United States Corporate Political Campaign Spending: Is Democracy in the United States for Sale - Coursework Example

Democracy in United s affiliation Democracy in the United s It is worth noting that the amount of money spent in American political campaigns is too much, an issue that would raise controversies and concerns on what really drive the political systems in United States. The Supreme Court made a decision in 2010, a policy that has led to the flooding of money in political campaigns. Entirely, many scholars have brought arguments on the authenticity of funding, eliciting a concern that the democratic process to power is for sale. The rich populists possess the money to buy power in US. Essentially, the political system has been portrayed as the one having an excellent democratic model, where one can have an easy access to power via clear democracy. External analysis of the concept remains true and valid, but intrinsic view of the same draws a different picture. Primarily, the core aim of the essay is to analyse the diverse methods demonstrating that United States democratic system is slowly turning from being the democratic system it were to a one controlled by money. The lobby groups are a part of the democratic machine that advocates for fairness and openness during the election period. Additionally, the presence of the Political Action Committees and other interest groups do act to regulate the amount of money spent during campaigns. Intensive research reveals that the regulatory powers of the groups is hindered to a certain extent. In order to illustrate the truth of the matter, the essay will analyse the American political system, the lobbying patterns, finance policies and funding candidates receive from corporate bodies. The American government is composed of three arms of government-the executive, legislature and judiciary. The federal government is bound by federalism, powers separation and consistent judicial review. The division of powers is available to ensure that there is checks and balances to ensure no one-department misuses its powers1. The constitution was amended to ensure that lobbying is a part and parcel of the political campaigns. In lobbying, individuals receive financial support to persuade the aspiring political candidates to demonstrate support in a particular policy. The fundraising mood is critical too, as no single person will have the desire to vote for a party or candidate that is bankrupt. Campaign funding is critical and sets a pace to winning the elections. In essence, for one to run a successful campaign in the House of Representatives, at least 600,000$ are needed. A Candidate running for a senatorial seat will require 2 million dollars. The system is not open enough to support politicians to search for contributions from public, making them come up with creative plans to raise funds. There have been available attempts to regulate the lobbying process. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 dealt with basic definitions and regulatory policies. The 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act came into being to enhance the lobbying process. Furthermore, it did dictate the conduct of the lobbyists, who were mandated to file their reports, databases disclosure electronically and prohibition to travelling2. The number of lobbyists has on increase daily, with around twelve thousand lobbyists by 2011. More money is also spent on lobbying politicians, amounting to a whopping 2.5 billion dollars by 2011. The political candidates spend such money. The lobby groups possess more power to influence the state policies than the ordinary citizens who remain with at a position of lack. Moreover, lobbying is legitimized by the constitution in the First Amendment section. The lobbying practises ought to be transparent, a system that will ensure that there is less malpractices3. Most significantly, the presence and domination of the interest groups in the American campaigns is a notion that do illustrate how money is equivalent to power in that political system. An interest group organises itself strategically in a bid to gain political power and influence other people. They channel the money via the individual people or committees. A limit of 2500$ is allowed for personal contribution to a candidate and 30,000$ to a party. Parliamentary Action Committee roles is to circumvent and regulate the funding activities and limits. The contributions vial PAC have been limited to 5000$, but SpeechNow.org vs. FEC case appeal in Columbia did alter the funding of candidates in 2010. The committee has the mandate and immense freedom to contribute without a limit. The groups have the freedom of spending any amount of money as long as they are in support of the candidate. Critical analysis of lobby and interest groups in diverse fields such as health and real estate in American campaigns demonstrate clearly the fundamental basis of money as a base to rising to power. Financial campaign sources analysis is evident. The insurance, real estate and insurance branches are interlinked. The financial sector remains the largest funding source to the political aspirants and their parties. A closer analysis of an individual candidate political source of campaigns finance will reveal a relationship between the candidate and the interest groups. For instance, Bush 2004 presidential financial figures reveals that 80% of the funding in the PAC did emanate from the business interest groups. This is an excellent illustration of where his interest was focused. Furthermore, the analysis also reveals that the financial department, real estate and insurance areas were his core contributors standing at around 33 million USD. A more interesting revelation is the analysis of his top ten contributor. The firm by Morgan Stanley was at the lead, having a contribution of 603,480USD. Other strong contributors were Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America. All these financial supports did receive immense financial support later in 2008 bailout programme. Although it remains an assumption on the reason for the bailout, it is worth noting that Bush had a close relationship with them, and the “tip” was granted as an investment compensation. Their contributions to the campaigns way was a leeway to political influence. Primarily, analysis of the contribution patterns via the approach of influential parliament commits may also reveal how financial issues are detrimental in determinant of electives fate. The committee of Ways and Means possess a significant power in House of Congress. The decisions made by the committee has great implications in many regions. First, the committee have a decisional role in Healthcare, health insurance and the disabled people. The contributors to the committee possess great influence in the political system4. Health care system has raises concerns in the previous years. President Obamas election in 2008 was on a basis that he would bring up great reforms in healthcare provision systems in US. The issue did act as a divisive agenda to both Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were campaigning for better reforms and desired an insurance whose main regulator is the government. The Republicans were on the support of maintenance of the status quo. The pharmaceutical firms who felt that the government insurance scheme was a threat to them were at the verge of financing the Republicans. That is just a clear illustration of how money is detrimental in rising to power. Throughout his presidential campaigns, the number of healthcare lobbyists rose steadily in favour of the Democrats. The reforms in the health care department had hit them had. They were ready to pay for the price, in a bid to ensure that the reforms did not affect their operations5. A closer look at the contribution by the pharmaceuticals industries does reveal that they had the wealth power to stop the reforms that Obama did reinstate during the presidential campaigns. Essentially, the plan he had with reference to the insurance scheme did fail to actualize. Most significantly, the bill that he signed to law did not have the original ideologies he had promised during the campaigns sessions. The resources provided during campaigns watered down the reforms. A research analysis conducted by Centre for responsive Politics reveals an interesting trend. First, the passing of Affordable Health Care for America Act in 2009 by House of Representatives had emanated from the “bribing” by the pharmaceutical firms, insurance agents, and the rest of the health industry6. Those who opposed the law received at least 15% more of compensation from health industries. The senators opposing the Bill received immense donations from insurance groups and companies. The Republications opposing the law also received a certain portion of the compensation from the insurance firms and other health related companies. Such money availability did persuade the politicians to argue on the reforms at hand leading to the production of a watershed plan7. The analytical piece above illustrate how money is critical in handing over power in US electoral posts. Most chief executive officers of successful firms are involved in funding political parties and their candidates, and they require some compensation at the end. The best way they can do is to influence how policies are made for the sake of self-gain. Lobbying and contribution of the interest groups is done in a manner unlikely to promote corruption. The transparency may not promote justice, but puts the democracy process in question. It just acts to reveal how money equals power, and the great influence money has in making political decisions. Bibliography Beckel, M. a,Opponents of House Health Reform Bill Received 15 Percent More in Health IndustryContributions Than Supporters .Available:http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/11/opponents-of-house-health- refo.html[2012, 01/08] Cain, Sean A. "Fundraising Consultants and the Representation of National versus Local Donors in US House Election Campaigns." Forum (2194-6183) 11, no. 2 (August 2013): 157-178. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 5, 2015). David Taylor ; Matt, Spence. "Dark money pushes US midterm spending to $4bn." Times, The (United Kingdom) (October 30, 2014): 36,37. Newspaper Source, EBSCOhost (accessed January 5, 2015). Potoski, Matthew, Robert Lowry, and Jeffery Talbert. "Party Campaign Contributions in US House Elections." Conference Papers -- American Political Science Association (August 28, 2002): 1-39. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 5, 2015). "The role of money in the US election." Times, The (United Kingdom) (November 9, 2012): 34. Newspaper Source, EBSCOhost (accessed January 5, 2015). Tollefson, Jeff. "US election: Agencies of change." Nature 455, no. 7212 (September 25, 2008): 451-452. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 5, 2015). WALKER, MARTIN. "The year of the insurgents: the 2008 US presidential campaign." International Affairs 84, no. 6 (November 2008): 1095-1107. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 5, 2015). Read More