ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Campaign Donation

1674 Words7 Pages

Campaign Donations, Corruption, and Campaign Finance Legislature
By Addie

Political donations are commonplace in our modern society, as are corporations. These two things are rather intertwined. However, corporate campaign donations can be very bad. There is also a debate within this topic, with some believing campaign finance legislation should be strict, and some believing it should be more lax. Political donations corrupt democracy by taking power away from the people and giving it to corporations, and much legislation concerns this topic.

The main way that campaign finance has been regulated is through FECA. FECA stands for the Federal Election Campaign Act, and was enacted in 1971. FECA, though not our first campaign finance law, set …show more content…

A political quid pro quo is when someone (in this case a corporation) gives someone else (a politician) money in exchange for support/a favor (legislature that helps that corporation).This can result in a conflict of interest, where the interest of a company differs from that of the state. In short, a decision that the company would prfit from would be detrimental to americans. However, because the company paid a politician money, the politician would make a decision that was not in the interest of the American people in exchange for the corporations money. One of the first cases of this was in Sep. 16th 1905. At this time, the St.John Daily Sun reported that in 1904 a New York life insurance corporation, aptly titled the New York Life, donated money to the NAtional Republican campaign committee. Specifically, the donation was made to Cornelius M. Bliss. The is was made to ensure that the Republicans would not pass any legislation that would harm that corporation. They donated $48,702 to him. This was the first time in America's history that a party was so obligated to a corporation. These were the first quid pro …show more content…

There would be six commissioners, and the President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate would appoint them. Some other amendments were also made to FECA, limiting expenditure and donations to political campaigns by corporations more than they had in the past.

Soon after this, the Senator of New York at the time, James L.Buckley, and Eugene McCarthy said that the 1974 amendments of FECA were unconstitutional. This case was taken to the Supreme COurt, and the the court announced its ruling in Buckley v Valeo.
The court ruled that contribution limits were just, but expenditure limits limited organization's freedom of speech unconstitutionally. The court also said that the campaign disclosure and recordkeeping stuff would be upheld. In the end, what the court changed about FECA was how the FEC’s commissioners were appointed, in order to uphold the separation of powers, and that the expenditure limits imposed in FECA are unconstitutional.

Of course, some corporations and politicians still want to create quid pro quos. At this point, this means subverting the law in some way. Some politicians chose to corrupt the law, find something that has been used for non corrupt purposes and use it for corrupt

Show More
Related
215 Words | 1 Pages

The Bipartisan Reform act of 2002, which is also known as McCain Feingold Act is a United States federal law that changed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and adjusted the financing of political campaigns. It included many arrangements to end the use of “soft money”, which is a contribution to a political party that is not assumed as going to a specific candidate, and ignores many legal limitations. It banned national parties from raising or spending non federal funds, limited fundraising by federal and non-federal candidates and officeholders on behalf of party committees, other candidates, and non profit organizations. The act was proposed by John McCain and Rusell Feingold. They were both senators that kept promoting the passing

Read More
2369 Words | 10 Pages

In the past few years, the United States has seen a huge spike in the money spent in federal elections (See Appendix 4.B). Not only have candidates been making greater efforts to communicate their ideas to the American public, but super PACs have also been displaying their support for candidates and their political policies; they do so by using their right to accept unlimited donations from the public and later, use that money to promote certain candidates, or to sway voters in a desired direction. The immense power that super PACs have to sway voters has come under harsh criticism, spurring the creation of new laws and limits on the super PACs in an attempt to keep them in check and to avoid possible corruption. These limits on super

Read More
526 Words | 3 Pages

When major companies give a lot of money to a campaign they can feel like that candidate owes them something. They feel like they should have a say or that they are owed favors to because of the money they gave. I believe that sometimes if one person donated a million dollars to a campaign that would get them favors in Washington to a degree if that person is elected. I do think there should be limits on how much a single person can donate to avoid things like this. An example, would be the 1996 U.S. Campaign finance scandal.

Read More
560 Words | 3 Pages

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) Buckley v. Valeo is a legal case heard and ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 30, 1976 in regards to campaign financing. It centered around the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that was created in 1971 to limit sources of funding for candidates running for federal office in order to lower the potential for corruption and potentially altering the outcome of an election. The expenditure and contribution regulations set forth in the Act caused major discord and dispute resulting in the controversial proceeding of Buckley v. Valeo. James L Buckley was a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Buckley also served as a United States Senator for the state of New York.

Read More
1141 Words | 5 Pages

These groups are two way candidates and politicians can gain donations for their candidacy. Lately, these two group have caused some controversy in the government, but it is very certain that 501c4s are the most controversial when comparing it to Super Pacs. In the same way, Super Pacs and 501c4s have similar operations. They

Read More
1235 Words | 5 Pages

FEC,” he addresses the idea that Citizens United has many developed aspects to it; the case is arguing that Citizens United “does not involve cartel or monopoly practices, or abuse of children, or any of the other traditional exceptions to First Amendment protection.” However, Epstein also addresses that corporations are not citizens and cannot vote. But many people still ask: if corporations are not citizens and cannot vote, why are they protected under the First Amendment? This protection under the First Amendment gives corporations and unions rights that states do not have the power to overrule; businesses, essentially, have more power and more sway in their opinions. Epstein is very objective when presenting the issues of this case; however, he considers this power political corruption because the First Amendment does not protect the use of money, which means that “anyone who uses money to obtain assistance in preparing for political speech has crossed over the line into potentially criminal conduct.”

Read More
940 Words | 4 Pages

The plaintiffs contended that this unequal funding violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Read More
1005 Words | 5 Pages

Politicians who avoided taking strong positions on whether they were pro or anti-trust were seen as cowards who would rather cater to big business than ensure the welfare of citizens. However, politicians were also reluctant to take action because they were being influenced by these corporations. A political illustration that arose at this time titled “The Bosses of the Senate”, demonstrates the ease at which monopolists were able to influence political decisions - or lack thereof (Document 3). The illustration depicts several industries-copper, steel, oil, iron, and coal- as bags of money hovering over senators at their desks. During this era, monopolists were able to buy state legislatures, which directly appointed senators to congress, and controlled which senators were in office through bribery, intimidation, and threats.

Read More
1799 Words | 8 Pages

This was the first major piece of federal policy that acknowledged the dangers of big money influence on elections. The Tillman Act led to the passage of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act in 1910, which was the first major reform in federal campaign finance policy in US history. The FCPA required federal candidates to disclose financial information as well as set limits on spending for all congressional candidates (Jamie, 2014). This piece of legislation was crucial in the broader context of the federal government acknowledging the influence of money in elections; however, it was largely ineffective due to weak penalties as well as little enforcement as a result of enforcement being left in the hands of Congress (Jamie,

Read More
1909 Words | 8 Pages

“The Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) was another order that was also authorized to investigate complaints of job discrimination based on race, color, creed, or national origin in defense industries receiving government contracts and to require antidiscrimination clauses in defense contracts. The FEPC held hearings but lacked punitive powers. In 1943 President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9346 establishing a new FEPC in the Office of Emergency Management. The 1943 FEPC’s jurisdiction included all government contractors. Its authority was expected to encompass discrimination in labor union membership and employment.

Read More
818 Words | 4 Pages

This shows that the supreme court didn’t vote in what they believed in and rather wanted to help out their own party. If even one of the Federal Supreme Court Justices would have voted for what they actually believed in, then the outcome of the election could have been very

Read More
2250 Words | 9 Pages

The FEC and state regulation of campaign finance exist to keep campaigns fair and equitable so voters can clearly determine who to vote for. When candidates are able to out raise their competitors by avoiding the law, the whole purpose is undermined (Graham). This ambiguity and lack of regulation for such a critical democratic institution has caused Colorado candidates to actively pursue loopholes as they

Read More
793 Words | 4 Pages

(Lafer 133) Under corporate lobby groups like ALEC, legislatures and bills are introduced across the country. Basically, the committee consists of half state legislators and half corporate lobbyists, later the same corporations that are members of ALEC fund these candidates’ campaigns, and spend their own money on advertising on TV, radio, and social media. On the other hand, during the Citizens United federal decision, but until 2010 there were 22 states that had their own laws barring or limited corporate spending in politics. (Lafer 151) Following that decision, 11 states went from either mixed or Democratic rule to being wall-to-wall Republican, with the GOP in control of both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office.

Read More
972 Words | 4 Pages

Corruption occurs in a government when politicians are bought out by private companies. These companies would pay the politicians large sums of money and in return, the politicians would do political favors for the companies. According

Read More
341 Words | 2 Pages

Secondhand smoke is a cause of many children 's deaths all over the world. Children of parents who smoke are exposed to SHS and are more likely to become ill and even die suddenly. The image chosen shows the use of rhetoric through the use of ethos, pathos, and logos by its appeal to society. People perceive smoking as a sign of weakness; weakness as in that the addictive product can cause lives to end but the consumer is too negligent to see that. Therefore, parents who smoke, tend to forget about the secondhand smoke their kids inhale.

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Campaign Donation

Related Topics

Open Document