corporate influence over the political process

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).


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


3/40

2 | P a g e

V. ConclusionA. Restatement of Major 3 Value ConclusionsB. Overall Conclusions, Personal Opinions, Recommendations, and Predictions

References


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.


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.


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


7/40

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


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.


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


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,


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


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).


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 &


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).


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).


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


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.


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


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:


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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-


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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=1


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

corporate influence over the political process

Documents