Corporate Contributions To Political Campaigns - Term Paper Example

? CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS and number submitted Everyone has an image of how a better-of person when one act ethically in situation that we find ourselves in everyday life. Ethics refers to the kind of behavior or practices which is not only good to oneself but also to everyone. Ethics is not simply obeying laws, cultures, religion, or feelings but rather what is right in the eyes and life of everyone we interact with at personal or distance level. Ethics is more so a key attribute that leaders must uphold since they have the trust of everyone they lead and their actions affects their subjects. Ethics demands of leaders to maintain virtues such as respect, integrity, honesty, fairness, accountability, professionalism, responsibility, competence, and accountability. When unethical practices enters into politics the leaders involved may get into problems such as abuse of power, conflicts of interests, corruptions, favoritism, obstruction of justice, cronyism, and nepotism. Human rights abuse, policy corruption, insider business deals, and restricted press freedom are also almost inevitable as leaders try to please their allies. This paper addresses the ethical issues and problems that corporate contributions lead to and how the classical theory of virtue ethics can be used to address this problem. The paper will further contrast this method of resolution with perspective of relativism. I will also offer my opinion on the best way to resolve the problem. Introduction: Identifying the problem Campaigns have been over the past few years been demanding of leaders to prove their credibility by having a large finance base to fund their campaigns. The cost of campaigns especially in federal elections have been soaring way to high and campaigners are increasingly finding it hard to finance their campaigns. Often candidates, both congress and presidential, have turned to ask source for funds from public corporations usually through lobbyists. Once candidates who used cooperate funding attains leadership position, a question of how to repay their debts arises. Meredith (2012) warns that anyone that help a candidate get elected inspires “a debt of gratitude” .The “debt of gratitude” is also addressed by Thurber (2010) who identifies it to lead to ethical problems and scandals. He says this debt of gratitude has created a “culture of reciprocity” in Washington. The culture of reciprocity is the practice of helping or pledging to help those people that assisted you achieves something. Fear that these lobbyists may acquire an unfair advantage in the policymaking process due to their financial contributions. The ethical problems and issues raised by such actions often stem from after-election lobbying where the public corporations that funded the campaigns pressure candidate they assisted on specific kind of legislation that are favorable to them. Since the leaders will also be acknowledging the debt to these corporations then fairness is likely to be undermined. Favorism results and often integrity lacks bullying” to refer to the act of public cooperation through lobby groups having their way in the law making process. He says that congress members feel pressed in all sides by the demands of the public corporations and likely to give preferred treatment to the campaign contributors. Bretram (2009) also says that though campaign contributions may not directly determine legislative success, they can dictate which group or individuals gain access. This kind of preferred treatment is the primary cause of ethical problem created by cooperates funding of campaigns. Corruption further results due to the close proximity that some of the corporations will remain with their “leaders” whom they feel should give them undeniable support as a payback to their funding. These kinds of quid pro quo arrangement are form of corruption, in essence bribery. An ethical solution of this problem lies in defining and directing the actions of both politicians and corporations for the good of every citizen. This should involve corporations rationally arguing their positions with the politicians during the campaigns instead of financially funding them while the politicians should consider their democratic responsibility for all the citizens without favoring any class of persons or corporations. Application of the Virtue of Ethics Aristotle is credited for the development of virtue ethics. Aristotle responds to the resolution of ethical problems using deliberate and free choice, using his “golden mean.” He firmly believed that it is possible to know the knowledge of good and evil, and that people are completely capable of a rational determination of what is good for them (Aristotle, 1925). Aristotle believed that every human being desire for happiness and therefore happiness must be good (Aristotle, 1925) and in that way people seek to attain their maximum potential. Aristotle believed that humanity is special from all other living things by their faculty of reason. He said that human beings gains full happiness by being able to reason optimally (Aristotle, 1925). To avoid what is unethical then calls for determination of the virtuous path the doctrine of mean, which is only achievable by reasoning to the fullest (Aristotle, 1925). Aristotle (1925) postulated that the act that is virtuous lies between two extremes (excess and deficient) and the right act is therefore moderate in nature. The unethical and vice is that conduct that is at the extreme paths of excess or deficiency (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). When using the theory of virtue ethics to resolve the ethical of corruption resulting from corporate financially influencing political processes to win political favors, a determination of whether the act is moderate is the first step. This will evaluate whether the act is moral and virtuous as the virtue of ethics proposes. In our earlier discussion, we have seen that the quid pro quo arrangements that corporations form with politicians are essentially forms of bribery, which are manifestations of corruption. Corruption is defined to be dishonesty; while a corrupt person lacks integrity, and will be guilty of carrying out dishonest practices like briber (Corrupt, n.d.). In applying Aristotle’s Mean’s Doctrine to the issue, we realize that its two extremes are absolute truthfulness and corruption whose mean is honesty. Both corruption and extreme truthfulness are vices, the former being equivalent to dishonesty and the latter being capable of harm in some situations. Honesty is the quality of being truthful, fair, sincere, upright, and free of fraud and deceit (Honesty, n.d.). When corporations finance campaigns and use this as a means of influencing the political process to legislate in their favor, they are encouraging the politicians to ignore their integrity and fairness duties, which encourage corruption. Politicians in a democracy have a duty and call to always deliver the wills of the majority, which is jeopardized when they are weighed down by corporate money causing them to engage in the immoral and vices of corruption and conflict of interests. The act of finances campaigns by corporate is consequently also a vice and immoral according to theory of virtue ethics. The theory of ethics would require that everyone uphold ethics, both moral and intellectual. If the corporations were to be informed clearly of their actions and the effects they lead to then refrain from funding political campaigns would be arguable to them. It will be their moral responsibility then to do what is moral and virtuous and the kind of corruption they bring will not result. The Egoism Theory The theory of egoism, which originated from Freud (1856-1939), brings in a completely different t perspective of addressing this kind of corruption. According to Freud, human beings have a natural aggressive and selfish nature. The theory of egoism suggests that the acceptable behavior is the one that maximizes brings an individual maximum benefit. Moral philosophy focus as defined by egoism is doing that which promotes the greatest benefit for oneself. The proponents of this system argue that if everyone was to do only what is best for themselves then the society should increase and benefit as a whole. This means that a candidate in a campaign must involve the means that guarantees them victory in the election. Since the campaigns, as we have seen are only getting more expensive then the nearest and best source of funds would be the best thing for the egoists. Whereas this is true for all politicians, the egoism system has its weakness on method of addressing the issue of unethical practices resulting from the corporate money. Analyzing the problem of quid pro quo corruption, which we identified as unethical using the egoism perspective very interesting and contrasting conclusion will suffice. First, we need to note that the egoists are intrinsically unethical (Napal, 2006). This egoism system would not have any problem with the deeds of corporations having their way into the legislative process. Having rules that favor that are favorable for them is the best for them. They will be right in agreement with the egoism system and this is in essence supposed to bring benefits to the society. The politicians who we identified to be feeling a debt of gratitude to their sponsors will also find it in their interests to please the corporate to win their trust and support and save their names from being tarnished in case they fail to deliver their promises to the corporations. The egoists’ motives are usually short term (Napal, 2006) though there has emerged another class of ‘enlightened’ egoists who allow for others well-being and adopt long-term perspectives (Ferrel, O., Fraedrich, Ferrel, L., 2006). However, this type of egoism may also not resolve the issue at hand, as this kind of egoists will have their future aspirations of benefiting from the corporations and therefore do what is best for them. Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the two theories Comparing these two theories of ethics, we find that the egoism perspective cannot solve the unethical issues brought by the funding of political campaigns by corporations. The egoism practice will indicate a situation where practicing the quid pro quo corruption, what the system proposes is contrary to the code of ethics that most of us value (Khalid, Syed Agil, & Khalid, 2012). The egoism theory is in essence not workable and will not better the society as it is proposed to do. The quid pro quo corruption between politicians and corporations is real in the society and has been identified to be for no good, scandals of this kind of arrangements speak out aloud. In 2008, for instance Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Osama’s U.S. senate seat and extort campaign funds from a children hospital (Common Cause, n.d.). This according to Egoism theory would be justified since it was beneficial to him but according to the theory of virtue ethics, the action would be condemned as a vice. He had pledged favors and contracts to big contributors in return; quid pro quo arrangement kind of corruption was on the loom had he not been arrested. Even though the issue of public lobbying for campaign funding has been a focus for many years and has been burned in several states, the issue is yet to be addressed with completion. The Supreme Court has in the past ruled that as long there is no direct link between corporate campaign contribution and the act of petitioning the legislatures to defeat or favor a bill, the practice is legal (Common Cause, n.d.) . It only becomes illegal when a direct link is evident between the two processes. The kind of ruling does not eliminate the unethical vice in the society and bribery laws have a chance of being upheld. Conclusion The most effective way to address the quid pro quo corruption caused by corporate contribution in campaigns could only be that corporations cease from funding political campaigns. An appropriate channel of having their interests addressed would be by engaging the politicians in rational debate to find the politicians who are for their ideals. This way, the politicians do not have the pressure of paying any ‘debts’ to any corporations and will be at more freedom to consider the petitions of all citizens in their legislative duties. References An assessment of the ethical dimensions of corruption :Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies. 11(1), Retrieved 6 November 2013, 1-9, From http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol11_no1_pages_5-9.pdf Aristotle (1925). Trans., D. Ross. The Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. Cavico, F.J., & Mujtaba, B.G. (2009). Business Ethics: The Moral Foundation of Effective Leadership, Management, and Entrepreneurship. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Pearson Custom Publishing. Common Cause (n.d.). Money in politics. Retrieved 7 November 2013, from http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=5424665#sthash.jwl 4Ps7.dpuf Corrupt.(n.d.).Retrieved 7 November 2013, from http://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt?s=t. Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J. & Ferrell, L. (2006). Business Ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. Washington DC: Cengage Learning Honesty.(n.d.). Retrieved 7 November 2013 from http://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/honesty?s=t. Khalid, K., Syed Agil, S., & Khalid, K. (2012). The Synthesis of Ethical Decision Making. International Journal of Academic Research, 47-50. Livene, T., Bertram, L. (2009). The Art of Lobbying: Building Trust and Selling Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press. McGehee, M. (2012). “Lobbying and Campaign Finance: Sources of Ethical Dilemmas.” The Bryce Harlow Workshop on Ethics and Lobbying. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers Thurber, J. (2010) Changing the Way Washington Works?: Assessing President Obama’s Battle with Lobbyists. Retrieved 6 November 2013, from http://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/upload/Thurber-Paper-Obama-and-Lobbyists.pdf Read More