SOC120 FINAL PAPER

Running head: ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1

(Including a Running head and page numbers help to keep your assignment organized.)

Are Contributions to Political Campaigns Ethical?

Joanna Student

SOC120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility (Course Section)

Week 5 Final Paper

Dr. Ashford Instructor

July, 1, 20XX

ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 2

Ethical Contributions to Political Campaigns

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

ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 3

they support, it is important for an educated citizenry to be aware of 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 the 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 particular

organizational objectives or they may stand to garner an economic benefit. While a corporation

will always be concerned with its own future profits, this does not necessarily conflict with the

interests of society as a whole. In many cases, attempting to have a political influence that

benefits the corporation can also benefit society as a whole. For example, a contribution that

ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 4

helps a corporation to succeed in the market place can result in the continued employment of

thousands of people, as well as the provision of important goods and services at lower prices.

Another example of the positive use of political contributions comes not from

corporations but from unions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (2016), the largest

all-time contributors to campaigns has 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 the next two contributors which were the National Education

Association with $96,619,681 in donations and the American Federation of

State/County/Municipal Employees Union with $96,445,616 in total contributions. The millions

of dollars from these political contributions have served to promote the goals of their union,

which in turn promote the well-being of the many members of the American work force that they

represent.

In the case of the unions, the PACs representing them contribute to political campaigns in

an effort to maximize the benefits to their union members. The SEIU represents members from

many different industries with varying and diverse concerns and needs. According to Center for

Responsive Politics (2016) the SEIU's top issues for lobbying are Health Issues, Labor/Anti-

Trust and Workplace, Immigration, Federal Budget and Appropriations, and Economics and

Economic Development. Considering the fact that the unions are frequently made up of service

industry employees like healthcare workers, janitors, security guards, public service employees,

home care workers, building service workers, probation and parole officers, the SEIU political

lobbying can benefit not just members of the union but also millions of other workers engaged in

similar professions. Legislation passed to support the interests of SEIU members can thus be

beneficial to the American workforce in general and thus to society as a whole. It would seem

ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 5

that in cases like these political contributions from organizations can have great overall benefits

and thus be ethical from a utilitarian perspective.

Even though such contributions can be ethical in particular cases, however, this does not

necessarily mean that it would be ethical to legally permit all such contributions. It’s also

possible for political contributions by organizations to be harmful to society. Corporations have

sometimes used their considerable influence to create legislation that is harmful to workers,

human rights, and the environment (Burley and Hoedeman, 2011).

While there are certainly negative consequences that can result from allowing corporate

contributions, rather than banning them outright, we can put in place regulations designed to

limit the amount of harm that might result from them. For instance, we could require

transparency that would enable the public to know which corporations are closely connected to

which PACs, and thus whether a politician is (indirectly) receiving large contributions from a

particular corporation. This could, in turn, shed light on whether certain laws and policies are

being passed primarily for the benefit of those corporations, rather than for the public good. With

such regulations in place, allowing corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns it

is more likely to do more good than harm and thus be ethical from a utilitarian point of view.

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 that one should work hard to promote one’s greatest long term success. When corporations

donate to political campaigns they generally will do so with the goal of promoting their own

financial interests, and thus are acting ethically according to the egoist theory. Some may feel

ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 6

that this kind of self-interested influence is unethical. One can imagine a business supporting

legislation that promotes its own interests to the detriment of society as a whole. For example,

corporations have often used their considerable influence to create legislation favorable to their

own interests but not to the interests of employees, human rights, or the environment (Burley and

Hoedeman, 2011). Because a lot of harm can come to society from such influence, some may

feel that this degree of power in the hands of self-interested corporations should not be allowed.

Such concerns, however, assume that the metric by which we measure the ethicality of an

action is based on its overall social consequences, which reflects a utilitarian perspective.

According to ethical egoism, one is not responsible to society as a whole, but to one’s own long

term success. According to this theory, a corporation’s only responsibility would be to its own

long term interests. Such a view is reflected in the work of the economist Milton Friedman, who

argues that increasing its own profits is the sole ethical responsibility of a business (Friedman,

1970).

One can even argue that the corporate pursuit of self-interest is actually beneficial to

society as a whole. If corporations did not seek to promote their own financial success, then over

time they would collapse, and all of their employees would be out of work. Capitalism itself

works by assuming that companies and individuals will seek to increase their own financial

success. This results in competition, which in turn ensures that product quality, supply levels,

and prices find an optimal balance between the interests of corporations and consumers (Smith,

2007). Without this egoistic perspective, it can be argued, our economy would collapse. With it,

our economy grows and prospers.

One can think of the balance of interests involved in corporate contributions with the

analogy of a courtroom. In a trial, it is the duty of the prosecution and defense attorneys to

ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 7

defend opposite sides of a case as well as possible. It is through this balance that we achieve an

approximation of fairness in the courtroom. So it is with corporate political contributions. There

are political contributions made on all sides of political issues. There are PACs representing

environmental, regulatory, workforce, human rights, corporate, and other interests. With the

contributions of all of these parties, various interests groups are able to have their voices heard in

the American political process so that a proper balance can be struck.

Conclusion

Donations from organizations to political campaigns can drive legislation and thus have a

major influence on public policy in this country. While this influence can have positive and

negative impacts, this paper argues that such contributions should be allowed as they satisfy the

ethical egoist goal of allowing corporations to promote their own interests, and, at least when

regulated, can satisfy the utilitarian goal of a promoting a happier society as well. One significant

difference between the two approaches is that the utilitarian view would insist on certain

regulations designed to limit the harmful results that could result from organizations donating in

ways that promote their own interests. However, the ethical egoist would disagree, and maintain

that the freedom of organizations to promote their interests has the highest priority; thus, the

egoist would likely oppose most kinds of regulations on political contributions by organizations.

Both theories appear to agree, however, that, at least when carefully regulated, corporations

should be allowed to make political contributions that further their long term interests.

ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 8

References

Burley, H., & Hoedeman, O. (2011). The best influence money can buy – the 10 worst corporate

lobbyists. New Internationalist Magazine. Retrieved July 11, 2016 from

https://newint.org/features/2011/01/01/10-worst-corporate-lobbyists/.

Center for Responsive Politics (2016). Service employees international union. Retrieved July 1,

2016 from:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000077&cycle=2010.

Daigle, C. (2006). Nietzsche: Virtue Ethics… Virtue Politics? Journal of Nietzsche Studies 32, 1-

21.

Federal Election Commission (FEC). (2004, February). Contributions (Updated February 2016).

Retrieved May 8, 2016, from:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml#Corporations_Labor_Banks.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its

profits. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved July 11, 2016 from

http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf.

Kelsen, H. (1948). Absolutism and relativism in philosophy and politics. The American Political

Science Review 42(5), 906-914. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1950135.

Mill, J. S. (2008). Utilitarianism. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Rev.) Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved

July 11, 2016 from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/mill1863.pdf

Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility 2e. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

ETHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 9

Smith, A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Retrieved

July 11, 2016 from http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf.

Teachout, T. (2001). Prime-time patriotism. Commentary 112(4), 51. Retrieved from:

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/issues/.