Influence of Money on Politics - Essay Example

The non-governmental organizations take the initiative of guiding citizens on how to come up with the best candidates. They do so by acting in their full capacity to perform the voter guidance or fund other non-governmental organizations to do the project.

The law institutes the organization to be persons just like human beings. This is supported by various facts. The corporations have perpetual existence in that members join and leave at their own will but the organizations continue to exist. The corporations are distinct from the people who fund them, that is, their shareholders. The members are not fully liable to them. In addition, the corporations can sue and be sued. The statutory law provides the procedure and required documents needed to declare the ‘incorporation’ of the organizations. Therefore, corporations have separate legal personalities just like any other person.

The law terms corporations as ‘legal persons’. For that reason, it would be wrong to set restrictions on the speech and funding of these organizations.
It originates from the Federal Campaign of 1971 to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The legislations limit unions and corporations from using their resources to fund electioneering projects. In 2004, Citizen United filed a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, that the Michael Moore film was a political documentary that was not to be aired during exceptional times. However, Citizen United never won. In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that airing ‘Hillary: The Movie’ on DIRECTV was a violation of the BCRA restrictions on elections. The case was known as Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission. The court swept away limits on election advocacy by the concerned organizations. This was an overruling of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce of 1990. However, corporations have to make public disclosure of their financial statements just like any other corporate personality. In the Big Sky, Big Money movie, Kai Ryssdal explains that the funding by corporations has to pass through an independent group before giving to the identified candidate.

I support the court ruling by upholding the doctrine of the ‘corporate personality’ of organizations. Persons have freedom of speech as per the rights of the citizen acts. Corporations, unions, and other concerned non-governmental organizations as well have no reason to be denied the right to give their opinion as far as American politics is concerned (Supreme Court 2010). They have the right just like any other person to support the candidate of their choice. However, they were denied the opportunity to show direct identity in politics. Restricting corporations from active participation in politics seemed to be a plot to deny the nation free will.
In The Big Sky, Big Money, Rodell Mollinau, the president of American Bridge explains to Kai Ryssdal how the super-PAC works. This group specializes in opposition research. Mollineau explains that there are 19 trackers in the field following Republican candidates ( Big Money2012). They look for the inconsistency of the specific candidates and make a sound decision on how to use the information to assist the public. The trackers look for the following facts from politicians; the political history of the candidate, the votes they have taken, the business dealings they undertake, their political statements, and contractions that they make of themselves among others. Through the political groups requiring to get funding, Alan Schwartz is informed of the intent to attack his wife. These illustrations of the importance of the organization's need to get funding to be the watchdog of American politics.

The Supreme Court’s decision was good. It allows non-governmental organizations to scan the political environment by getting funding to do so. The trackers earlier mentioned collects important information necessary for decision-making. They provide synthesized information about candidates thus enabling the voters to come up with the best candidate.

Otherwise, the government should find a way of regulating the intention of the corporation. Some corporations might fund campaigns aimed at misleading voters. This can be done by funding the spread of propaganda that has no basis. As a result, voters can work can be convinced to vote for another candidate at the expense of voting for a better one. In as much as funding and speech of the corporation is not limited they should be regulated to participate only in the interest of the public and not contract public policy.