All papers are checked via
|← Astrotrufing||Gun Control Facts →|
The debate about the restrictions of financing campaign elections is a very controversial one that various scholars and policy makers have given very divergent views. In essence, the libertarians hold a different view about corruption. In fact, philosophical authors like Harmowy, Kuznick and Steelman believes that the only way to stop corruption is to reduce the activities of the government and corporate bodies (Hamowy, Kuznicki & Steelman, 2008). The corporate bodies such as the case of Koch Industries should never be involved in campaign financing since this is away of buying justice and promoting corruption. By reducing the governments’ actions, state corporations and other private entities, ethics are identified, understood and maintained so that the moral decline of the society is reduced. Consequently, this promotes a continuous welfare of the state.
It is clear that private firm/ individual, corporations and unions engage in corrupt activities, which are unethical. For instance, using public funds and money from treasuries for advertisement campaigns constitute corruption. In addition, paying money to obtain goods and services, which are provided by a public authority, is another form of corruption. Often, parties involved in such transaction are given punishments to discourage such unethical practices. Arguably, bribery for the campaign financing can be equated to corruption, and such acts should be highly condemned. Obviously, such unethical acts are inefficient, and it is often found in some collectivized countries, which accept money from treasuries to be used for campaign activities. Besides, corporations should never be allowed to finance campaign activities since the human welfare and the state would be compromised in terms of the production and distribution of the most essential goods and services.
Moreover, the campaign financing constitute bribery and corruption, which involve democratic accountability and efficiency. In fact, in such cases, the elements of liberty are lacking. For example, when corporations involve in financing campaigns, the government that was financed would be reluctant to license and tax their business appropriately. At times, such entities evade paying taxes to the government. Therefore, it is possible that financing campaign elections constitutes bribery and corruption, which liberalize certain parts of the society. In such cases, the people who are politically connected and closer to power are the ones to gain, while the less privileged are left to suffer in abject poverty. This denies the efficient and fair allocation of the state resources to take care of the needs of everyone (Kaler, 2010).
Another ethical challenge is that the electorates might fail to elect the right candidate to a leadership position. Such acts jeopardize the state and derail the economic development. When such corrupt leaders are elected to the positions of power they tend to make policies and laws that favor their own personal interests and selfish gains. Such leaders do not have the interest of the country at heart, and such poor leadership leads to the collapse of the economy. Evidently, such phenomena are common among the third world countries, where the leaders loot the resources of the country, which are meant to benefit everyone. In most cases, the citizens of those countries hardly afford basic essentials such as basic health care, food, shelter and basic education. Hunger and lack of domestic water are common in such countries. It is not that such countries cannot afford to take care of their people, but the problem lies squarely with the poor management and misappropriation of state resources (Kaler, 2010).
In fact, if one would bother to analyze the cause and effects of financing campaign elections, it could help save the country a lot. For instance, we one gives his/her finance to an individual to carry out a campaign election, often there is some expected return in form of financial favors, employments, legal protection, and winning business tenders from the government. More so, people who get government tenders are those ones who have good political connections. At times, the political elites form companies and award themselves tenders. These companies play some significant roles during the campaign election process. They give funds to those candidates who are perceived to be the companies’ loyalists, and are capable of defending the entities where they are in problem. Such practices are unethical since they bring unfair and unfavorable competitions in business. Hard working and very honest companies and individual are denied a chance to compete and do business fairly. Often, such firms lose a lot of money when doing business, while the dubious and dishonest ones thrive and excel since they are politically favored.
Interestingly, in every election campaign financing, groups and individuals only contribute to their favorite candidates and observers. Such campaign elections financing do not serve the interests of the incumbent and the general public, but individual voters and their vested interests in the competitive and legislative seats. Therefore, according to this analysis, campaign elections financing does not always have any direct relationship to trust in any government. In fact, it would not be prudent to put in place policies and restrictions on who can donate and how much to contribute to a political candidate who is seeking an election. Notably, public trust in any government does not protect an individual liberty, but tends to reduce it. Arguably, libertarians postulate that financing campaign elections promotes corruption, which is often recognized as an excuse to liberty. Therefore, the most appropriate policy to put in place is one that restricts the use of state resources, such as government vehicles, helicopters and finances to campaign for a candidate to win an election. Instead, such funds and resources can be channeled towards infrastructural expansions and developments, which create more employment opportunities and income to alleviate poverty among the citizens of the state. Consequently, this would help in limiting unethical practices such as corruptions in the country.