Pros And Cons Of Campaign Donation

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

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

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