Corporate lobbying: for better or for worse?

See all 2 photos

In today's political world, if candidates want to have a real chance at being elected, they need money. Money for ads, money for rallies, money for fliers, money for banners, money for signs and posters, and money to hire all kinds of campaign managers and staff. But where do candidates get this money? One of the largest sources of campaign funds comes from large corporations. This should strike one as odd because what legitimate reasons could a corporation have to be supporting one particular candidate over another? There is little rub-off advertisement for the company, and there is no official benefit that is awarded to major contributors. The dissappointing truth is that the majority of corporations are looking for some type of preferential treatment after their sponsored candidate is elected. The problem with this is that politicians decide to act for their own best interests rather than the country's best interests and would rather line their own pockets than choose the side they truly agree with.

One good example of corporate lobbying can be seen in President Barack Obama's campaign contributions. According to OpenSecrets.org, 15 out of 20 of President Obama's top campaign contributors were from large corporations. One of these contributors was Citigroup, Inc. which received TARP funding after the President's election. Furthermore, President Obama received $14,808,875 from securities and investments and $16,558,999 from other businesses. This is a clear example of the corruption in government due to corporate lobbying. Don't think I am simply attacking President Obama--according to OpenSecrets.org, 17 out of 20 of Senator John McCain's top contributors were from corporations.

The effects

Because of corporate lobbying (and lobbying in general), politicians often take sides that are oppositional to what they truly believe. Many politicians make off-the-record promises to contributors in return for funding or support. Earlier, I cited the fact that President Obama received funding from Citigroup and later signed the Bailout Bill that gave the corporation government funds. How can we be sure that President Obama was not merely paying them back (with taxpayer dollars, no less)?

Any politician receiving funding from a group is much less likely to pass legislation or act in a way that will cause harm or displeasure to their funder. The politician fears that the sponsor will stop passing the politician money if they do not favor their sponsor in some way. This leaves politicians with a thought on their wallet when making decisions that will affect thousands (or millions) of people, and they will no longer act "for the greater good," but for their own personal benefit. For example, let's say we have a hypothetical congressman. This congressman truly is supportive of universal healthcare, but the leading corporation providing funding for him or her is a health insurance company. This congressman feels that they should be campaigning for universal healthcare, but in fear for funding they decide they must take the opposite stance.

A vicious cycle

The reason that corporate lobbying continues to go on is that candidates without such huge amounts of funding generally have a harder time getting elected. According to OpenSecrets.org, in 2008's election, Obama raised approximately $750 million while McCain "only" managed $370 million. The result? A clear win for Obama. Candidates without major corporate funding are simply left in the dust, and because politicians make a living off of their positions, they are not willing to put an end to the corruptive effects of corporate lobbying.

Politicians already elected also fear pulling the plug on corporate lobbying. If a congressman were to support a bill that proposed restrictions on corporate funding, they would lose their own sponsors' support. Furthermore, corporations state that their right to petition given by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would be violated by enforcing standards on their ability to give money to politicians. Others make the argument that the first amendment applies only to individuals rather than to businesses. This has created a vicious cycle that simply builds upon itself and has already grown to become a giant problem.

Foreign lobbying in the United States

Even foreign-based companies can get in on lobbying and influencing candidates. According to Dick Morris and Eileen McGowan's bestselling book Fleeced, "Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Dubai--two more nations cited as human rights violators by the State Department--maintain an army of lobbyists." (Fleeced suggests visiting www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara for a "complete list of foreign agents.") The book further lists nine (yes, nine!) lobbying firms owned by the British conglomerate WPP. Perhaps most stunning of all, Fleeced documents a story of how a United States Defense department contract was given to a French company titled European Aeronautics Defense and Space (EADS) rather than the American company Boeing. Morries and McGowan attribute this to the fact that EADS hired American lobbying copmanies to influence the decision. It is disturbing that through corporate lobbying, foreign companies can easily influence the United States' political processes.