The Privileged Position of Business Hudson first states what he believes to be the central assumption of the Pluralist description of American politics that there is no one dominant group in American Society. He argues that there is a dominant group, business. I agree that the pluralist ideology is wrong and that business is very dominant in our political society. He continues by stating that there are two faces of the political privilege of business. The first involves business actively manipulating the political system to obtain their political objectives. Hudson starts by stating that the first aspect, that of the active manipulating of the political system by business to obtain political objectives, can be divided into three aspects, business predominance in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to business in the media, schools, and universities. I will first discuss his views on the predominance of business in lobbying policy makers. He argues that the pluralist theory is wrong in determining the signifi...
Introduction In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in.elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape. Campaign Finance in the United States During the Gilded Age—a period that began in the 1870s wherein the United States experienced tremendous economic growth—affluent industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie exercised, owing in large part to their wealth, enormous influence over the direction of American politics. Though left unaddressed during the Gilded Age, the issue of corporate involvement in political affairs was eventually identified as a corrosive problem in President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address.
“ … we… need an alternative to winner-take-all majoritarianism… with Nikolas’s help… I call [this] the ‘principle of taking turns.’ [It] does better than simple majority rule… it accommodates the values of self-government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus that lie at the heart of the democratic ideal” (para.
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.
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).
By its use of majority rule, America’s democracy models a collectivist society. Take elections for an example. Although, Americans vote individually, the decision ultimately is based on the country as a whole. The use of majority rule relates to the representation of the ideas of the masses rather than the ideas of the individuals. As expected, there is always a number of people who disagree with the majority's opinions. Disagreement is frowned upon, which Andrew P. Naplitano highlights in his book, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. Due to America's use of the majority rule, this title often holds true.
...e see that there are several factors which contribute to America’s pluralistic society. The influence, openness, and competition of interest groups put power in the hands of a diverse selection of people. The democratic elections and multi-party system allow people to choose from a number of candidates who they want to represent them as the elite. Lastly, America’s three branches and the bounds of the constitution help ensure that there is balance of power. Pluralism is a system which has worked for the country. Since its birth, the public has always been able to influence politics. Never has there been a threat of domestic tyranny. As long as the elite adhere to the constitution and work as activators for the people’s views rather than their own, America will be a free, democratic nation—a place where everyone coexists to share power, responsibility, and rewards.
He argues that the realization of the influence that corporations had on the government caused this movement and that the short attention span of the nation led to the rise of a bureaucratic system to regulate it. His argument answers
Reformation on the funding of political campaigns has been an ongoing battle between trying to create an equal and democratic balance of representation for the people and the rich and powerful who have succeeded in using the media to control those people. With The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972 and the establishment of the Federal Election Commission in 1975, steps were taken to hold the wealthy and public officials accountable for corruption and to try and prevent it. Though the act could be viewed as a positive sign of peaceful evolution in the direction o...
involvement of money as a deciding factor in politics. This is a view by many who support
Though the intent of a voter is based off their own individual opinions, the same virtues may be found with lobbyists. Like previously mentioned, the lobbyist must be passionate in order to truly persuade. Because of the opportunity to manipulate and bribe politicians to their side, there are regulations to try to prevent corruption. ...
Hudson, William E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future – Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004.
Mills highlights the unjust power of the power elite for imposing their power in an organized and planned manner, infringing on the democratic and political rights of those who are not part of the power elite.
...top positions in the governmental and business hierarchy from communal principles and beliefs. Majority come from the upper third of the salary and professional pyramids, their upbringings were from the same upper class, some attended the same preparatory school and Ivy League universities. Also, they belong to the same organizations. The power elite have the power to control programs and actions of important governmental, financial, legal, educational, national, scientific, and public institutions. The ones in power influence half of the nation’s manufacturing, infrastructures, transportation, banking possessions, and two thirds of all insurance possessions. The occupants take essential actions that could affect everyone’s’ life in American society. Rulings made in meetings of significant corporations and banks can influence the rates of inflation and unemployment.
William Domhoff’s investigation into America’s ruling class is an eye-opening and poignant reading experience, even for enlightened individuals regarding the US social class system. His book, Who Rules America, exploits the fundamental failures in America’s governing bodies to provide adequate resources for class mobility and shared power. He identifies history, corporate and social hierarchy, money-driven politics, a two-party system, and a policy-making process orchestrated by American elites amongst a vast array of causes leading to an ultimate effect of class-domination theory pervading American society. In articulating his thesis and supporting assertions, Domhoff appeals rhetorically toward an audience with prior knowledge of America’s
Mills describes the power of elite as the military, economy, and government, the middle class is: congress, legislators, interest group leaders, and local leaders in society, and the lower class is: the mases of people who are forgetting about, and are uninterested to the upper class. These 3 power elites are dominating society, and only benefiting themselves. The power elite makes the lower and middle class hard to take control over their own society, they are manipulated, and the mases of people are taking controlled of. Each 3 of the power elite benefits one another, they don’t care about the lower classes, instead they make more money off us by, buying more guns for the military, which makes the government more