Introduction
In every democratic state like the United States, citizens have a right to participate in the election process. Americans have the right to participate in the national elections campaigns whereby every individual can independently support a particular political party.
In addition, the right to support a particular political party is extended to corporations, and thus private corporations have the freedom to help any aspiring politician in the campaigns.
This ideology underscores the so-called the American democracy and it should not be interfered with by denying corporations the same right that individuals enjoy.
However, there are limits within which such rights should be allowed and the violation of the same could cause public anarchy. Corporations should participate in election campaigns.
The Nature of American Democracy
Democracy is the basic need for citizens in every capitalist nation. Interestingly, democracy has its roots in the United States as the founding fathers came up with the ideology dubbed the “American Dream” in which they longed for the day when their descendants will enjoy democratic rights of questioning and correcting the government in the way that suited the citizenry.
Americans have been enjoying democratic rights ever since the end of extreme racial segregations when the majority supported the idea of equal rights for all people.
However, the election of President Barrack Obama as the first African-American president culminated the ideology of the “American Dream” of the founding fathers as well as the dream of the legendary civil rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Hence, it would be plausible to say that Americans have democratic rights that other citizens across the world are yet to enjoy.
American citizens have the power to question government deeds through their representatives at the Congress and Senate, in addition to suing other means such as the media and public opinion forums.
The individual’s right to support a particular political party is facilitated by the freewill to make decisions based on ideas that a party presents to the voters, but rather not the ethnic or corporate basis.
This aspect implies that American campaigns are not meant to persuade voters through ethnic divisions or corporate basis, but rather through the validity of a party’s manifesto.
In addition, a corporation cannot influence stakeholders to support a particular political party just because the people at the top support the party, but rather it allows an individual’s freedom to choose the party to support.
Corporate Participation in the National Elections in the United States
Over the past few decades, corporations across the United States have been on the frontlines during election campaigns whereby they support particular candidates or political party.
Critics argue that permitting corporation to participate in the national election campaigns is a big blow to the American democracy.
Youn (123) argues that corporations would interfere with an individual’s right to support a particular political party or aspiring politician at will, but looking into the argument at a different angle, the United States is too democratic to panic for such an issue as there are limits to which the corporations should not go beyond in their election campaigns’ participation.
In the contemporary world, Henderson (127) argues that election campaigns have become the most expensive venture that an individual can indulge into; hence, aspiring politicians seek the financial support of the wealthy individuals in the society to finance their election campaigns.
In return, politicians offer hefty promises, to the “political investors” in an effort to woo them, and the promises are supposed to be honored only when the beneficiaries are elected into office.
The political arena is evolving rapidly and these political gambling games have nowadays shifted from wealthy individuals to the corporations in a bid to fit in the dynamic political environment.
The aspiring politicians seek the corporations’ financing by promising them good business deals and environments once they ascend to power.
Youn (125) also argues that corporations have significant influence over the stakeholders and especially the employees and thus, they might pervert the principles of democracy by forcing employees to support certain politicians or political parties.
This scenario can play out, but due to the financial demands that election campaigns have, it would be necessary to allow corporate participation, but bar them from interfering with the individuals’ rights.
On the other side, allowing corporations to participate in election campaigns comes with adverse economic effects, but little can be done to avert such repercussions.
Private corporations have rights, which are nearly akin to the human rights, in the sense that if the owner of such a corporation chooses to support a particular politician and influences the entire set up to support the same politician, the corporation cannot be said to have violated the international business law as such is a matter of moral judgment.
However, a corporation may spend vast amounts of money on supporting a politician, hence causing inflation as well as huge losses, which then lower the government revenue. However, such effects manifest during the post-election triumph period.
On the other hand, public opinion is the real basis of enhancing the American democracy. According to these authors, Americans lack is enough political knowledge to shape the political environment into a democracy that they desire.
In addition, note that Americans do not generally make decisions based on achievable ideologies presented by either the individual politicians or the political parties. On the contrary, they make decisions based on the game of liberalism and democracy.
Under such situations, it is thus hard for Americans to make ideologically choices, which transforms the general election campaigns into a level of public campaigns because only a few are concerned with ideological decision-making.
However, these arguments do not touch on the financing habits where corporations are forced to indulge in election campaigns.
On the contrary, these authors emphasize on the idea of the majority of Americans not bothering to make decisions on an ideological basis, thus putting corporations at a critical situation whereby they can influence stakeholders’ decision-making courtesy of the mass campaign effect.
Political analysts have anonymously supported this argument by noting that Americans are inconsistent when it comes to matters of making political decisions, and hence, they are very vulnerable to influences from powerful politicians as well as corporations.
It would be prudent to understand that political culture is dynamic and it has now turned out that corporations have a right to participate in the election campaigns.
However, the manner in which election campaigns are handled also plays a crucial role in attracting corporations’ participation as influential business personnel is often at the forefront of political campaigns as aspiring politicians.
To such individuals, their corporations cannot fail to rally behind them.
Just like in the nature of business environments where gaining a competitive advantage is the only way to survive, rival corporations are forced to support aspiring politicians in an effort to ease the pressure posed by business persons in the forefronts of the campaigns.
Hence, election campaigns have adopted business strategies, thus accommodating corporations; however, it appears like a difficult task for any government or political, regulatory measures to bar corporations from participating in election campaigns.
Such great penetration of corporations is a democratic exercise that everybody enjoys, as corporations would want to have a government that they desire by supporting the aspiring candidates that they feel would be the best in addressing their needs.
Hence, it would be wrong to argue that allowing corporations’ participation in election campaigns is a blow to the nation’s democracy for corporations run under the watch of individuals who enjoy democratic rights as well.
More also, looking into Youn’s perspective, she argues that the voice of the Americans will be jeopardized by the corporations’ ability to flood money in the election campaigns.
Also, she argues that the Supreme Court of United States ruling on January 21, 2010, where it permitted the corporate participation in the federal election campaigns opened doors for special interests in the politics of the United States (Youn 122).
On the contrary, Henderson (127), through his article, “Permitting Corporations to Participate in Election Campaigns: Constitutionally Appropriate”, argues that the decision by the Supreme Court was in tandem with the American constitution.
However, looking critically into Youn and Henderson’s arguments, the consequences of the decision to the American politics seem to be two-folded.
First, corporations may cause money flooding into the country, which may take away the voices of the American people by influencing the majority whose economic status put them in a vulnerable position.
In addition, it may scare away the aspiring politicians who could bring the changes that the United States needs because they do not have much money to finance their campaigns. Either of these possible consequences may jeopardize the “American Dream”.
Secondly, corporations too are vulnerable to the nature of the American politics, and thus they have the right to participate in the election campaigns where they support the candidates that they need to get into power.
The most crucial objective of the election campaign is to get the right leadership, where aspiring leaders present their manifestos to the voters. Hence, voters then support the aspiring leaders who bear the manifestos that favor their needs.
Therefore, the decision by the Supreme Court to permit the corporations’ participation in the election campaigns was a wise decision because corporations need the type of leadership that allows for their investment exercise (Henderson 129).
Conclusion
The argument that public opinion is a powerful element for shaping the American politics is a weak argument to be used in support of barring the participation of corporations in the election campaigns, on the pretext that such involvement would influence public opinions.
In addition, it is true that public opinion is generally inconsistent, but such consistency has not been experienced anywhere across the world and the United States should not be an exemption.
Hence, corporations should be allowed to participate in election campaigns by offering financial sponsorship to candidates, as election campaigns are expensive ventures. In addition, businesspersons are now pursuing politics, and thus, they need support of their corporate enterprises.
Works Cited
Henderson, Todd. “Permitting corporations to participate in election campaigns: Constitutionally appropriate.” You Decide! 2012: Current Debates in American Politics. Ed. John Rourke. New York: Pearson Education, 2012. 127-132. Print.
Youn, Marcia. “Permitting corporations to participate in election campaigns: A Blow to Democracy.” You Decide! 2012: Current Debates in American Politics. Ed. John Rourke. New York: Pearson Education, 2012. 122-126. Print.