The Financial Support of a Political Post in a Corporation - Essay Example

I do not agree with the Supreme Court decision for a number of reasons. The financial support of a political post in a corporation is likely to influence corporate staff to engage in corrupt deals. One may not have enough resources to campaign for the seat, a factor that may influence them to engage in corruption to raise the required financial resources for the campaign. If the Court decision prohibited all forms of financial support for political candidates, candidates would learn to make their own personal efforts in campaigning and not rely on financial support from corporations (Abrams, 2011).

This is an indication of able leadership by the political candidates who can sponsor their campaigns without external financial support at the same time; the decision encourages discrimination in contests for corporate political seats. It is not easy that all the candidates to win political support from a certain organization. For this reason, the ruling seems to encourage discrimination in corporate leadership. Another reason that I disagree with the ruling is that it may interfere with transparency and accountability in elections.

Some corporations may go as far as sponsoring election rigging to ensure that the preferred candidate wins the elections (Abrams, 2011). Election rigging may be one of the most serious problems in the economic and political development of corporations and nations when it is extended from the personal level to the corporate level. The decision was one of the most surprising decisions in the political sphere of the country, especially given the sensitivity on union and corporate money being used to sponsor federal elections (Neuborn, 2011).

Despite the fact the funding of federal campaigns by corporations was banned; the law is not easy to implement if political campaigns in corporations are treated differently. In my opinion, political campaigns need to be treated equally regardless of the level of the campaign, and the seat being contested. It is unfair to have financial sponsors for corporate campaigns and not federal campaigns (Neuborn, 2011). If the Court allows corporations to support the campaigns of some political individuals in corporations, the same should apply to the federal campaigns.

Nevertheless, the financial support of election candidates promotes discrimination and inequality and should never be encouraged. It may influence the people to elect individuals who are preferred by corporations and not those who are preferred based on their manifesto and capability to perform (Hollis-Brusky, 2015). In conclusion, I do not agree with the Citizens United Ruling because it does not promote fairness and democracy in corporate elections. Money should not be used as a factor to lure voters into the candidacy of a certain individual.