What comes to mind when one considers the act of bribery? Like many people, a plethora of negative actions and ideas probably come to mind. Possibilities that may come to mind are things like, corruption, deceit, fraud, schemes, and other illicit activity or transactions. This is where an important question arises. What, then, is the difference between bribery and corporate political campaign funding? It is plain to see that the answer ranges somewhere between nothing and very little. In today’s political world democracy is for sale.
For starters, take a look at what this corporate political campaign funding really is. This type of funding is, as the name suggests, money provided to a campaign from a corporation with the expectation that the additional money will assist the candidate in winning. Although this may seem like a simple, benign transaction, it is not all that straightforward and thoughtless. Funding of this caliber is a classic example of one hand washing the other; there is absolutely no reason to believe that these immense corporations are receiving nothing in return for the large sums of money that they are donating. One could look as these corporate “donations” as more of an investment than a contribution since they are sending money to someone else in hopes that they will receive benefits in return.
The official definition of bribery is as follows: “The act of accepting or offering something of value, such as money, in return for a certain action or influence on a government official.” Now, looking back at the first question, what is the difference between bribery and corporate political campaign spending? The answer, at this point, should seem blatantly obvious; nothing. Bribery is an extremely serious offence...
... middle of paper ...
... are corrupt and immoral, parts of these laws have recently been returned to the ever powerful Supreme Court to be reevaluated. If it has made its way to the highest of American courts then it is easy to see that there is something wrong with this process. This act of corruption, which is now seen as perfectly acceptable in American politics, is in fact undemocratic. Most Americans have an extreme fear of things such as communism and dictatorships, as evident with the Red Scare in relatively recent years. Capitalism and democracy are two concepts that the average American citizen holds very near, so why would they then throw this away by allowing corporate political campaign spending? The American population needs to take our politician’s votes back off the marked, remove the price tag from our freedom, and eradicate the sale of democracy in the land of the free.
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.
Should we enact a campaign finance reform and ban soft money contributions? Campaign finance is among the top governmental and social issues of today's society. The truth is that today's campaigns are being financed by members of supported political parties that can afford to send their candidate to the top. These contributions are known as soft money contributions. Soft money can be defined as, unlimited union and corporate donations to political parties that allow special interest power brokers to have their way in Washington. Ultimately, These contributions are taking away pure democracy that is given to today's citizens. I, particularly, am interested in this issue because I would like to see the potential that our leaders have by running a successful campaign without large amounts of soft money contributions. It is important that candidates take our democratic system seriously and not toy around with our involvement in today's governmental system. Soft money contributions amounted to $487 million in the last election cycle, up from $271 million in 1996 and $86 million in 1992, according to the Federal Election Commission.
... outweigh this potential (but not proven) appearance of corruption. The real potential for corruption is related to direct contributions. However, the Court has imposed checks on this aspect of elections. It seems that any proposed system, even the current one, could be targeted as allowing for corruption, or for a disproportionate influence, or for a limitation on free speech. The important thing, therefore, is that the courts balance all these potential harms for the sake of protecting the democratic process and the First Amendment. The current system places checks in the areas where corruption is the most likely, and allows for the most expression in the areas where corruption is minimal at best. This gives citizens the great ability to influence elections and critically discuss candidates, while ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions.
There are many reasons that bribery can be committed. Some are to influence the result of something, influence a person with power or to encourage someone of something (Page 172). Sometimes people are bribed to act a certain way or lean towards a specific point of view. The ultimate goal of a bribe to pay of someone to alter their perception. I personally believe, that bribery happens more often than the average citizen knows. It is harder to prove that someone was given a large amount of money or something of value to influence something. Though there have been several cases. For example, in recent news, with the elections of the newly elected leader for FIFA, an alleged bribery case has
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...
Dating back many decades, it appears that lobbying and politics have always gone hand and hand on any political stage. Lobbying has always had a strong presence in the legislation system. Lobbying is the process of offering campaign contributions, bribes, or information to policymakers for the purpose of achieving favorable policy outcomes. Conventional wisdom suggests that lobbying is the preferred mean for exerting political influence in rich countries and corruption in poor countries. The legislation is meant to benefit society and ensure that citizens are having their voices heard, instead of hindering them in favour of the multi-national corporations. Lobbying has a negative influence on legislations in both developed and developing countries as it; only benefits major corporations, proves to be harmful to innocent civilians, and corrupts developing governments. Although there are corporations that utilize lobbying for good, due to the actions of the major corporations that use lobbying, it is evident that it corrupts the political process.
What We Don’t Know About Campaign Finance Does Hurt Us. “No matter what your social issue, if you want to solve it get the money out of politics. Only then will lawmakers vote for their people rather than their pocketbooks.” Jack E. Lohman. Money corrupts politics, and when contributions are being made to candidates it is not in the best interest of the American people. Campaign Finance is out of control in today’s political races. Candidates are taking money from wherever and whoever they can get it. Soft money is flowing through elections without care or caution. People who make these contributions do not share the views of the average citizen, so politicians end up representing the wrong people. Money decides races, sometimes leaving the better man but lighter spender out of a position. Candidates make decisions based on what will help them financially that what is better for the people. Contributions by industry are made not in the interest of the people, sometimes hurting them in ways they don’t even know. No matter what the opposition may say campaign finance reform is needed urgently to keep our democracy as our founders intended it. People and corporations that make the largest donations to campaigns do not share views with the general population. Politicians will listen to those who give them money so that they can depend on that money being there again when it is time for reelection. Yet individual donors making a $200 dollar or more contribution make up only .33% of the population. This extremely small percentage of mostly wealthy individuals gain the power to influence politicians to their liking. The idea that these people should have power to affect government more than those with less money goes against the concept of equality for all, which is what made this country great. People who make large donations do not share the same views on most issues as the general population. Robert L. Borosage and Ruy Teixeira report that while 53 percent of voters want stricter regulations on businesses and corporations, to give workers a fair salary and working conditions, 58 percent of campaign donors want to see less control over the businesses and corporations of America. Donors also want less government spending with lower taxes, while the majority of citizens want a larger, more powerful government. A very tiny part of our populat...
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.
When dealing with corruption, first question to ask or to clarify is what corruption is. NSW Research (2002) describes corruption anything from gaining materialistically by virtue of position (for eg. getting a special discount at stores) to engaging in ‘direct criminal activities’ (eg. selling drugs). Newburn (1999) believes that there is a thin line between the definition of ‘corrupt’ and ‘non-corrupt’ activities as at the end, it is an ethical problem. For common people, however, bribery generalises corruption.
Political systems within the United States work together to establish laws and create boundaries for their people. Government officials work with the Senate in Congress to help establish regulations not only for the American people but also for corporations in order to not become monopolies in today’s market. This all corresponds to a legislative process in order for Congress to have a clear idea of passing effective laws that help reinforce results within our society. Members of Congress and political affiliations are impacted by representatives from large business corporations through the process of bribing these government officials into supporting the ideas and desires of these corporations. In order for this to occur, these companies engage in lobbying. Lobbying is the attempt to influence government officials in decision making processes or swaying the government by employing tactics through various agreements in the form of verbal or written statements to public officials in Congress. This usually occurs through donations of large amounts of money to members of Congress as a way of bribing them to support the representatives of these corporations. Therefore, corporations have widely influenced Congress, making it difficult to pass laws and bills that are not in favor of these corporations. Thus, lobbying is influenced by money and promotes the interests of these specific corporations.
Bribery poses difficulties on moral grounds because it is incompatible with the principal of human equality and the fundamental right for individuals to be treated with equal respect and concern. For an institution to adhere to this principle, they must operate with fairness and impartiality: nobody should have access to influence that is not accessible to all. Bribery operates as part of a mechanism by which influence is only available ...
Bribery is wrong, and it would be almost instinctive to point at the benefits of impartially functioning public servants and incorrupt corporations to our democratic society as justification. However, in this imperfect world where bribery is rife in varying degrees, is it possible to express this notion convincingly? Certainly 'because the UK Bribery Act says so' is far less persuasive to a council planning office in Shanghai than in London, and indeed in compliance with section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 which relates to commercial offences, it is essential that this question is engaged with on a corporate scale and without assertion through dogma. Accordingly, this essay will argue that elements wrong with bribery are inclusive of both moral and economic considerations. Moreover, in conjunction with international mandates, advent of aggressive legislation such as that of the UK Bribery Act 2010 is representative of global efforts to eliminate bribery. Hence, it follows that bribery can never be considered a normal part of business because it is economically unsustainable in the long term.
Corruption consists in the illegitimate agreement between a corruptor and a corrupted, in which they abuse of their public power in order to obtain personal benefit. Bribery and corruption is something that has been going on for years. According to Allen, “officials perceive themselves as immune to any penalties for demanding and receiving bribes” which she states that it is one of the main reasons for bribery and corruption in underdeveloped countries. According to Transparency International, an organization committed exclusively to end corruption, three of the most corrupt countries in the world are Somalia, North Korea and Afghanistan. This does not mean that corruption is only seen in underdeveloped countries. In international business, corporate employees often find themselves dealing with corruptors in foreign countries and, in most cases, they will give in.
The typical example of bribery in countries, where it is seems to be normal, is paying for vote on elections. Political party in this situation offers some amount of money to citizens in exchange of their vote for this party. In this case, self-interest of people to a new government is distorted, because some destitute are rather to receive gift and vote for politician, who participates in
Over the last few years, the issue of corruption--the abuse of public office for private gain--has attracted renewed interest, both among academics and policymakers. There are a number of reasons why this topic has come under recent inspection. Corruption scandals have toppled governments in both major industrial countries and developing countries. In the transition countries, the shift from command economies to free market economies has created massive opportunities for the appropriation of rents, excessive profits, and has often been accompanied by a change from a well-organized system of corruption to a more chaotic and deleterious one. With the end of the cold war, donor countries have placed less emphasis on political considerations in allocating foreign aid among developing countries and have paid more attention to cases in which aid funds have been misused and have not reached the poor. And slow economic growth has persisted in many countries with malfunctioning institutions. This renewed interest has led to a new flurry of empirical research on the causes and consequences of corruption.