Are Contributions To Political Campaigns Ethical ✓ Solved

Are Contributions to Political Campaigns Ethical?

A question that comes up frequently in political discussions is whether organizations like corporations have too much influence over the political landscape today. Corporations have many resources through which to effect political change, including lobbyists, quid pro quo back door arrangements, and campaign contributions. Because these funds can have a large influence on who wins elections and the legislation that politicians support, it is important for an educated citizenry to be aware of these contributions and to consider their ethical implications. I will argue that from the utilitarian perspective, indirect contributions to political campaigns by organizations like corporations and unions can be ethical and should be allowed so long as there are sufficient regulations in place to prevent undue harm that might result from giving large organizations too much influence over the political process.

I will contrast this view with that of ethical egoism, which would argue that such contributions are ethical inasmuch as they allow corporations to pursue their own long-term interests. According to the Federal Elections Commission (2004), "The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) places monetary limits on contributions to support candidates for federal office and prohibits contributions from certain sources." However, corporations are allowed to create separate bank accounts and then make donations from these accounts to political campaigns as long as they are not connected directly to the operation of the business. Regarding this type of donation, the FEC (2004) stated that, "Contributions may…be made from separate segregated funds (also called political action committees or PACs) established by corporations, labor organizations, national banks, and incorporated membership organizations." In other words, corporations can set up PACs that in turn give large amounts of money to support candidates. Because these funds can have a large influence on who wins elections and the legislation that they support, it is paramount for citizens to understand the potential ethical impacts of these contributions. The sections that follow address how two of the most important moral theories would address this issue.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the moral theory that actions are right or wrong in proportion to the degree to which they promote the happiness of all concerned (Mill, 2015). Accordingly, whether or not corporate campaign contributions are ethical will depend on the overall consequences of such contributions. If a corporation’s making a contribution results in better overall consequences than not making it, or than making a different contribution, then the contribution would be considered ethical. On the other hand, if the contribution results in more harm than good, then the contribution would be unethical. For instance, a contribution to a candidate could be unethical if it results in benefits to the corporation itself, but does so at the expense of many others in society. The primary question of this paper is not whether particular cases of such contributions are wrong, but whether corporate contributions to political campaigns are wrong in general; that is, does permitting them have greater overall consequences than banning them would have? I will argue that with careful oversight, the benefits of such contributions can outweigh their potential harms, so allowing them is ethical from a utilitarian point of view.

There are various reasons that representatives of a corporation may want to make donations to a political campaign. Corporations may be trying to advance their organizational objectives or they may stand to garner an economic benefit. While a corporation will always be concerned with its future profits, this does not necessarily conflict with the interests of society as a whole. In many cases, attempting to influence politics that benefits the corporation can also benefit society. For example, a contribution that helps a corporation to succeed can lead to continued employment of many individuals, and the provision of services at lower prices. Another useful example comes not from corporations but from unions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (2016), the largest contributors to campaigns have been labor unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) which ranked number one with $228,096,452 in donations since 1989. They were far ahead of other contributors which were the National Education Association with $96,619,681 and the American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees Union with $96,445,616. The money from these donations has promoted union goals, which ultimately serve the workforce.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is the moral theory that one should do whatever is in one’s own interests (Mosser, 2013). This does not mean that one should do whatever one feels like in the moment, but rather, that one should work to promote their greatest long-term success. When corporations donate to political campaigns, they typically do so with the aim of advancing their own financial interests, thus acting ethically according to the egoist theory. Some may contend that such self-interested influence is unethical, envisioning scenarios where a business supports legislation that benefits only itself at the expense of society. However, concerns about the negative impact of corporate contributions typically stem from a utilitarian perspective, which focuses on societal consequences. According to ethical egoism, one's sole responsibility would be to their own interests. Milton Friedman argues that increasing profits is the only ethical responsibility of business (Friedman, 1970).

Some argue that the pursuit of self-interest by corporations is beneficial to society. If organizations did not strive to enhance their financial success, they would decline, resulting in job loss. Our economic system relies on the notion that entities will seek their financial gain, which fosters competition and ensures a balance between corporate and consumer interests. The court analogy illustrates this well; each side presents its case, resulting in a balanced outcome. Similarly, political contributions on all sides allow various interest groups to be heard, aiming for a fair balance.

Conclusion

Donations from organizations to political campaigns wield significant influence over public policy. This paper maintains that such contributions should be allowed, as they align with ethical egoism by promoting corporate interests and, when regulated, can fulfill the utilitarian aim of enhancing societal welfare. Although both ethical frameworks support the allowance of political contributions, they diverge on the necessity of regulations to mitigate potential harm. Ultimately, both perspectives converge on the idea that corporations should have the ability to contribute politically, provided there is adequate oversight.

References

• Burley, H., & Hoedeman, O. (2011). The best influence money can buy – the 10 worst corporate lobbyists. New Internationalist Magazine.
• Center for Responsive Politics. (2016). Service employees international union. Retrieved from: [website URL]
• Daigle, C. (2006). Nietzsche: Virtue Ethics… Virtue Politics? Journal of Nietzsche Studies.
• Federal Election Commission (FEC). (2004, February). Contributions (Updated February 2016). Retrieved from: [website URL]
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Kelsen, H. (1948). Absolutism and relativism in philosophy and politics. The American Political Science Review.
• Mill, J. S. (2008). Utilitarianism. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Rev.), Early Modern Philosophy.
• Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility 2e. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
• Smith, A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
• Teachout, T. (2001). Prime-time patriotism. Commentary.