1 of 18

No

Write now Article Tools

To a large degree, questions like this arise due to the endeavor of running for political office remaining a private enterprise. Politicians should not be entitled to receive any contributions above and beyond that of the salary received for the position. In order to accomplish this however requires some sort of funding source for the political campaign process. This would tend to point towards government subsidies or non-profit intervention. Funding which involves a non-partisan approach towards donation to political leadership objectives. The alternative could be free platforms for promoting political ideologies like free media and campaign support.

Funding could also be donated with the inclusion of political objectives however the funding could be contributed to parties not candidates. In any case, what difference are there between corporations, unions, and trade organizations verses individuals? Any contribution given directly to candidates presupposes the candidate's sympathetic support of the contributor's political objectives verses the will of the public. Supporting special interests in lieu of the commonwealth is indicative of government other than of democratic origin or republic rule.

Certainly, at present, the single most prevalent complaint stemming from the commonwealth is the belief that the political system is somehow corrupt and indifferent to the desires of the public in which it serves. While this may not necessarily be the case, issues such as the one presented in this debate certainly do not do anything to increase the transparency of the actions of our political leaders. Selecting actions designed to perpetuate and elevate the distrust already prevalent in society will certainly do more to undermine the public belief in the system rather than strengthen it.

Choosing to vote on items that begin to reinforce and support the popular belief in the systems successes verses the failure can only serve to strengthen the overall prosperity of the government. Therefore, it becomes imperative that something must be done to eliminate perpetuation of methods destined to undermine the public support over time. That is, unless we are destined to suffer subjection to some sort of corporate fascist regime that eliminates all American ideologies that the country was founded upon.

While it remains certain that the separation of financial influence and moral clarity will better serve the general population by the receipt of actions directed towards solutions devoid of financial gain for special interest groups. This does not necessarily guarantee improvement of circumstances. Not every instance involving financial influence is contradictory to the benefit of the commonwealth. In addition, what is the difference between one of these organizations handing money to a politician or the synonymous act occurring between two private individuals?

While it is not entirely certain that the elimination of financial contributions to political candidates from special interest groups would always benefit the public. It is certain that the elimination of this practice would in fact improve the public belief in the authenticity of the government in which they are supposed to participate.
It is for this reason that it remains a priority to eliminate such actions destined to suggest the probability of corruption in the government exists. With this objective as a priority, eventually, corruption in the government will be eliminated to the point that the public once again believes in the possibility that there is something special and unique about the American experiment and it does not require greasing somebody's palm to enjoy.

Learn more about this author, Darrin A Yarbrough.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should corporations, unions and trade associations be permitted to write checks directly to politicians and parties??
We want to hear your view. Write now!