Corporations and Political Campaigns

Paper Summary:

This paper introduces the topic of corporations' spending to influence political campaigns and specifically discusses why they should be prohibited from doing so. It looks at how these corporations are able pick and choose where they exert their power and how most of them contribute the maximum amount allowable by law to political campaigns. It argues that these contributions, known as "soft money" in the political world, should be prohibited because they go against the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and because they influence the candidates in ways that often do not benefit their constituents. Political contributions from large corporations are not the American way, and they should be banned entirely to add integrity back into the election process.

From the Paper:

"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 our country. Political campaigns of past eras were shorter, and much less expensive. Today, campaigns seem to last forever, and the budgets are tremendous. For example, the 1998 governor's race in California cost $100 million, and Senate races can cost $25 million or more, and the costs are rising every day (Hrebenar, Burbank, and Benedict 6). Arnold Schwarzenegger spent nearly $27 million to win the recall election in California just a few months ago, and the total spent by all the candidates was $88 million. Even more astounding, Ex-Governor Gray Davis left office owing his campaign money."

More papers on Corporations and Political Campaigns:

• Research Paper # 60265 : "Soft Money and Accounting Scandals"
• Essay # 25214 : "Corporate Power and the Negation of Democracy"
• Essay # 35571 : "Corporate Power and the Negation of Democracy"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: