The Pros And Cons Of Money Corrupted Politics

1178 Words5 Pages
Across America it is a widely held belief that money has corrupted politics. Study after study shows that the majority of Americans believe our politicians are corrupted by immense amount of money flowing in from Political Action Committees (PACs), Interest Groups, organizations and personal contributions. American’s agree that campaign finance and lobbyist regulation needs to take place, however few think that regulation will help. Perhaps this is why people barely pay attention to campaign finance. Essentially money has become a part of our political system and there is little hope that we could extricate ourselves from it. American’s negative opinion about the trustworthiness of politicians perhaps comes from the mass media. The media report…show more content…
They noted a “1.4% increase in total support for campaign finance reforms” (p.15) when respondents increased their mass media viewing. That directly validated other studies that claim the media is partly responsible for the theory that politicians are corrupted by money. However, let us not forget that the idea of a corrupted system forces American’s to act and participate in the democratic system. When it comes to running for political positions, potential candidates and incumbents face the daunting task of raising campaigning funds. The costs of campaigning are staggering for high-level positions. Without the ability to garner contributions from large corporations, campaigns would fall flat and never reach the constituents. Costs for campaigning are ever increasing. According to the OpenSecrets.org, the two top candidates for the 2012 Presidential campaign spent an average $1.15 billion. Campaign expenditures arise from ads, consulting, rent, utilities, payroll, travel and any other number of items. Spending like that cannot be accomplished without those groups flowing money to…show more content…
Federal Election Commission. Most American’s opinion of the case stem from the media coverage of the decision and President Obama’s many criticism not least of which was included in his Jan 27, 2010 State of the Union address. Most people believe that the case opened the floodgates on corporate campaign spending limits. They also believe it is a decision that confers personhood to corporations. On the first point, corporate spending for campaign limits have not changed, they are still in place. What the decision really accomplished was clarifying obscure rules for corporate contributions. Gone are the rules that corporations could not contribute to telecommunication ads directed at candidates within 60 days of an election. The 60 days no longer stands. The opinion still requires that corporations cannot contribute unlimited funds directly to or against candidates. On the second point, the decision does not claim that corporations are persons. In fact they are a group of persons with common interests. Because the corporation is composed of persons, their free speech cannot be
Open Document