Should politicians be allowed to accept campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists - Essay Example

Politician​s & Campaign contributi​ons from corporate lobbyists Introduction Should politicians be allowed to accept campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists? is a controversial issue among the media as well the public in recent years. Money is widely accepted as a common denominator of most electoral activities and our political parties cannot avoid independent expenditures, soft money, campaign contribution and other money used for issue publicity. Increased rate of campaign contribution from corporate lobbyists create barriers among the elected officials and their programs.

Because of these financial contributions, political parties often failed to keep democratic principles. Even though money is an inevitable factor, one cannot support the attitude of political parties in accepting campaign contribution from corporate lobbyists. Corporate lobbyists always acts against democracy and they stands only for their material benefits. Therefore, it should not allow political parties to accept campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists or it needs sufficient law making.

It is significant to mention that these financial dealings lack transparency and people cannot get reliable information. Researchers and experts mention that one cannot ignore the fact that it is hard to understand where the soft money is spent. Congress published Congressional Record, V. 148, Pt. 1, January 23, 2002 to February 13, 2002 and it notices that “When voters cannot discern where elected officials are getting the money to finance their campaign efforts, there is no accountability” (Congress 1304).

Through contributing huge finance, corporate lobbyists and other pressure groups easily engage in political process and they often force to commit programs for their favor. The presence of unlimited and unregulated possessions can be constant to these kinds of expenditures. One can find relevant examples which mention the negative impact of campaign contribution from corporate lobbyists in recent American politics. The way in which the Minnesota tribes defeat the Wiscosin Indian Tribes from starting a new casino near Minnesotta boarder can consider a perfect example.

These Minnesotta tribes gave a huge amount of soft money for their safety (Congress 1305). At this juncture, it is clear for a reader that corporate lobbyists use elected officials for the successive implementation of their propaganda. All these activate promote chaos in administrative system and also create conflicts in law and order. Another significant problem which underlines the disadvantage of campaign contribution from corporate lobbyists is that our political parties cannot follow a specific schedule in the process of spending this money.

Because of financial burden, elected officials often failed to evaluate their programs. Dan Clawson et al comments; “There are virtually no controls on the way campaign money is used” (Clawson, Neustadtl & Weller 54). Consequently, welfare programs for public cannot reach its aim. So, it is essential that constitutional amendment is needed to prevent politicians from accepting campaign contributions. In addition, a huge amount of money is spent without considering welfare projects. Corporate lobbyists always need profits and they avoid development programs which enhance the fundamental needs of people.

By Otto Lerbinger states; “The most expensive House race was in Texas District 32, costing over 8.4 million” (Lerbinger 273). Growing rate of political campaign cost force elected officials to act indoor of finance contributors and corporate lobbyists and other resources left in the office. Corporate lobbyist’s unwanted participation in policy making and its implementation creates problems in various layers of administration like environmental, food safety, and healthcare, prolabor and proconsumer measures.

In this respect Michael Parenti argues that “Business lobbyists can be credited with thwarting or watering down antitrust, environmental, food safety, healthcare, prolabor and proconsumer measures, exercising an influence over government that eclipses just about every other major interest” (Parenti 200). Thus, thus government can ensure reliability and transparency through preventing politicians in accepting campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists. Corporations and multinational companies never protect democratic principles as well the environment.

They always keep financial benefits and these allow them to support politics and expect paybacks in return. More than 82 American corporations made political donation in the year of 2000 and the amount is over US$34 million (Corporate Responsibility and the Environment). In the final assessment, it is clear that the act of accepting campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists prevent politicians from practicing democratic principles. One can disagree the use of campaign contributions because, these expenditures often lacks accountability and democratic values.

Unnecessary and unregulated interference from the part of corporate lobbyists makes barriers to the smooth functioning of welfare programs. It is significant to notice that it is essential to prevent our politicians in accepting financial aids from corporate lobbyists. Works CitedClawson, Dan., Neustadtl, Alan & Weller, Mark. Dollars and votes: how business campaign contributions subvert democracy. Illustrated ed: Temple University Press, 1998. Print. Congress. Congressional Record, V. 148, Pt.

1, January 23, 2002 to February 13, 2002. Government Printing Office. Print.Lerbinger, Otto. Corporate public affairs: interacting with interest groups, media, and government. Routledge, 2006. Print. Oda, John. Corporate Responsibility and the Environment. Web. 10 October 2011. < http://www.evancarmichael.com/Going-Green/2340/Corporate-Responsibility-and-the-Environment.html>.Parenti, Michael. Democracy for the Few. 9th ed: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.