Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The question of corruption and bribery in the government
The question of corruption and bribery in the government
Corruption by politicians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Mixed Media Culture
Following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government the country now had; “a republic, if you can keep it”. Franklin’s concerns at that time was that we might turn to a monarchy on the basis that this was the kind of government familiar to most people in the new world. Now, many years later, we should be concerned about the same issue, but rather than a “real” monarchy, comprised of an individual or a family ruling the country, we are faced with the prospect of money being the King and those with money controlling government and society.
We have seen government fall to the whims of money and special interest groups, more in the last decade than before. There are laws on the books to control the influence peddling in Washington and other communities, but these laws are not being enforced. Pressure and influence by unions, large business groups and other large organizations has been common place for years, but in the recent past, we have seen influence from individuals, many with less than acceptable standards, accepted by the size of their campaign contributions to individuals or to a specific party.
The average American has to wonder today whose interest is being served by their representatives. The idea of a government for the people can and should be questioned, until we can put controls on those with money and the manner in which they are allowed to spend money to influence elections and policies. When we see polls indicating that nearly two thirds of the participants question the integrity of the government, we need to look seriously at what changes need to be made. We need to develop a system that is less influenced about the need to raise large sums of money and get the politicians more focused on the needs and values of society. Some of the measures being considered include: better enforcement of laws currently on the books, restrictions on a candidate raising large sums of money, if he elects public funds for his campaign, closing the loopholes associated with soft-money contributions from unions, business groups and others, and encourage voluntary limits on campaign spending. Obviously, we did not get in this position overnight and this issue is not something that will be solved without a sweeping change through the government structure.
Another issue impacting the political process today is the lack of participation by registered voters and maybe the need to increase the number of registered voters.
In this paper we will discuss the different point of views on the revolutionary war period that lead up the creation of the constitution between Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart. It is true that the constitution as created by the rich, however the rich were more educated than the poor at the time, making them the reliable leaders of the society. This said, the rich might have tweaked the Laws to their slight advantage. Schweikart explains the creation of the constitution in order to fulfil the needs of the population. However Zinn emphasizes the fact that the government is controlled by the elites who benefit the most form the foundation of the constitution.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
For hundreds of years, politicians have searched for the perfect form of government to be the foundation onto which a strong and prosperous nation can be built. A Democracy is a form of government by the people. In a Democracy, a code of law is not required and the majority always rules. Similarly, in a Republic, the power of the government resides with the people. In addition, a Republic requires a code of law, which protects the minority by limiting the majority, and a system of checks and balances. In the New Nation era, the Sedition Act and the Revolution of the 1800s demonstrated the need for a code of law in order to prevent revolts. Furthermore, in the Jacksonian Era, Andrew Jackson’s abuse of power exhibited the importance of checks
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
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.
...er to understand why voter turnout is so low. As a society we must take into consideration all of these and find ways to promote higher turnout rates, whether it be through social reform programs to increase citizens socioeconomic status, more education, better political environments at the home and community level, or less restrictions on voting. In order for our society to effectively and efficiently function we must participate in our democratic system at higher percentages than an average participation of roughly 40 percent.
Society suffered for centuries from tyranny of the king, who took power over nations and ruled over all; the people, and the government itself. However, throughout several years of suffering through this tyranny and monarchy, a solution to this issue was created in the late 1700’s by the Enlightenment thinker Baron de Montesquieu. The term ‘trias politica’, also known as the separation of powers, greatly impacted its time, and remains to be just as important, if not more, today. Montesquieu created this idea of separation of powers after studying many years of successful government systems and finally came to the conclusion that government flourished when separated into varied branches. This sprouted the idea of the Separation of Powers, in
The Watergate scandal had everything. Nixon disgraced the presidency by lying to the country and abusing his power and his committees were involved in illegal acts and a big cover up, all leading to little side roads of corruption and lies. Watergate is by far one of the worst presidential scandals in the history of the United States. In the story of Watergate, five burglars were found breaking into democratic offices at the Watergate complex in Washington DC. The break-in was passed off as just another burglary, but when the burglars were found to have connections with the CIA, questions were starting to be asked. Then when the phone number of Howard Hunt was found in one of the burglar’s phone books, it made people think, why would one of the burglars have the phone number of one of the presidents men? When Watergate was uncovered, it revealed that the president was a liar and a cheat. The president lied to our country, lied about his involvement, concealed self incriminating evidence, abused his power, and planed to have the CIA stop the FBI investigations. During the times of the unraveling of Watergate, questions were asked about connections with the White House and the president, but when the president was asked about it at a press conference he assured Americans that The White House has no involvement whatever in this particular incident.
Despite the fact that America’s economy was heavily influenced by government interference and favoritism under John Quincy Adams and the American System, by 1832 Andrew Jackson, the Champion of the Common Man, jeopardized his political security in the interest of both preserving every man’s right to opportunity and upholding a nonpartisan economy. We can draw insight from Jackson’s disgust for banks, or rather for any act of government that gives a special advantage to one group over another. In Jackson’s letter to Congress justifying his Bank Veto Message, he argues, “when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages... make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society… have a right to complain of the injustices of their government.” In the preceding months, Jackson was in the midst of his presidential campaign for reelection when his opponents put political pressure on him by fast tracking the Bank Bill. Jackson, however, remained steadfast in his belief that the proposed bank was unconstitutional and thus he vetoed the bill. Not surprisingly, Jackson became the object of political slander. In his reply to Jackson’s veto, Daniel Webster complains, “[This message] raises a cry that liberty is in danger, at the very moment when it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. It effects alarm for public freedom, when nothing endangers that freedom so much as its own unparalleled pretenses.” In other words, Webster proposed that through Jackson’s overuse of the veto, he was not only holding congress hostage, but also subverting democracy. On the contrary, the establishment of Jacksonian Democracy expanded the liberties of the common
Studies show that maintaining a good oral health and regular dental check ups is important to your overall health status. Others disagree to that statement, regarding their fear of pain, needles, drilling, having chronic tooth infections, and the affordability of paying for the check up. Parents question themselves if going to the dentist every six month really as effective as oppose to going randomly for a check up. Parents also debate about whether dental insurance will increase depending on their visitation for them or their kids to the dentist from any kind of infection. Individuals with dental protection generally have what 's depicted as "100-80-50" coverage, which means it
These pluralistic interest groups are free to operate and lobby in the political arena, fighting against the majority and other competing factions for voice in Congress. With the influence of multiple factions operating throughout the political system, a balance of power is created (Kernell 2000, 429). This is much like the international theory of sovereign states balancing each other’s power to create a political system that focuses on stability, yet is always in a constant flux of power. With this in mind, special interest groups are constantly contending for power by raising money, campaigning, and lobbying in Congress. When a special interest group is threatened by a competing policy, the group will organize efforts to balance, or transcend the power of the competing group.
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.
The American government prides itself on the foundational principle of democracy which allows individual voices to be heard. Afterall, the roots of power in our nation stem from the people. The Constitution was established to ensure the balance of powers among the federal government, state legislature, and the common people. Time, however, has worked against the American people in the battle towards democracy. The idea of a governing body drawing its power directly from its constituents has been undermined by the corrupt nature of modern politics where politicians act out of self-interest. While the Constitution and later amendments had every intention of securing basic liberties, certain limitations later undermined the original intentions of the founding fathers to give power back to the people by placing the larger majority of power in the hands of the state.
Background: According to Canadian Health Measures Survey on latest oral health, approximately 62% of Canadian had private dental insurance. About 50% of the respondents from the lower income class do not have any dental insurance while 78% of the respondents with higher income section had private dental insurance coverage. Half of low-income individuals without dental insurance will pay for dental care expenses by themselves for them and their families. Additionally, 53% of respondents between the age of 60 and 79 were also not covered by any dental insurance. This indicates, that most Canadians will get private dental insurance when they are capable to afford it (i.e. high income). Whereas, half of low income and more than half seniors lack any dental insurance to receive dental care (1).
A person’s oral health is essential for one’s overall health and well-being. Many oral and craniofacial diseases and conditions can result from lack of oral care. These diseases and conditions include tooth decay, gum diseases, cleft lip and palate, oral and facial pain, mouth and throat cancers, and dry mouth (CITE). In addition, a person may find it difficult to maintain a healthy oral health status due to their social determinants. Healthy People 2020 states, “a person’s access to oral health care is associated with factors such as education level, income, race, and ethnicity” (CITE). For example, in 2014, 17.7% of adults of 25 years and older with less than a high school education visited the dentist during that past year in comparison to 57.9% of adults with at least some college education. Additionally, 57.2% of people aged 2 years and older with family incomes 400% or more of the poverty threshold visited the dentist within that past year, while those who had family incomes less than 100% was 28.7% (CITE). Moreover,