- Published: December 27, 2021
- Updated: December 27, 2021
- University / College: Aston University
- Level: Intermediate School
- Language: English
- Downloads: 3
Task: Influence of money in politics Corporations play a vital role in the U. S politics. The controversial issues were whether to regulate their spending or not and regulation of their speech. Corporations work hand in hand with the media to act as the mirror of the society. ‘ The Big sky, Big Money’ video shows the organizations’ incentives to track politicians. I support the idea of the unions and corporations as they assist the citizens in wise decision making during election. This is because it is always challenging to choose the best candidate especially when they appear in public for the first time. The non-governmental organizations take the initiative of guiding citizens on how to come up with the best candidates. They do so by acting in their full capacity to perform the voter guidance or fund other non-governmental organizations to do the project. The law institute the organization to be persons just like human beings. This is supported by various facts. The corporations have perpetual existence in that members join and leave at their own will but the organizations continue to exist. The corporations are distinct from the people who fund them, that is, their shareholders. The members are not fully liable to them. In addition, the corporations have the ability to sue and be sued. The statutory law provides the procedure and required documents needed to declare ‘ incorporation’ of the organizations. Therefore, corporations have separate legal personality just like any other person. The law terms corporations as ‘ legal persons’. For that reasons it would be wrong to set restrictions on speech and funding of these organizations. It originates from the Federal Campaign of 1971 to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform act of 2002. The legislations limit unions and corporations from using their resources to fund electioneering projects. In 2004, the Citizen United filed a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, that the Michael Moore film was a political documentary that was not to be aired during exceptional times. However, the Citizen United never won. In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that airing of ‘ Hillary: The Movie’ on DIRECTV was a violation of the BCRA restrictions on elections. The case was known as Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission. The court swept away limits on election advocacy by the concerned organizations. This was an overruling of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce of 1990. However, the corporations have to make public disclosure of their financial statements just like any other corporate personality. In the Big Sky, Big Money movie, Kai Ryssdal explains that the funding by corporations have to pass through an independent group before giving to the identified candidate. I support the court ruling by upholding the doctrine of ‘ corporate personality’ of organizations. Persons have freedom of speech as per the rights of the citizen acts. Corporation, unions and other concerned non-governmental organizations as well have no reason being denied the right to give their opinion as far as American politics is concerned (Supreme Court 2010). They have the right just like any other person to support the candidate of their choice. However, they were denied the opportunity to show direct identity to politic. Restricting corporations from active participation in politics seemed to be a plot to deny the nation a free will. In the Big Sky, Big money, Rodell Mollinau, the president of American Bridge explains to Kai Ryssdal how the super-PAC works. This group specializes in opposition research. Mollineau explains that there are 19 trackers in the field following Republican candidates ( Big Money2012). The look for inconsistency of the specific candidates and make a sound decision on how to use the information to assist the public. The trackers look for the following facts form politicians; the political history of the candidate, the votes they have taken, the business dealings they undertake, their political statements, contractions that they make of themselves among others. Through the political groups requiring to get funding, Alan Schwartz is informed of the intent to attack his wife. Definitely, these illustrations of importance of the organization need to get funding to be the watchdog of American politics. The Supreme Court’s decision was good. It gives an opportunity for non-governmental organizations to scan the political environment by getting funding to do so. The trackers earlier mentioned collects important information necessary for decision-making. They provide synthesized information about candidates thus enabling the voters to come up with the best candidate. Otherwise, the government should find a way of regulating intention of the corporation. Some corporations might fund campaigns aimed at misleading voters. This can be done by funding spread of propaganda that has no basis. As a result, voters can work can be convinced to vote for another candidate at the expense of voting in a better one. In as much as funding and speech of the corporation is not limited they should be regulated to participate only in the interest of the public and not contract public policy. Bibliography Big Money 2012. Big Sky, Big Money. Frontline. 2012. Retrieved from on 23 November 2013 from http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/ Supreme Court. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Legal Information Institute. 2010. Retrieved on 23 November 2013 from http://www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205. ZS. html