of 40
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
1/40
2012
Nova Southeastern
University
Anonymous
[THE LEGALITY, MORALITY,
AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF CORPORATIONS MAKING
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
IN EXCHANGE FORLEGISLATIVE FAVORS.]This essay intends to discover whether the corporate act of making campaign contributions in exchange
for legislative favors is right in light of the law, ethics, and social responsibility (The 3 Values
approach).
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
2/40
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
I. IntroductionA. Purposes of PaperB.
Background Information regarding topic
II. Legal SectionA. Introduction to Legal SectionB. Statement of Relevant Legal Principles and Rules of LawC. Application of Law to Topic and Legal AnalysisD. Legal Conclusion
III. Ethics SectionA.
Utilitarian Ethical Analysis Introduction to ethics as a branch of philosophy Introduction and brief explanation of Utilitarian theory Stakeholder, pleasure v. pain, numerical model of Utilitarianism - Utilitarian
analysis as per required model
Moral conclusion pursuant to Utilitarian modelB. Kantian Ethical Analysis
Introduction to Kantian ethics Statement of Kants Ethics Principle The Categorical Imperative Application of the Three Tests of the Categorical Imperative to topic
(Universal Law Test; Kingdom of Ends Test; Agent-Receiver Test) Kantian Moral Conclusion
C. Aristotle Ethical Analysis Statement of ethical theory and key ethical principles Application of ethical theory and principles Moral Conclusion pursuant to Aristotle Overall Conclusion to Ethics section as a whole
IV. Social ResponsibilityA. Introduction to Social Responsibility sectionB. Definition of term Social Responsibility and formulation of definitional-principleC. Application of Social Responsibility definitional-principle to topicD. Social Responsibility recommendationsE. Social Responsibility Conclusion
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
3/40
2 | P a g e
V. ConclusionA. Restatement of Major 3 Value ConclusionsB. Overall Conclusions, Personal Opinions, Recommendations, and Predictions
References
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
4/40
3 | P a g e
I. Introduction
Since the dawn of civilization, corruption has been a reality in human politics. The wealthy
and powerful have consistently maintained some form of influence over the political process, and
often at the expense of the average citizen. In 2010, the New York Times published an article
discussing the publics concerns with corporations using their vast financial resources to
influence the election of politicians who would support or fight legislation favorable to the
corporate agenda. (Kirkpatrick. 2010).
The article was specifically referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United,
which struck down government regulations that prohibited corporations from buying campaign
commercials advocating the election or defeat of a political candidate. (Kirkpatrick. 2010).
Proponents of the regulations believe that the Supreme Courts decision is a threat to democracy,
while the opponents claim a victory for free speech. (Kirkpatrick. 2010). The purpose of this
discussion is to evaluate the issue using the three value approach, which asks whether it legal,
moral, and socially responsible for our government to allow corporations to financially influence
the political and legislative process.
Over time, Americans have been growing increasingly concerned with the disproportionate
influence that corporations have over the political and legislative process, and rightfully so. It is
well known that money buys power, and history shows that the wealthy have generally had the
greatest influence over the political process in comparison to the majority. In todays political
climate, corporations are the economic powerhouses: They use their incredible economic power
to influence the elections of candidates that are supportive of the corporate agenda, which
affectively drowns out the voice of the majority.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
5/40
4 | P a g e
Since the beginning of human civilization, power and wealth have maintained a symbiotic
relationship. In the past, the wealthiest and the most powerful individual in the land was usually
the king. Since this relationship, as a rule thumb, has always been the case, there is no reason to
believe that it isnt the case today. Today, the wealthiest individuals and organizations are not
recognized as kings, but their wealth does grant them the influential power of a king. The reason
for this is that human nature has shown power to be an economic commodity, and as a result
history has demonstrated that without wealth one has no significant power.
Just as in the past, politics is an expensive profession: Today, political candidates require vast
financial resources in order to win elections, and to ensure their reelection. In the United States,
political candidates are generally not wealthy individuals, at least not wealthy enough to fund
their own political campaign, and as a result they must rely on the contributions of others to fund
their run for office. The potential problem that occurs as a result of the necessity for campaign
contributions is the likely development of a quid pro quo arrangement, where the contributor
seeks a favor in return for their contribution. When this occurs, politicians will likely be
sympathetic to the political agendas of those who help keep them in office, and grant the favor to
the contributor: The larger the contribution, the more sympathetic the politician will be to the
contributors agenda. The political favors gained by those who contribute to election campaigns
are by no means minor, and they manifest themselves most visibly in the passage of legislation
favorable to the contributors cause. Herein lays the danger of allowing corporations to
influence the political process: For the influence that a corporations wealth is capable of
purchasing, takes away from the influence of the majority, and that is of grave concern to the
people of this republic.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
6/40
5 | P a g e
Since its inception, the United States was founded to be a republic: A nation in which
ultimate political power rests with its people, governed by representatives of the people, and who
are obliged to execute the will of the people. The founding fathers felt that a republic was the
ideal form of government to ensure the peoples right to self-governance. The founding fathers
stayed well away from establishment of another monarchy, especially after their experience of
living under the tyranny of England. At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
approached Benjamin Franklin, and asked: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a
monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. (Paul, 2000). Even though a
republic was believed to be the best form of government to ensure the rights of the people, it was
also a fragile system. (Paul, 2000). Franklin knew that maintaining the integrity of a republic
depended upon the morality of the people, for only a moral people could prevent the corrupt and
the wealthy from usurping the majoritys power.
The reality is that when the wealthy gain control over a significant portion of a republics
political power, the nation is transformed into an oligarchy. Aristotle defined and coined the
term oligarchy to be a synonym for: Rule by the rich. (Oligarchy, 2012). Oligarchy can be
further defined as a small group of individuals who control virtually all political power. These
people can be distinguished by many things, such as: royalty, military power, wealth, and
corporate identity. (Oligarchy, 2012). Throughout the course of human history, oligarchies had
been tyrannical in nature, relying on public servitude, and on oppression to exist and thrive.
(Oligarchy, 2012).
Corporations are the wealthiest entities in the world today. In the United States, debates have
raged for years over whether corporations should enjoy the same rights that people do. The
problem is that corporations are not people, they are organizations created for the sole purpose of
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
7/40
6 | P a g e
making a profit. They have no sense of right and wrong, and they have no sense of morality; for
morality is beyond the scope of a corporations existence. The only restraint on the actions of a
corporations, are the restraints imposed by law. By providing corporations the same powers and
rights that the people enjoy, our representatives would be permitting the establishment of an
oligarchy to replace the republic. The analysis of this issue begins with an evaluation of the
legality of corporations using their significant wealth and influence to affect change in politics.
II. LawA. INTRODUCTIONTo begin our discussion of the law, we must understand what law is. Wikipedia states
that Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to
govern behavior. (Law, 2012). It is appropriate to start our discussion here, because the law is
the one value that can be enforced by the government, unlike ethics and social responsibility
which can only be enforcedby ones own personal code, or by peer pressure.
Our federal government was created by the guidelines set forth by the United States
Constitution. The Constitution created a government of limited jurisdiction; and as a result, the
federal government may only exercise those powers enumerated by the Constitution. (U.S.
Const. amend. IX and X). Any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the
states, or to the people. (U.S. Const. amend. X). Though the federal government is a
government of limited jurisdiction, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the
Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and further declares federal statutes to be supreme
over the constitutions and laws of the states. (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Contained within the
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
8/40
7 | P a g e
Constitution is a Bill of Rights which guarantees certain rights to the states, and to the people;
and with the passage of the 14th Amendment the states themselves are prohibited from violating
any rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.
At critical legal issue in this discussion is whether the 1st
Amendment protects
corporations as well as private individuals. In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling on the
constitutionality of restricting or outright banning a corporations ability to influence the political
process in the landmark case, Citizens Unitedv. Federal Election Commission. (Citizens United,
2010). Prior to the ruling in Citizens United, federal law prohibited corporations from using
corporate funds to make direct contributions to political candidates, and additionally prohibited
indirect expenditures used to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a political
candidate, through any form of media. (Citizens United, 2010). Citizens United, a nonprofit
corporation, claims that such laws violate the corporations 1st Amendment right to free speech.
(Citizens United, 2010).
B. STATEMENT OF LAWThe First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free speech, the press,
the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and the right of the people to petition the
government. (U.S. Const. amend. I). The amendment clearly states that Congress may not make
any law that violates the peoples right to exercise free speech, or the peoples right to petition
their government. (U.S. Const. amend. I). The First Amendment is clear on its protection of the
listed liberties, but what is not clear to some is the constitutional definition of people as stated
in the Amendment.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
9/40
8 | P a g e
In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court held that First
Amendment protections extended to corporations. (Belloti, 1978). The Court also held that
distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others is not
permissible under the Constitution. (Belloti, 1978). In determining the permissibility of speech
restrictions, the Court only considers narrow exceptions, which must be based upon a compelling
government interest. (Citizens United, 2010).
C. LEGAL ANALYSISThe Supreme Court has stated that free speech is absolutely vital in maintaining the integrity
of a democratic republic. (Citizens United, 2010). Since, the people of a republic are sovereign,
their ability to make informed decisions among their political representatives is essential.
(Citizens United, 2010). The right to hear opinions, argue opposing viewpoints, and use
information to reach a consensus is important in maintaining the vitality of the republic.
(Citizens United, 2010). Though the importance of free speech in a republic is not in dispute, it
is questionable whether the right to free speech constitutionally applies to corporations.
In Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court held that corporations do have the same
First Amendment rights as everyone else, and ruled specifically that corporations have the right
to free speech. (Bellotti, 1978). The Court reasoned that restrictions which permitted the speech
of some speakers but not others, was impermissible under the constitution. (Bellotti, 1978). The
Supreme Court affectively stated that it was impermissible under the Constitution to discriminate
against a speaker, because of the speakers corporate status. (Bellotti, 1978). The Court has only
upheld a narrow class of speech restriction where there was a compelling government interest to
restrict, but qualified the statement by holding that there is no compelling government interest in
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
10/40
9 | P a g e
restricting corporations from engaging in free speech. (Bellotti, 1978). According to the
Supreme Court, political speech is covered by the First Amendment, and protecting the political
speech of people and corporations is the most critical form of speech to protect in a free republic.
(Bellotti, 1978).
The other issue to address is the legality of corporations using their corporate resources to
influence the legislative process: This includes influence over content, and enactment of
legislation. The Bellotti Court addressed this issue as well, and ruled that corporations had the
1st Amendment Right to petition the government, and influence the content and enactment of
legislation. (Bellotti, 1978). The Court rationalized its holding by stating that corporate
executives and employees routinely counsel members of Congress and Presidential
administrations on many issues as a matter of routine and often in private. (Citizens United,
2010). The Court expanded its reasoning by stating that there is no legitimate reason to violate
the First Amendment rights of corporations, because if it can be shown that a corporation offered
money directly in exchange for influence over the legislative process, then bribery laws would
apply. (Citizens United, 2010).
D. LEGAL CONCLUSIONIn summary, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people under the
Constitution; as a result they are afforded First Amendment rights, and any other right enjoyed
by the people. Since corporations enjoy the same First Amendment rights as other people,
Congress is not permitted to pass any legislation that distinguishes between different classes of
people, which would permit some people to speak, while denying the right to others. Thus,
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
11/40
10 | P a g e
corporations are permitted to engage in political speech, just like a private person would be
permitted to do.
The Supreme Court also held that corporations have the right to petition their
government, a right that is also guaranteed by the First Amendment. Since corporations have the
right to petition the government, they are permitted to influence the legislative process. The
Supreme Court alleviates concerns over potential corruption by stating that it is unnecessary to
violate a persons First Amendment rights in order to prevent corruption: The Court argues that
this is because bribery laws are sufficiently equipped to deal with such offenders.
Many individuals would likely disagree with the Courts holding, arguing that bribery
laws are insufficient protections against the possibility of corporations undermining American
democracy. As a result, the discussion shall attempt to determine whether ethical theory has a
better answer to the concern of the people.
III. ETHICSTo begin a discussion of ethics one must first understand what the word means. Clear
and objective definitions are critical in order to effectively advocate any position. By clarifying
terminology, one can establish the logical and rational groundwork that will make an argument
objectively convincing. So what is ethics? To begin with, ethics is a branch of philosophy, and
philosophy at its core is the study and pursuit of the truth.
The study of philosophy is the human attempt to tackle such deeply problematic issues
relating to such things as the nature of reality, conduct, and thought. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
The philosopher believes that behind the apparent chaos of the known Universe, there exists
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
12/40
11 | P a g e
fundamental truths and laws that govern everything in existence, and the philosopher believes
that human reason has the ability to discover these fundamental truths. (Cavico & Mujtaba,
2009). Philosophy is a multi-faceted discipline, which can be broken down into three sub-
categories, which are: metaphysics, the philosophy of knowledge, and ethics and political
philosophy. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Metaphysics is the study of the philosophy at the macro-level; its goal is to determine the
true nature of reality and existence. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The philosophy of knowledge is
the academic attempt to properly define what knowledge is, what knowledge is based on, and the
appropriate mental processes required to acquire true knowledge. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Ethics and political philosophy is the study of philosophy at the micro-level; it is the field of
philosophy which studies the human being, its nature, its place in the world, and its relationship
with others. Consequently, the study of ethics is the study that has the most practical application
in the lives of every human being. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
It is important to understand that ethics is not simply a field of study which attempts to
describe and define the human being and its behavior; that field of study is properly reserved for
those who study human anthropology, and psychology. Instead, ethics builds upon what we
already know about the overall nature of human beings. Ethics seeks to objectively determine
the best way for human beings to live their lives, behave with others, based upon our
understanding of ourselves, and how we interact with our fellow human beings. (Cavico &
Mujtaba, 2009). More specifically, ethics is the theoretical study of morality and moral
philosophy. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
13/40
12 | P a g e
The study of morality applies philosophy to moral thinking, conduct, and problems.
(Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). It prescribes that which is good and bad, it establishes the definition
ofright and wrong, and what one should and shouldnt do. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Moral
philosophy establishes the ethical framework in which one should make, assert, and defend any
moral decision. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Since ethics is the theoretical study of morality, it is
used to test the validity of existing moral codes. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). As stated earlier,
philosophers believe that everything in the universe is based on fundamental truths and laws, and
they believe ethics and morality are likewise governed by immutable laws. Moral philosophers
essentially hold the conviction that there is only one right answer to any moral question, and as a
result the moral philosophers job is to use reason to support the right moral and ethical
principles that they put forward as the truth. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Through the ages, moral philosophers have developed ethical theories, with the goal of
defining proper human conduct. These philosophers articulated and justified, principles and
techniques that could be used in specific moral situations requiring a moral determination. The
following analysis will primarily utilize utilitarian and Kantian ethical theories in order to
evaluate the morality of corporations using their wealth based influence to affect change in the
political landscape.
A. UTILITARIAN ETHICAL ANALYSIS1. INTRODUCTION
Utilitarianism was created by British Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, and was later refined
by Benthams apprentice, John Stuart Mills. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Bentham regarded
Utilitarianism as more than an abstract ethical theory; he regarded it as an objective. (Cavico &
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
14/40
13 | P a g e
Mujtaba, 2009). It was Benthams goal in the development of Utilitarianism to develop a
universally applicable, objective, and practical ethical theory that could be scientifically
applied to any act in order to determine its morality. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Bentham recognized humanitys hedonistic nature, and based Utilitarianism on the reality
that pleasure and pain is the sovereign masters of humanity: Meaning that all human conduct
originates from the desire for pleasure, and the avoidance of pain. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Bentham took this understanding of human nature, and developed Utilitarianism to operate
within its framework.
The goal of Utilitarian ethics is to produce as much happiness as possible. (Cavico &
Mujtaba, 2009). Morality in Utilitarianism is that which creates the most amount good for the
most people, all while causing the least amount of harm. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Utilitarianism operates under a system of impartiality, which means that any Utilitarian analysis
of a particular act requires the recognition that no ones welfare is more important than anothers.
(Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). A Utilitarian is not only required to consider the welfare of others,
but is also required to serve the welfare of society as a whole. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). For
the Utilitarian, an act isnt good or bad on its own: An action is only good if the consequence of
the action is good, and an action is bad if the consequence of the action causes harm. (Cavico &
Mujtaba, 2009). In addition, Utilitarian analysis requires us to take into consideration overall
affect the act has on all of its stakeholders. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Thus, if all the
stakeholders of a particular act experienced a greater amount good than harm, then the act is
moral and if not, the act is immoral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
15/40
14 | P a g e
2. UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS
Since utilitarianism was intended to be a scientific ethical analysis, the system provides
a mathematical morality test for any specific act to determine whether the act is good or bad.
(Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The Utilitarian analysis of a particular act requires one to test the act
using the following standard:
1. Accurately and narrowly state the action to be evaluated?2. Identify all stakeholders who are directly and indirectly affected by the action (Including
the companys constituent groups as well as society).
3. Specify for each stakeholder group directly and indirectly affected by the act, all thereasonably foreseeable consequencespleasurable and badpainful consequences of the
action, as far into the future as appears appropriate, and consider the various predictable
outcomes, good and bad, and the likelihood of their occurrence.
4. For each stakeholder group, including society as a whole, measure and weigh the totalgood consequences against the bad consequences, and determine which predominates for
each stakeholder group.
5. Quantify the good and bad for each stakeholder group on a numerical scale (-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3,+4,+5) which quantifies the extremes of pleasure and pain.
6. Sum up all the good and bad consequences assigned to the stakeholder groups;
If after the analysis, the action results in an overall positive number, it produces more good
than bad, and is a morally right action; and if the action results in an overall negative number, it
produces more bad than good, and is morally wrong; based on this model of the Utilitarian
ethical theory. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
16/40
15 | P a g e
The action being evaluated using the Utilitarian model is: Whether it is moral for a
corporation to contribute to the campaigns of political candidates in exchange for legislative
favors once the candidate is in office.
1) The stakeholders who are directly and indirectly affected by the action are:a. The Government of the United States;b. State and Local Governments;c. Directly affected politicians;d. The citizens of the United States;e.
The corporation;
f. Company stock holders;g. Corporate employees;h. Environmentalists;
2) The most important consideration, which dominates over all others, is that the peopleof the United States are sovereign, that our politicians are only our representatives,
and that they are constitutionally required to reflect the will of the people in executing
their duties. As such, the voice of the majority in a democratic republic can never be
muffled by the minority.
3) The following is a determination of the pleasure and pain experienced by thefollowing stake holders:
a. Government of the United States:i. Foreseeable Good:
1. Legislation that is favorable to corporations can potentiallystimulate the economy in the short-term, resulting in more tax
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
17/40
16 | P a g e
income, which strengthens the position of the United States
globally. Moderately likely.
ii. Foreseeable Harm.1. When corporations use political contributions to gain influence
over the political process, the integrity of the federal government is
compromised. Overtime, the federal government will very likely
ignore its charge to represent the people, and will instead represent
the corporations which are the quantitative minority. Additionally,
the resulting corruption will cause the government to operate less
efficiently. Very likely.
b. State and Local Governments:i. Foreseeable Good:
1. The foreseeable good for state and local governments is the sameas for the federal government.
ii. Foreseeable Bad:1. The foreseeable harm for state and local governments is the same
as for the federal government.
c. Directly affected Politicians:i. Foreseeable Good:
1. The foreseeable good for politicians is that they receive politicalcontributions from the corporations, which strengthen their run for
office. Very Likely.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
18/40
17 | P a g e
2. Supporting corporations may stimulate the economy, which mayprovide more jobs for constituents. Moderately likely.
ii. Foreseeable Harm:1. The foreseeable harm for politician is that they ignore the majority
of their constituents in favor of corporations, and if the interests of
the corporations conflict with the interests of the majority; the
behavior may result in a future campaign defeat. Moderately
Likely.
2.
If a direct link between corporate campaign contributions and
passing legislation is established, the politician and the corporation
may be subjected to federal bribery laws. Slightly Unlikely.
d. Society as a whole:i. Foreseeable Good:
1. Legislation favorable to business, stimulates the economy, andcreates jobs for the American people. Moderately Likely.
ii. Foreseeable Harm:1. The American people will eventually lose their voice and their
republic, and will be eventually subjected to the rule of an
oligarchy. Corporations may eventually influence the evolution of
a legal system, which ignores the Constitution, where corporations
become a privileged class, and the American people become
nothing but subservient workers that keep the corporate machined
greased. History has shown that great nations always degenerate
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
19/40
18 | P a g e
as a result of corruption, and eventually fade away. Extremely
Likely.
e. The Corporations:i. Foreseeable Good:
1. Ensuring the election of politicians who are supportive of thecorporation, and the corporations industry may result in the giving
the company a political edge. Very Likely.
ii. Foreseeable Harm:1.
By condoning this practice, there is a possibility that larger and
more powerful corporations receive the same benefits at the
expense of the smaller corporations, causing harm to the
corporation and the free market. Extremely Likely.
f. Stock Holders:i. Foreseeable Good:
1. Increased revenues resulting in increased share prices. Moderatelylikely.
ii. Foreseeable Harm:1. Favorable legislation may only be favorable in the short term, and
may in fact be harmful in the long term. Just as likely as not.
g. Employees:i. Foreseeable Good:
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
20/40
19 | P a g e
1. Favorable legislation may lead to a better performing company,which could result in higher revenues, which may result in higher
salaries, and better job security. Just as likely as not.
ii. Foreseeable Harm:1. Favorable legislation may result in a less regulated work climate,
lower salaries, longer hours, and less job security. Just as likely as
not.
h. Environmentalist:i.
Foreseeable Good:
1. Corporate abuse of the environment may be brought front andcenter, as a result of a disaster caused by favorable legislation,
which may result in environmental awareness. Moderately likely.
ii. Foreseeable Harm:1. Favorable legislation may result in incredible leeway to abuse
natural resources, irreparably harm the environment, and cause
other species to become endangered. Moderately likely.
4) Measuring the Good against the harm:a. Government of the United States: There is much good that comes from a strong
economy resulting from legislation that favors corporations, but that good can
never be allowed to outweigh any harm that is inflicted on the integrity of the
government. It is the republic that first and foremost keeps the nation strong, and
the nations economy is always secondary.
b. State and Local Governments: Same as above.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
21/40
20 | P a g e
c. Directly affected Politicians: If politicians allow campaign contributors toinfluence their decision in office, that decision may lead to the politician being
thrown out of office in the re-election. The politician becomes a political puppet
when they agree to return favors for campaign contributions, which not only
compromises their personal integrity and decision making capabilities, it
undermines the position they charged with executing faithfully. Any economic
benefit cannot outweigh this. A strong economy is a means to an end for the
people; whats the use of money if you dont have freedom?
d.
Society as a whole: Though society may benefit from more jobs, it is not worth
losing your political influence.
e. Corporations: Condoning this action may appear to be in the short-term interestof the corporation, but it is also in the interest of larger and more powerful
corporations. When the interests of different companies conflict the more
powerful company usually wins.
f. Stockholders: Stockholders will benefit from the higher corporate revenue, andstock prices.
g. Employees: If the company becomes more profitable, employees will likely havebetter job security, and the employees quality of life may improve. It is very
unlikely that the quality of life will get lower.
h. Environmentalists: Legislation that affects the environment and is favorable tocorporations is likely to be harmful to the environment.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
22/40
21 | P a g e
6)
Stake Holders Good Harm
Federal & State Government 2 -4
Directly affected Politicians 2 -2
Society as a whole 2 -4
Corporations 3 -1
Stockholders 2 -1
Employees 2 -2
Environmentalists 1 -3
Totals 14 17
3. UTILITARIAN CONCLUSION
After analyzing the issue according to the Utilitarian approach, we find that the act of
contributing to the political campaigns of politicians who are willing to return political favors
causes more harm than good. Since the harm caused by the corporate conduct outweighs the
good the conduct is considered immoral according to Utilitarian ethical philosophy. The reason
that the harm outweighed the good is that the harm was serious enough to undermine the
Constitution and the American political process, and as a result the analysis necessarily had to
give more weight to this concern.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
23/40
22 | P a g e
B. KANTIAN ETHICAL ANALYSIS1. INTRODUCTION TO KANTIAN ETHICS
Kantian ethics was developed by its namesake, German philosopher Immanuel Kant in
the late 1700s. Kants ethical philosophy believed that reason and acting with a sense of duty
was the foundation of morality. Reason, Kant believed, is the foundation, content, and force
behind any moral law. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Kant argued that moral law is binding on
humanity because that law is supported by reason. The Kantian position holds that if a
particular act is supported by reason, then that act is moral, and alternatively; if the act in
question is immoral, it is because that act is also irrational. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Kant
does not intend to argue that morality and reason are synonymous, but instead argues that moral
ends are achieved by the proper application of reason. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Even though Kant recognized the human desire for happiness, he rejected the Utilitarian
position that morality is based on humanitys pursuit of happiness. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Kant argued that basing morality on happiness would rob humanity of its uniqueness, dignity,
and worth. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). What sets humanity apart from all other living beings is
the ability and freedom to reason, and it is for that reason that human morality is founded on
reason not happiness. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). In addition to reason, Kant also emphasizes
the importance of duty, and stated that one should do their duty regardless of the personal
consequences, even if those consequences result in personal happiness. (Cavico & Mujtaba,
2009).
Kant rejected the idea that human beings required training and guidance in order to be
moral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). He believed that the straight path was clear to all ordinary
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
24/40
23 | P a g e
and rational human beings. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The real issue, as far as Kant was
concerned, was whether people had the intestinal fortitude and discipline to perform their
societal duty; the duty to do the right thing. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The central ethical
principle in Kantian ethics is called the Categorical Imperative. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The
Categorical Imperative is the thought process that human beings use in order to arrive at a moral
judgment. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
2. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
An understanding of the Categorical Imperative requires us to be able to distinguish a
categorical imperative from a hypothetical imperative. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). An
Imperative is a command, or an unavoidable obligation or requirement. (Imperative, n.d.). In
terms of Kants philosophy, an imperative instructs the individual on how they ought to act.
(Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The hypothetical imperative outlines the necessary actions to
achieve a desired end; one must do x in order to achieve y. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The
validity of the hypothetical imperative rests on the acceptance of result y, and ify is rejected then
x has no force. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). In contrast, a categorical imperative is a command to
act a certain way, regardless of consequence; one must do x period. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Human morality and conduct are thus governed by categorical imperatives. (Cavico & Mujtaba,
2009). The reason human conduct is categorical, is because actions are either moral or not, there
is no middle ground in morality, and consequently morality cannot be based on the subjective
acceptance or rejection of a consequence to an act. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Now that we
understand what a categorical imperative is, we can understand Kants theory of the Categorical
Imperative.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
25/40
24 | P a g e
Kant did not simply believe that the Categorical Imperative was simply a principle of
action: It was an ethical test conforming of conduct, where conduct was moral if it conformed to
a specific form and immoral if it did not. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Kant believed that an act
needed to meet three requirements in order to be considered moral: 1) the action must be
possible to be made consistently universal; 2) it must respect rational beings as ends in
themselves; and 3) the action must stem from and respect the autonomy of rational beings and be
acceptable to rational beings. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). If an action passes all three it is
moral, if not, it is immoral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
3. APPLICATION OF THE THREE TESTS OF THE CATEGORICALIMPERATIVE (UNIVERSAL LAW TEST; KINGDOM OF ENDS TEST; AGENT-
RECEIVER TEST)
Now that Kants ethical philosophy has been outlined, it can be applied to the issues
presented in this discussion. In order to determine the morality of corporations financially
influencing the passage or failure of legislation by contributing to the election campaigns of
corporate friendly politicians, the issue will be tested by Kants Categorical Imperative. The
analysis here will specifically determine: 1) Whether the corporate conduct passes the
Universality test; 2) whether the conduct passes the Kingdom of Ends test; and 3) whether
the conduct passes the Agent-Receiver test. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). It is important to note
that if the act in question fails any one of the three tests, it is immoral even if it passes the
remaining two. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
a) TEST OF UNIVERSALITY
The test of Universality requires that a rational person determine whether the act in
question, if universally and consistently applied, could exist continuously without being self-
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
26/40
25 | P a g e
destructive or without causing any contradiction or negation. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). If the
conduct in question is found capable of being universally applied then it would be deemed moral,
and if not it is deemed to be immoral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Bribery, for example, is considered an immoral act according to Kants Universality
test, and the reason for this is because; any logical and rational person who engages in bribery
would not logically wish bribery to become a universally applied action. Imagine a situation in
which an individual was bribing a foreign official in order to expedite an application and ruling
on a business permit. The reason that this individual is engaging in this form of bribery is to
ensure a speedy resolution of his application for a business permit. If this individual willed
bribery to become a universally applied law, then everyone would engage in bribery,
illogically implying that everyone would be brought to the front of the line, and consequently no
ones business permit would be expeditiously processed. Consequently, the act of bribery, if
universally applied, is illogical, self-defeating, and it inevitably leads to its demise: If everyone
were to engage in bribery, then bribery loses its effectiveness, and thus bribery is immoral
pursuant to the Universality test.
Although bribery is immoral, according to Kants Universality test, bribery and
immorality continues to be prevalent in society, regardless; people still engage in bribery and
other immoral conduct. These individuals are in fact parasitic in nature, feeding off an otherwise
moral society. They are keenly aware of the unfair advantage they gain as a result of their
conduct, and they are also aware that the universal application of immoral conduct will cause the
immoral act to lose its effectiveness. As a result, immoral actors wish to the conduct of others to
remain moral in order for them to maintain their unfair advantage in society. Thus, the issue
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
27/40
26 | P a g e
here is narrowed to: Would a corporation wish everyone to use their financial power to influence
the outcome of elections, and the passage of legislation? The answer to the issue is firmly no.
In applying the Universality test we find the corporate act of using a corporations
relatively vast financial resources, to influence the outcome of elections, and the passage of
legislation to be immoral. After analyzing the issue, one may correctly notice the similarity of
this act to the act of bribery, which we have already found to be immoral according to Kants
Categorical Imperative. The act of contributing to political campaigns in order to ensure the
election of politicians, who will support favorable legislation, is in reality a secondary form of
bribery, which is referred to as lobbying in the United States. Rational corporations would never
wish for a universal application of this act because they would lose their influence as a result. If
a corporation willed the universal application of the act of using financial resources to influence
the political process, the conduct would lead to its own demise, and would be self-defeating. If
everyone engaged in this form of bribery to influence the outcome of elections, then the political
and legislative process would regain its intended nature because everyone would have an equal
voice as intended by the Founding Fathers. In summary, corporations that use their financial
resources to influence the political and legislative process are engaging in immoral behavior,
according to Kantstest of Universality: Since an act need only fail one of Kants three tests
of morality, an analysis of Kants other two tests are unnecessary; however, a full analysis will
strengthen the conclusion of immorality, and consequently we continue to Kants Kingdom of
Ends test.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
28/40
27 | P a g e
b) KINGDOM OF ENDS TEST
The second test of Kants Categorical Imperative requires one to respect rational beings
as ends in themselves, instead of a means to an end. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The
application ofKants Kingdom of Ends test states that a rational person must treat all other
rationale beings with dignity and respect, and to recognize the intrinsic value of humanity as a
whole, regardless of any advantage one might have. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The must
respect and recognize the right of all humans, to make their own decisions, and to choose their
own fate; emphasizing that dignity resides in the freedom of rationality. (Cavico & Mujtaba,
2009). Rational individuals, according to Kant, are capable of recognizing the moral law, and
they obey that law out of a sense of duty, even if one receives no benefit in the performance of
that duty. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). In summary, to pass the second test, one must treat others
as a means in themselves, not a means to an end; in doing so, one is respecting the dignity and
respect of the affected party. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
To apply the test to the corporate act of using financial influence to ensure the election of
favorable politicians, we must determine the individual(s) affected by the corporate action. Here,
the corporation is directly affecting the decisions of politicians who are elected to represent the
majority. A corporation which conditionally contributes to the campaign of a politician,
expecting favorable legislation in return, fails to respect the dignity of the politician being
elected. Politicians are elected by the majority in a democracy; and their duty is to consider the
best interests of the majority of their constituents when passing or defeating legislation. When a
corporation uses its financial resources to tempt a politician away from performing his or her
duty, that corporation is objectifying that politician as a means to an end, and consequently fails
to respect the politician as an end in themselves. As a result of the corporations failure to
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
29/40
28 | P a g e
respect the politician as an end in themselves, the corporations conduct is immoral. At this
point the act as failed the Kants first two tests of morality: As a result the Kingdom of Ends
test reinforces the immorality of the corporate act of using financial resources to elect politicians
who are willing to provide the corporation with a favor in exchange for their contribution.
c) THE AGENT-RECEIVER TEST
Kants third test emphasizes autonomy of the rational being: According to Kants test, the
rational being is capable of recognizing the moral law, and to live and govern their life by that
same law. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The law requires rational actors to contemplate what rule
they are following if they perform the action in question, and after identifying the rule; they must
determine if they would want everyone to act the same way. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). If the
rational actor does not wish everyone to follow the rule, then the act is immoral. (Cavico &
Mujtaba, 2009). The third test is also called the Agent-Receiver test, because it requires the
actor to ask themselves if they are willing to accept the action whether they are the giver or the
receiver of the action. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Here, it is difficult to identify any moral law that the corporation is tryi ng to follow in
performance of the action in question. If anything, the corporation is attempting to ensure its
profitability, and also ensuring that they have a voice in the legislative process, which may
consequently help the employees maintain their jobs. On the other side of the coin: By
financially influencing the decisions of politicians, the corporations are not simply ensuring that
they have a voice, but they are drowning out the voice of the majority. If the corporation asked
itself whether it would be willing to make the action universal, they would most clearly say no as
discussed in the Universality test. Also, when applying the Agent-Receiver test, the
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
30/40
29 | P a g e
corporation definitely would not find it acceptable to be the receiver of the action instead of
the giver, because the corporation would have less of a voice if that was the case. Thus, in
application of the Agent-Receiver test, the corporations conduct would also fail this test, fully
reinforcing the immorality of the corporate act of influencing the political process.
4. KANTIAN MORAL CONCLUSION
After analyzing the issue in terms of Kants Categorical Imperative, it is clear that: Those
corporations that make campaign contributions to political candidates in exchange for legislative
favors are engaging in immoral conduct. When subjected to Kants Universality test, the
action fails conclusively, and as discussed earlier: The action must pass all three tests of Kants
Categorical imperative in order for it to be regarded as moral. Thus, after failing Kants first test
of Universality, the corporate conduct is rightfully considered immoral.
In order to strengthen the ruling of immorality, we need only subject the action to Kants
remaining Categorical Imperative tests: 1) The Kingdom of Ends test; and 2) The Agent-
Receiver test. The corporate conduct fails to pass the standards of the remaining two
Categorical Imperative tests as well, and consequently the ruling of immorality stands stronger
than before. Thus, a corporation which provides campaign contributions to politicians, which are
conditioned upon the politicians loyalty to the corporation, is engaging in immoral behavior
according to Kants Categorical Imperative tests.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
31/40
30 | P a g e
C. ARISTOTLE: THE DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN AND VIRTUE ETHICS
The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle developed one of the earliest theories of
morality. Aristotle firmly believed that the knowledge of good and evil was knowable, and that
human beings were completely capable of rationally determining what was good for them.
(Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Aristotle believed that seeking out the good is intrinsically part of
the nature of every human being, and that since every human being seeks happiness; so
happiness must be good. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
According to Aristotle, the objective of everything in the universe is to achieve its
maximum potential, and as a result; the objective of every human being is to likewise realize its
own potential. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Aristotle reasoned that happiness is the realization of
ones full potential, or that happiness is self-realization. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Since
happiness is self-realization; humans achieve happiness by doing those things that cause ones
true nature to fully manifest itself. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
The one attribute that sets humanity apart from all other living things is the faculty of
reason. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Since the trait of reason is unique to humanity, and since
happiness is self-realization: Human happiness is achieved when one realizes their ability to
reason to the fullest. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Through the process of reasoning one arrives at
the good, the good is the determination of the virtuous path, and Aristotles Doctrine of the
Mean was his formula for walking the virtuous path. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
Aristotle postulated that the virtuous act is the act between two extremes, or the act that is
moderate in nature. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Vice is that conduct which walks the extreme
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
32/40
31 | P a g e
path of deficiency or excess. Thus, the Doctrine of the Mean, requires one to always walk the
path of moderation, because the moderate path is the path of virtue. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
For example: Rashness and cowardice are extremes, one excess and the other deficiency, and as
a result they are both vices; but courage is the mean between the two, and is consequently the
path of moderation and virtue.
1. APPLICATION OF ARISTOTLES DOCTRINE OF THE MEANS
When using the Doctrine of the Mean to analyze the corporate act of financially
influencing the political process in return for political favors, we must determine whether the act
is moderate, and if so; whether the act is virtuous and moral. In order to apply the Doctrine of
the Mean we must narrow in on the act that is to be analyzed. As we discussed earlier, this quid
pro quo arrangement that corporation have with politicians is essentially a form of bribery, and
bribery is a manifestation of corruption.
The definition of corruption is dishonesty; and a corrupt person is a person who lacks
integrity, and is guilty of engaging in dishonest practices such as bribery. (Corrupt, n.d.). In
applying Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean to our issue we find that the two extremes are
corruption and absolute truthfulness, and we find that the mean between these two extremes is
honesty. Corruption is a vice because corruption is essentially equivalent to dishonesty, and
extreme truthfulness is a vice because there are times when the truth can cause more harm than
good. Honesty is a virtue, because honesty is the quality of being truthful, upright, fair, sincere,
and free from deceit or fraud. (Honesty, n.d.). So the honest person is the mean because the
honest person is truthful, fair, and free from deceit or fraud. Being honest doesnt require one to
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
33/40
32 | P a g e
tell the truth if the truth causes harm; it requires one to tell the truth to avoid the vice of
deceitfulness.
2. CONCLUSION OF ARISTOTLES DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN ANALYSIS
The honest path is always the right path. When a corporation financially influences a
politician to legislate on their behalf, they are encouraging the politician to ignore his or her duty,
and they are encouraging corruption. The act of performing ones duty is generally considered a
virtue, but if a bribe keeps you from performing your duty it is clearly a vice. A politicians duty
in a democracy is to always consider the will of the majority, but when a politicians will is
subservient to corporate money, the politician fails to do his or her duty. The politicians
conduct is a vice and immoral because the politician is engaging in dishonest behavior. The
corporations conduct is also a vice because the corporations actions are the source of the
politicians vice. Since corruption and dishonesty are vices, then the corporate act of financially
influencing the political process is a vice according to Aristotles doctrine of the mean, and it is
consequently immoral.
D. CONCLUSION OF ETHICAL ANALYSISAfter completing a thorough ethical analysis of the corporate conduct according to the
theories of the Utilitarians, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle; the corporate act of making campaign
contributions in exchange for legislative favors is clearly immoral. Under the Utilitarian
approach, we found that the harm outweighed the good, because the most significant harm was
that the corporate conduct undermined the Constitution, the peoples sovereignty, and the charge
of the government. When testing the conduct against Kants 3 tests of the Categorical
Imperative, we found that the act failed all three tests, which firmly required the conclusion that
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
34/40
33 | P a g e
the corporate conduct was immoral. Finally, when analyzing the issue in terms of Aristotles
Doctrine of the Means, we found the conduct to be on the extreme side of the scale, thus the
conduct is a vice, and it is consequently immoral.
IV. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYA. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYSo far in our analysis, we have found that the law has no objections to the corporate act in
question, on the other hand we have found that the action does violate the ethical theories the act
was subjected to. In the event, a particular act is found to be legal and ethical; the act may also
be required to pass a standard of social responsibility.
B. DEFINING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYEven if a corporations conduct cannot be held to a particular standard of morality, the
corporation may be accountable in terms of social responsibility. Social responsibility is a
standard which requires a corporation to work towards the social and economic betterment of
society as a whole, even if there are no moral objections in regards to the corporations conduct.
(Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Thus, a corporation may have a social duty even in the absence of a
moral duty. The idea is that an individual or corporation must work towards the betterment of
society, the economy, and the ecosystem while trying to maintain a harmonious balance between
them all. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The important thing to understand is that the goal is to
strike a balance, being too altruistic can harm the company, which in turn could harm the
economy, and consequently being too socially responsible could prove to be socially
irresponsible.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
35/40
34 | P a g e
C. APPLICATION OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYThe corporate conduct is subjected to one last test, and this time it is evaluated against the
standard of social responsibility. During this test, the issue is: Whether the corporate act of
making campaign contributions to those politicians willing to return legislative favors is socially
responsible. It is the responsibility of all Americans to strive, and fight for maintaining the
integrity of the nation. The United States was founded as a democratic republic, and as a
democratic republic the voice of the majority must never be muffled. Any act that stands in
opposition to the democratic republic must be considered socially irresponsible.
When a corporation contributes to the political campaigns of politicians with the
expectation of future legislative favors, that company is being socially irresponsible, and the
behavior undermines the voice of the people. The corporation believes that the influence it has
gained will help it in the long run, but it clearly hasnt considered the old adage that: There are
always bigger fish in the sea. The immediate effects of the behavior may be positive as far as the
corporation is concerned, but eventually there will be a contributor with more money, and that
contributor will have a larger voice then the corporation. At that time, the corporation will
experience the same ill-effect as the majority, and will realize that the conduct harmed the
corporation more than it benefitted it.
D. RECOMMENDATIONSCorporations should consider better, and socially responsible methods of getting their
voice heard. A corporation could listen to the issues of political candidates, and decide which
candidates philosophy is in line with the corporations best interest. To ensure that the
candidate is familiar with the corporation, the corporation should provide the candidate with all
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
36/40
35 | P a g e
the information it needs to make a good decision in regards to legislation that may affect the
corporation. In this way the corporation ensures that its voice is fairly heard, and the politicians
are left to make the decisions that they were elected to make.
E. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the analysis demonstrates that when corporations make campaign
contributions in exchange for political favors, the corporation is being socially irresponsible. It
is in the interest of all segments of society to ensure that the institution of democracy stands, and
that all citizens have a voice. If the behavior continues indefinitely into the future, individual
corporations may find that they are not members of the corporate oligarchy that they helped
establish, but instead; they are members of the voiceless majority.
V. CONCLUSIONThis essay evaluated the issue of whether it is right for corporations to contribute to the
political campaigns of politicians who sympathize with the corporation by returning legislative
favors. The issue was evaluated by using the 3 value approach, which analyzed the issue in
terms of its legality, morality, and social responsibility.
After analyzing the legality of the issue, it was determined that the Supreme Court found
such corporate conduct legal, in terms of Constitutional law. The Supreme Court stated that as
long as there is no direct connection between the campaign contribution and the act of
petitioning legislatures to favor or defeat a bill, the conduct is legal; however, if there is a direct
link then the conduct is subject to federal bribery laws.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
37/40
36 | P a g e
In terms of conducting an ethical analysis of the issue, we tested the issue according to
the ethical philosophies of the Utilitarians, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle; and found that the
issue did not meet any of the three ethical standards. Under the Utilitarian approach we found
that the harm outweighed the good, and consequently the corporate conduct was immoral. By
applying the issue to Kants Categorical Imperative tests, we find that the corporate conduct fails
all three tests, and is conclusively immoral according to Kantian ethics. Finally, the conduct was
subjected to Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean test, which demonstrated that the corporate
conduct was extreme rather than moderate, and consequently the conduct is a vice and immoral.
By failing all four standards of ethical philosophy that the conduct was tested against, the
conduct must clearly be ruled immoral.
Finally the issue was subjected to a social responsibility analysis, which determined
whether the corporate act was socially responsible in its nature. The analysis revealed the
conduct to be irresponsible, because the duty of all Americans is to ensure the sovereignty of the
people.
Such corporate conduct chips away at the sovereignty of the people, and puts it in the
hands of an elite oligarchy just as in ancient Rome. When corporations behave this way we must
all be aware, and we must all put pressure on our politicians to fulfill their duty to the people.
Keeping the Republic safe ensures the long-term interests of all parties affected from society as a
whole to the corporations themselves. Instead of bribing our politicians we should rationally
argue our positions to them, and contribute to the political campaigns of politicians who are in
line with our personal philosophies, without requiring the politicians to return favors. The
politicians must consider the petitions of all their constituents without favoring the position of
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
38/40
37 | P a g e
those that make the largest political contributions. If we fail to be watchful of this corporate
behavior, we may very well see our Republic slip through our fingers, and become an oligarchy.
7/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
39/40
38 | P a g e
VI. References
Kirkpatrick, D. (2010). Does Corporate Money lead to Political Corruption? New YorkTimes. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html?_r=1 .
Cavico, F.J., & Mujtaba, B.G. (2009). Business Ethics: The Moral Foundation ofEffective Leadership, Management, and Entrepreneurship. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Pearson
Custom Publishing.
Paul, R. (2000). A Republic, If You Can Keep It.http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.html .
Oligarchy.(n.d.). In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy .
Law.(n.d.). In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law.
U.S. Const. art. I, 3. U.S. Const. amend. IX and X. U.S. Const. amend. X. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.__ (2010). U.S. Const. amend. I. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784 (1978). Imperative.(n.d.). In Dictionary Dictionary.com online. Retrieved from
dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html?_r=1http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html?_r=1http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htmlhttp://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchyhttp://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html?_r=17/29/2019 Corporate Influence Over the Political Process
40/40
Corrupt.(n.d.). In Dictionary Dictionary.com online. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt?s=t .
Honesty.(n.d.). In Dictionary Dictionary.com online. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/honesty?s=t .
http://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt?s=thttp://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt?s=thttp://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/honesty?s=thttp://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/honesty?s=thttp://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/honesty?s=thttp://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt?s=t