Role of Corporate Money in Political Process - Essay Example

They may be the best candidates but due to their lack of enough financial base and support, they may end up being sidelined. Moreover, those who have money can campaign against them thereby increasing their likelihood of being defeated. Voters, on the other hand, maybe coaxed to vote for the less preferred candidates simply because they have wide financial support.

This in effect narrows the political arena (Tham, 10). Secondly, the law creates unfairness and favoritism in that there is an exchange of funds for favors. This absence of limits on expenditure increases the possibility of politicians giving policy favors to their supporters. Corporations can go scot-free if they violate some policies, for example, they can violate environmental policies by releasing untreated waste products into the environment, which pollutes the environment and thereby exposes people to diseases such as asthma.

Once they are elected; they will try hard to give back to those who funded them only at the expense of others. The unfairness comes in the sense that, the unqualified may be considered, for instance, awarded tenders, simply because they contributed to the candidate’s victory. Campaigns that are financed privately induce politicians to the special group which is healthy at the expense of the ordinary citizens who are poor and yet the government should take care of all its citizens and treat them equally (Corrado, 20). . Thirdly, the removal of the limits on corporate expenditure by court opens the door for corruption, political bribery and unfair competition in the coming elections.

The ability of some parties, for example, the Green Party, that does not accept a contribution from corporate is hurt and therefore cannot compete favorably with others. This makes other parties that accept corporate funding get an undue advantage against them thereby disadvantaging them. The ruling has also brought external interference in electoral politics from the legalized foreign corporations and governments who can now freely and easily fund their preferred candidate. These foreign entities use their large financial base to bankroll the American elections.

The Supreme Court has also given the lobbyists another weapon to compromise the elected officials in that if the elected officials do not act in the interest of the lobbyist, they can spend unlimited sums specifically to advertise against their re-election. This creates an atmosphere of fear within the elected officials and therefore cannot perform their mandate out rightly but in turn will be acting in the best interest of the special group so that they cannot be weeded out in the next election (United, States S. C., 9-18) Just like the case of Citizens United v.

Federal Election commission, ending Dollar limits on individual contributions as the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission seeks will have undesirable effects on the electoral process because money abuses politics. If the limits are lifted, it will cause legalized bribery characterized by undue influence on the elected candidates. The individual contributors would too want to be favored by the person to whom they will contribute heavily. Those with huge amounts of money will fund a candidate only to compromise him to satisfy their ill motives.

The leader will be a stooge to serve their interest at the expense of the general public. He in turn will favor them in terms of policies that may be detrimental to the other common citizens. Even though McCutcheon argues that he is only interested in contributing to lots of candidates, I conquer with the Obama administration which remarks that this striking down of individual limits contribution will create a greater upheaval in this vital area of law. This is because it will pave the way for the usage of contributions to corrupt elected officials.

Some individual candidates and parties will be disadvantaged because their enemies, who may view them as potential threats, will use their financial mercenary to weed them out simply because they may not be in a position to comply with their demands and self-interest. This undermines democracy because the candidates may not be given equal chances so that they can compete with the rest favorably (Tham, 10) even though this law seeks to restore accountability and transparency because the money is directed to individuals directly, it may come with a hidden agenda.

The contributors seek to be recognized by the officeholders so that they can get preferential treatment. Mr. McCutcheon himself proves this by saying that he has received a lot of attention from prominent politicians for his generous donations and the suit. What about the low-class citizens? How will they receive attention? This lawsuit should be struck down so that equality can be upheld.