Is Money Corrupting Politics or is it Offering People a Voice in the Political Process - Assignment Example

Show Me the Money Is money corrupting politics or is it offering groups/people a voice in the political process? Money most certainly is corrupting politics since the political battles now fought in terms of elections and by-elections require substantial funding. In the event, these kinds of funds are not available with individual candidates and the party funds. The candidates would need to take recourse to donations and grants from individuals, corporate, overseas funding, etc. to campaign for the elections. Although it is not always necessary that the richest party or candidates having access to the largest sums of money must win (they could also lose); at the same time, money is necessary to keep the show on. The propensity or tendency of money to corrupt is not only in the case of politics. Surfeit of money or money laundering could corrupt any kind of Endeavour, including religion, fine arts, education and so on. Money but itself does not corrupt. But, its usage and utilization in the hands of unscrupulous agents are definitely a cause for corruption; especially when it happens to land in the hands of people who are unaware of what to do with it and have no safe options for its disposal or judicious distribution. When considering the House in the California region, it is seen that most of the incomes for candidates have accrued from personal “contributions,” (from professional persons and individuals). (2010 House and Senate Campaign Finance for California). Coming to the Senate, it is observed that “Barbara Boxer” ($3m), “Carly Fiorina” ($2m), “Chuck Devore” ($1m), “Tom Campbell” ($534,654) and “Al Ramirez” ($10,375) are the top five candidates. (2010 House and Senate Campaign Finance for California: All Senate Candidates…CA). The commonality with the House is that, majority of the money in both cases of House and Senate is from individual donors and contributors. These form the chunk of money received by candidates of Democratic, Republicans and others. Discuss the types of contributions given to candidates & politicians –both the amounts and the contributions. Are they equal, or diverse? No, there are wide disparities in the types and quantum of contributions given to the candidates and politicians. For one thing, when we consider that the total “receipts” for candidates in California is around $56m, out of which “disbursements” have been to the tune of $38m and a “cash in hand” balance of $41m is left, against a “debt” accumulation of around$5m. (2010 House and Senate Campaign Finance for California). . When this is compares with the politicians or Senate members, it is seen that that the total “receipts” for Senate in California is around $17m, out of which “disbursements” have been to the tune of $8m and a “cash in hand” balance of $ 13m is left, against a “debt” accumulation of around $886,843. (2010 House and Senate Campaign Finance for California). Apparently, private candidates seek and spend more on political issues when compared to Senate members. Whether a Congress candidate has been influenced by money given to them or by sponsoring bills through voting in ways that manifests preference for any particular contribution? The money given for fighting elections should not have an influence on a congressman, who is under oath to serve the country without fear or favor. The fact that individuals or cartels have provided money for political purposes should not be seen in an adverse manner and should pave the way for positive action. It is quite possible that a Congressman may succumb to material greed or influence of money and may thus wish to barter the public interests and public good. However, it is also to be seen that this could not be seen in terms of casting instigation on others who are honest, upright and who do not allow any monetary considerations’ to their vision and insight. There are also possibilities that certain contributions of larger amount to attract greater sponsorships by congressman as compared to lesser contribution or even total absence of contribution. Under such circumstances, it becomes necessary to be able to distinguish a situation wherein gratification has led to preferential treatment to some agencies or individuals to the total or partial disregard of others. Such a situation is neither desirable nor needed. Thus, it becomes important that strong and punitive action is taken against such individual or agencies who use their political influence and clout to favor people from whom they have received any kind of donations or kickbacks; whether legal or tainted money. In the long run, moneys or benefits received by a public servant in the exercise of his official duties other than his usual salary could be termed as bribes or tainted money for which he needs to be brought before the due process of law. Thus in these circumstances, it would be needed to take the law and its interpretation strictly. Whether money in politics is pluralism or elitism and whether this means we should severely limit contributions or leave it as it is? It is a mixture of both pluralism and elitisms with a distinct penchant for the former pluralism. This is because there are quite a few parties and independent candidates fighting elections and memberships to public bodies. They need money to set their campaigns moving to gain public and legislators’ support and to offer a good fight to their opponents. Besides, money in politics is also termed as elitist because money does not only belong to the lower echelons but also to the top level, where they are shared as need be. Thus, it is the elitist that share both the influence and the money. There are also reasons to believe that it is the elitist groups who are in a position to manipulate the election process through fair and unfair means. There are also fears that the use of money and physical force has been a major determinant in the political arena which seeks to undermine the common good in the name of administrative or political enforcement. This could also cause untold damage and detriment to the common people and masses. Therefore, it is imperative that things cannot be left as it is and it is necessary that severe limits to the contribution through legal redressals and laws should be enforced more. So there needs to be a limit on the legal receipts of donations for political purposes, in order that proper control mechanism is maintained and enforced. Besides, there are also concerns that the money received through political donations may not have any audit trails and may not be traceable to its original donors or givers. They may even be used against principles for which they were initially intended. Conclusion: The aspect of political donations and the clout and influence that such monies could draw forth are the major reasons why they need to be well controlled and also the need for accountability and audit to see it is used for the purpose originally intended. There are also needs for taking precautions to maintain good audit trails of receipts, disbursement and cash balances with all the candidates and how these are kept. After all, the funds are being gained through political influences and use of party name and the propriety ethical values and honest dealing needs to be maintained at all costs. It would indeed be a major blow to right thinking that if people in the political machinery and infra-structure are used for the purposes other than what it has been originally intended for. There is also the need for administrators to take strict and firm actions against wrong doings irrespective of their political patronage and influence along the hierarchy of political powers and scheming. The aspect of public excellence needs to be maintained under all circumstances and this perhaps is just the right need for keeping the records straight and free from taint. Works Cited 2010 House and Senate Campaign Finance for California: All Senate Candidates…CA. Federal Election Commission. 2010. Web. 24 May. 2010. . 2010 House and Senate Campaign Finance for California. Federal Election Commission. 2010. Web. 24 May. 2010. . Read More