This paper argues that corporate spending to influence political campaigns should be prohibited in the United States. It examines the historical growth of political interest groups and the escalating costs of modern campaigns, contending that large corporate contributions corrupt the democratic process and undermine elected officials' accountability to their constituents. The paper addresses counterarguments — including free speech protections under the Constitution and existing Federal Election Campaign Act regulations — before rebutting them on the grounds that current limits have failed to curb corporate influence. It concludes by presenting "clean money" public financing programs adopted in states such as Massachusetts, Arizona, and Maine as viable reform alternatives.
This paper demonstrates the classical argumentative essay technique of refutation: devoting dedicated paragraphs to the strongest opposing positions before dismantling them with counter-evidence. By conceding that contributions are constitutionally sensitive while still arguing that current safeguards have failed, the writer shows an ability to handle nuance without abandoning the thesis.
The paper opens with a thesis-driven introduction, then provides historical context on political parties and interest groups. Two body sections build the affirmative case (rising campaign costs; undue influence on legislation). Two subsequent sections present and rebut counterarguments (free speech; existing FECA limits). A final section proposes clean money alternatives before a brief conclusion reinforces the call for reform. References follow in MLA style.
It is well known that those who have the most money to wield usually hold most of the power, and this is extremely true of most large corporations in America today. These corporations pick and choose where they exert their influence, but most contribute the maximum amount allowable by law to political campaigns. With major elections looming, these contributions have picked up at a breakneck pace. These contributions — known as soft money in the political world — should be prohibited, because they conflict with the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and influence candidates in ways that often do not benefit their constituents. Political contributions from large corporations are not in keeping with the democratic spirit of American elections, and they should be banned entirely in order to restore integrity to the election process.
Political parties are not a new invention in American politics, and neither are donations from those who hope to influence candidates in specific ways. Today, political interest groups working for specific corporations or industries are far more common than they once were, but they have always existed, as the following experts note:
"Political parties were invented in the United States in the late 1790s and have dominated American politics ever since. In the early decades of the republic, interest groups were subordinated to the much more powerful parties. But as the range of government activities gradually expanded, powerful interest groups paid more attention to politics" (Hrebenar, Burbank, and Benedict 1).
There are numerous reasons why these continuing political contributions should be stopped. First, they are completely out of control and are defining the way candidates run for office in this country. Political campaigns of past eras were shorter and far less expensive. Today, campaigns seem to last forever and their budgets are enormous. For example, the 1998 governor's race in California cost $100 million, and Senate races can cost $25 million or more — and the costs continue to rise (Hrebenar, Burbank, and Benedict 6).
Arnold Schwarzenegger spent nearly $27 million to win the recall election in California, and the total spent by all candidates combined was $88 million. Even more astounding, former Governor Gray Davis left office owing money to his own campaign. While he raised "more money — 131 million dollars — than any previous California governor, Davis left office with a campaign debt of 268,000 dollars, according to the Los Angeles Times" ("Recall"). These figures are staggering, but they also illustrate why political campaign contributions from large corporations must be prohibited. Political spending is out of control, and to bring it back in line, campaigns should be shortened and their costs reduced.
In addition, political contributions create undue pressure on political candidates. Corporations are not contributing large sums simply out of goodwill — they are spending money to make money, by influencing their preferred candidates when specific legislation is introduced in Congress or by state politicians. Their contributions are essentially investments in future laws. This dynamic was quite evident in the contemporary debate over a Medicare bill, which proponents argued was nothing more than pandering to the large pharmaceutical companies that had contributed to a presidential campaign. This is an excellent example of why political campaigns should not receive contributions from major corporations or industries. Even when contributions have not actually shaped policy, they will be perceived as having done so — which not only demeans the democratic process but calls the ethics of the politicians involved into question.
You’re 39% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.