Essay Sample on Corporations in U.S Politics

Introduction

Campaign finance is the finances of electoral campaigns at local levels and also the federal state. Congress enact campaign finance law at the national level which is then enforced by an independent federal agency; the Federal Election Commission. Most campaign spending received private financing, which is majorly through donors who operate in subsidized industries. Qualified candidates for U.S presidency receive public funding at the primaries and in the general election where the candidates meet eligibility requirements to get the government subsidy (Rhodes, & Fleming, 2020). State and local law govern races for non-federal offices as over half of the states permit a certain level of contributions from the corporate and union. Periodic reports showing the money spend and raised should be filed as demanded by the current campaign law for every candidate and party committee at the federal level. Various organizations provide insight to influence numerous groups, including the Center for Responsive Politics. Dark money refers to the funds contributed by the trade association groups permitted to raise unlimited amounts from individuals and corporations as they equally spend without limits. The reason such contributions are called dark money is that the identity of the participants is exempted from disclosure requirements.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Thesis

Political candidates have a responsibility to choose their source of campaigning finances depending on the obligations and demands to be fulfilled on the financing laws.

Hypothesis

• There is an excellent role for corporations in U.S politics success from planning to financing and making the necessary strategies.
• There is no significant role for the corporations to ensure success in U.S politics from financing to laying the strategies.
• There is strict implementation of laws on corporate money and campaign financing.
• There is no strict adherence to laws on corporate money and campaign financing.

Literature Review

Campaign money-raising is viewed as a suitable market for a public policy where donations are collected from firms, individuals and associations who seek to benefit through subsidies and favourable regulations in place by the government. Grossman and Helpman (1994) examine some cases where they view the funding bodies as primary 'gate keepers' without whom the campaign strategies and success is harassed and at risk of fatal failure. Legislators can receive huge political donations without much change in public policy. Grier and Munger (1991), hold their perspective on that there is consistent behaviour related to these donors and fundraisers where they pursue a beneficial agenda in their contributions. Legislators who serve on influential and powerful committees raise substantially more than the other members while the party leaders raise more money than the backbenchers. The fact of having little money in U.S politics is the inviting reason or corporate funding and firms in the political arena (Nwangwu, & Ononogbu, 2016). Gordon Tullock (1972) questioned, why is there little money in United States politics? In this time frame campaign expenditure was relatively low, which was dwarfed by hundreds of billions of dollars-worth due to the maximized spending in the public and regulatory costs supposedly at stake. Tullock’s puzzle has not disappeared but instead picking a sharper focus as firms and the corporate funding found its way in to restore the national government financial stability and established as an appropriate way to execute campaign strategies.

Conditional Motivations Model

Having an assumption that politicians act from two primary motivations which concern their desire to get and remain to tin their elected offices during the service time frame which is a target based on priority in line with other political ambitions (Bichay, 2020). If the politicians' behaviours are nested on those ambitions, they ground us to question how the purposes feature in the policy-making process. When does the office occupation motivation dominate how the politicians behave and how does this affect making of political finance legislation? Two further propositions are crucial to examine that the politicians are more concerned on their re-election grounds when they perceive that they have high chances for electoral defeat. When their political positions are in a total risk, they put their motivations as a bigger priority where they regain their strategies when convinced of their safety on preferences. Thus, the higher the chance to political positions, the greater the importance are their motivations and the lower the risk, the smaller they prioritize their motivations.

To explore the implications related to these propositions, we give a reflection on the political financing in two different conditions. Considering a political party has few chances of regaining a re-election post, they will opt to gather external financing strategies to reinforce their campaign and to improve opportunities to restore power (Aizenberg & Müller, 2020). The probability is high that the party will use policy-making skills at its disposal to enact federal finance laws which will be a contribution towards increasing chances of re-election. Generally, an invite on the external sources is sponsoring the candidate's success and frustrating possible challenges related to limiting the re-election chances. Thus the general idea is held that equalitarian and libertarian politicians will portray similar behaviour in the struggle to maintain and secure their incumbency when they feel threatened based on regaining their political posts. We should expect the same traits when they feel a sense of security to their current sitting political positions as they try to tighten the funding and the campaign regime in paly.

Discussion

Political candidates have a responsibility to choose their source of campaigning finances depending on the obligations and demands to be fulfilled on the financing laws. The corporations and firms have proven their significant contribution to the funding of candidates as they fulfil their plan to achieve the perceived benefits. The funding parties take the pleasure to ensure political success in the whole state by not only funding their candidates but also planning and advising on the essential strategies to achieve the ultimate objective (Aizenberg & Müller, 2020). The United States has well-dictated financing rules about political positions in the country, and the incumbents are subjected to adhere and meet the defined requirements. The external financing apart from the government receive a bit different rules to govern their funding, not like the government-funded candidates. The government funding subjects its aspirants to exposure of practices which many people currently find unsustainable and prefer to pursue dark money funding to enjoy undefined limits of fundraising.

When an incumbent takes preference on dark money funding, they run on in-depth strategies to gather their funds which facilitate the campaign to detailed procedures laid by the various party leaders in line with their objectives. They enjoy cover for their donors and identity, and they are equally not exposed as the recipients of the funding bodies. When a candidate evades the stated restrictions on the campaign funding, they are also allowed to spend the much they can as long as they achieve the plans laid for the parties.

References

Aizenberg, E., & Müller, M. (2020). Signalling expertise through the media? Measuring the appearance of corporations in political news through a complexity lens. Journal of European Public Policy, 1-23.

Bichay, N. (2020). Public campaign financing and the rise of radical-right parties. Electoral Studies, 66, 102159.

Nwangwu, C., & Ononogbu, O. A. (2016). Electoral laws and monitoring of campaign financing during the 2015 presidential election in Nigeria. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 17(4), 614.

Rhodes, C., & Fleming, P. (2020). Forget political, corporate social responsibility: organization, 1350508420928526.