from lobbying activities, even if they are insubstantial. In order to determine if a public charity’s lobbying activities are substantial, a public charity can elect to choose the “substantial part” test or the “expenditure”