2012

Nova Southeastern University Anonymous

[THE LEGALITY, MORALITY, AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATIONS MAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR LEGISLATIVE FAVORS.]
This essay intends to discover whether the corporate act of making campaign contributions in exchange for legislative favors is right in light of the law, ethics, and social responsibility (The 3 Values approach).

Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Purposes of Paper B. Background Information regarding topic II. Legal Section A. B. C. D. III. Introduction to Legal Section Statement of Relevant Legal Principles and Rules of Law Application of Law to Topic and Legal Analysis Legal Conclusion

Ethics Section A. Utilitarian Ethical Analysis Introduction to ethics as a branch of philosophy Introduction and brief explanation of Utilitarian theory Stakeholder, pleasure v. pain, numerical model of Utilitarianism - Utilitarian analysis as per required model Moral conclusion pursuant to Utilitarian model B. Kantian Ethical Analysis Introduction to Kantian ethics Statement of Kants Ethics Principle The Categorical Imperative Application of the Three Tests of the Categorical Imperative to topic (Universal Law Test; Kingdom of Ends Test; Agent-Receiver Test) Kantian Moral Conclusion C. Aristotle Ethical Analysis Statement of ethical theory and key ethical principles Application of ethical theory and principles Moral Conclusion pursuant to Aristotle Overall Conclusion to Ethics section as a whole

IV.

Social Responsibility A. B. C. D. E. Introduction to Social Responsibility section Definition of term Social Responsibility and formulation of definitional-principle Application of Social Responsibility definitional-principle to topic Social Responsibility recommendations Social Responsibility Conclusion

1|Page

V.

Conclusion A. Restatement of Major 3 Value Conclusions B. Overall Conclusions, Personal Opinions, Recommendations, and Predictions

References

2|Page

I.

Introduction

Since the dawn of civilization, corruption has been a reality in human politics. The wealthy and powerful have consistently maintained some form of influence over the political process, and often at the expense of the average citizen. In 2010, the New York Times published an article discussing the publics concerns with corporations using their vast financial resources to influence the election of politicians who would support or fight legislation favorable to the corporate agenda. (Kirkpatrick. 2010). The article was specifically referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, which struck down government regulations that prohibited corporations from buying campaign commercials advocating the election or defeat of a political candidate. (Kirkpatrick. 2010). Proponents of the regulations believe that the Supreme Courts decision is a threat to democracy, while the opponents claim a victory for free speech. (Kirkpatrick. 2010). The purpose of this discussion is to evaluate the issue using the three value approach, which asks whether it legal, moral, and socially responsible for our government to allow corporations to financially influence the political and legislative process. Over time, Americans have been growing increasingly concerned with the disproportionate influence that corporations have over the political and legislative process, and rightfully so. It is well known that money buys power, and history shows that the wealthy have generally had the greatest influence over the political process in comparison to the majority. In todays political climate, corporations are the economic powerhouses: They use their incredible economic power to influence the elections of candidates that are supportive of the corporate agenda, which affectively drowns out the voice of the majority.
3|Page

Since the beginning of human civilization, power and wealth have maintained a symbiotic relationship. In the past, the wealthiest and the most powerful individual in the land was usually the king. Since this relationship, as a rule thumb, has always been the case, there is no reason to believe that it isnt the case today. Today, the wealthiest individuals and organizations are not recognized as kings, but their wealth does grant them the influential power of a king. The reason for this is that human nature has shown power to be an economic commodity, and as a result history has demonstrated that without wealth one has no significant power. Just as in the past, politics is an expensive profession: Today, political candidates require vast financial resources in order to win elections, and to ensure their reelection. In the United States, political candidates are generally not wealthy individuals, at least not wealthy enough to fund their own political campaign, and as a result they must rely on the contributions of others to fund their run for office. The potential problem that occurs as a result of the necessity for campaign contributions is the likely development of a quid pro quo arrangement, where the contributor seeks a favor in return for their contribution. When this occurs, politicians will likely be sympathetic to the political agendas of those who help keep them in office, and grant the favor to the contributor: The larger the contribution, the more sympathetic the politician will be to the contributors agenda. The political favors gained by those who contribute to election campaigns are by no means minor, and they manifest themselves most visibly in the passage of legislation favorable to the contributors cause. Herein lays the danger of allowing corporations to

influence the political process: For the influence that a corporations wealth is capable of purchasing, takes away from the influence of the majority, and that is of grave concern to the people of this republic.

4|Page

Since its inception, the United States was founded to be a republic: A nation in which ultimate political power rests with its people, governed by representatives of the people, and who are obliged to execute the will of the people. The founding fathers felt that a republic was the ideal form of government to ensure the peoples right to self-governance. The founding fathers stayed well away from establishment of another monarchy, especially after their experience of living under the tyranny of England. At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin, and asked: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. (Paul, 2000). Even though a republic was believed to be the best form of government to ensure the rights of the people, it was also a fragile system. (Paul, 2000). Franklin knew that maintaining the integrity of a republic depended upon the morality of the people, for only a moral people could prevent the corrupt and the wealthy from usurping the majoritys power. The reality is that when the wealthy gain control over a significant portion of a republics political power, the nation is transformed into an oligarchy. Aristotle defined and coined the term oligarchy to be a synonym for: Rule by the rich. (Oligarchy, 2012). Oligarchy can be further defined as a small group of individuals who control virtually all political power. These people can be distinguished by many things, such as: royalty, military power, wealth, and corporate identity. (Oligarchy, 2012). Throughout the course of human history, oligarchies had been tyrannical in nature, relying on public servitude, and on oppression to exist and thrive. (Oligarchy, 2012). Corporations are the wealthiest entities in the world today. In the United States, debates have raged for years over whether corporations should enjoy the same rights that people do. The problem is that corporations are not people, they are organizations created for the sole purpose of
5|Page

making a profit. They have no sense of right and wrong, and they have no sense of morality; for morality is beyond the scope of a corporations existence. The only restraint on the actions of a corporations, are the restraints imposed by law. By providing corporations the same powers and rights that the people enjoy, our representatives would be permitting the establishment of an oligarchy to replace the republic. The analysis of this issue begins with an evaluation of the legality of corporations using their significant wealth and influence to affect change in politics.

II.

Law
A. INTRODUCTION

To begin our discussion of the law, we must understand what law is. Wikipedia states that Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. (Law, 2012). It is appropriate to start our discussion here, because the law is the one value that can be enforced by the government, unlike ethics and social responsibility which can only be enforced by ones own personal code, or by peer pressure. Our federal government was created by the guidelines set forth by the United States Constitution. The Constitution created a government of limited jurisdiction; and as a result, the federal government may only exercise those powers enumerated by the Constitution. (U.S. Const. amend. IX and X). Any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states, or to the people. (U.S. Const. amend. X). Though the federal government is a

government of limited jurisdiction, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and further declares federal statutes to be supreme over the constitutions and laws of the states. (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Contained within the
6|Page

Constitution is a Bill of Rights which guarantees certain rights to the states, and to the people; and with the passage of the 14th Amendment the states themselves are prohibited from violating any rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution. At critical legal issue in this discussion is whether the 1st Amendment protects corporations as well as private individuals. In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling on the constitutionality of restricting or outright banning a corporations ability to influence the political process in the landmark case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Citizens United, 2010). Prior to the ruling in Citizens United, federal law prohibited corporations from using corporate funds to make direct contributions to political candidates, and additionally prohibited indirect expenditures used to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a political candidate, through any form of media. (Citizens United, 2010). Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, claims that such laws violate the corporations 1st Amendment right to free speech. (Citizens United, 2010).

B.

STATEMENT OF LAW

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free speech, the press, the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and the right of the people to petition the government. (U.S. Const. amend. I). The amendment clearly states that Congress may not make any law that violates the peoples right to exercise free speech, or the peoples right to petition their government. (U.S. Const. amend. I). The First Amendment is clear on its protection of the listed liberties, but what is not clear to some is the constitutional definition of people as stated in the Amendment.

7|Page

In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court held that First Amendment protections extended to corporations. (Belloti, 1978). The Court also held that distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others is not permissible under the Constitution. (Belloti, 1978). In determining the permissibility of speech restrictions, the Court only considers narrow exceptions, which must be based upon a compelling government interest. (Citizens United, 2010).

C.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court has stated that free speech is absolutely vital in maintaining the integrity of a democratic republic. (Citizens United, 2010). Since, the people of a republic are sovereign, their ability to make informed decisions among their political representatives is essential. (Citizens United, 2010). The right to hear opinions, argue opposing viewpoints, and use

information to reach a consensus is important in maintaining the vitality of the republic. (Citizens United, 2010). Though the importance of free speech in a republic is not in dispute, it is questionable whether the right to free speech constitutionally applies to corporations. In Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court held that corporations do have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else, and ruled specifically that corporations have the right to free speech. (Bellotti, 1978). The Court reasoned that restrictions which permitted the speech of some speakers but not others, was impermissible under the constitution. (Bellotti, 1978). The Supreme Court affectively stated that it was impermissible under the Constitution to discriminate against a speaker, because of the speakers corporate status. (Bellotti, 1978). The Court has only upheld a narrow class of speech restriction where there was a compelling government interest to restrict, but qualified the statement by holding that there is no compelling government interest in

8|Page

restricting corporations from engaging in free speech. (Bellotti, 1978). According to the Supreme Court, political speech is covered by the First Amendment, and protecting the political speech of people and corporations is the most critical form of speech to protect in a free republic. (Bellotti, 1978). The other issue to address is the legality of corporations using their corporate resources to influence the legislative process: This includes influence over content, and enactment of

legislation. The Bellotti Court addressed this issue as well, and ruled that corporations had the 1st Amendment Right to petition the government, and influence the content and enactment of legislation. (Bellotti, 1978). The Court rationalized its holding by stating that corporate

executives and employees routinely counsel members of Congress and Presidential administrations on many issues as a matter of routine and often in private. (Citizens United, 2010). The Court expanded its reasoning by stating that there is no legitimate reason to violate the First Amendment rights of corporations, because if it can be shown that a corporation offered money directly in exchange for influence over the legislative process, then bribery laws would apply. (Citizens United, 2010).

D.

LEGAL CONCLUSION

In summary, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people under the Constitution; as a result they are afforded First Amendment rights, and any other right enjoyed by the people. Since corporations enjoy the same First Amendment rights as other people,

Congress is not permitted to pass any legislation that distinguishes between different classes of people, which would permit some people to speak, while denying the right to others. Thus,

9|Page

corporations are permitted to engage in political speech, just like a private person would be permitted to do. The Supreme Court also held that corporations have the right to petition their government, a right that is also guaranteed by the First Amendment. Since corporations have the right to petition the government, they are permitted to influence the legislative process. The Supreme Court alleviates concerns over potential corruption by stating that it is unnecessary to violate a persons First Amendment rights in order to prevent corruption: The Court argues that this is because bribery laws are sufficiently equipped to deal with such offenders. Many individuals would likely disagree with the Courts holding, arguing that bribery laws are insufficient protections against the possibility of corporations undermining American democracy. As a result, the discussion shall attempt to determine whether ethical theory has a better answer to the concern of the people.

III.

ETHICS
To begin a discussion of ethics one must first understand what the word means. Clear

and objective definitions are critical in order to effectively advocate any position. By clarifying terminology, one can establish the logical and rational groundwork that will make an argument objectively convincing. So what is ethics? To begin with, ethics is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy at its core is the study and pursuit of the truth. The study of philosophy is the human attempt to tackle such deeply problematic issues relating to such things as the nature of reality, conduct, and thought. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The philosopher believes that behind the apparent chaos of the known Universe, there exists
10 | P a g e

fundamental truths and laws that govern everything in existence, and the philosopher believes that human reason has the ability to discover these fundamental truths. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Philosophy is a multi-faceted discipline, which can be broken down into three subcategories, which are: metaphysics, the philosophy of knowledge, and ethics and political philosophy. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Metaphysics is the study of the philosophy at the macro-level; its goal is to determine the true nature of reality and existence. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The philosophy of knowledge is the academic attempt to properly define what knowledge is, what knowledge is based on, and the appropriate mental processes required to acquire true knowledge. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Ethics and political philosophy is the study of philosophy at the micro-level; it is the field of philosophy which studies the human being, its nature, its place in the world, and its relationship with others. Consequently, the study of ethics is the study that has the most practical application in the lives of every human being. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). It is important to understand that ethics is not simply a field of study which attempts to describe and define the human being and its behavior; that field of study is properly reserved for those who study human anthropology, and psychology. Instead, ethics builds upon what we already know about the overall nature of human beings. Ethics seeks to objectively determine the best way for human beings to live their lives, behave with others, based upon our understanding of ourselves, and how we interact with our fellow human beings. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). More specifically, ethics is the theoretical study of morality and moral

philosophy. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).

11 | P a g e

The study of morality applies philosophy to moral thinking, conduct, and problems. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). It prescribes that which is good and bad, it establishes the definition of right and wrong, and what one should and shouldnt do. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Moral philosophy establishes the ethical framework in which one should make, assert, and defend any moral decision. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Since ethics is the theoretical study of morality, it is used to test the validity of existing moral codes. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). As stated earlier, philosophers believe that everything in the universe is based on fundamental truths and laws, and they believe ethics and morality are likewise governed by immutable laws. Moral philosophers essentially hold the conviction that there is only one right answer to any moral question, and as a result the moral philosophers job is to use reason to support the right moral and ethical principles that they put forward as the truth. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Through the ages, moral philosophers have developed ethical theories, with the goal of defining proper human conduct. These philosophers articulated and justified, principles and techniques that could be used in specific moral situations requiring a moral determination. The following analysis will primarily utilize utilitarian and Kantian ethical theories in order to evaluate the morality of corporations using their wealth based influence to affect change in the political landscape.

A.

UTILITARIAN ETHICAL ANALYSIS

1. INTRODUCTION

Utilitarianism was created by British Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, and was later refined by Benthams apprentice, John Stuart Mills. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Bentham regarded

Utilitarianism as more than an abstract ethical theory; he regarded it as an objective. (Cavico &

12 | P a g e

Mujtaba, 2009). It was Benthams goal in the development of Utilitarianism to develop a universally applicable, objective, and practical ethical theory that could be scientifically applied to any act in order to determine its morality. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Bentham recognized humanitys hedonistic nature, and based Utilitarianism on the reality that pleasure and pain is the sovereign masters of humanity: Meaning that all human conduct originates from the desire for pleasure, and the avoidance of pain. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Bentham took this understanding of human nature, and developed Utilitarianism to operate within its framework. The goal of Utilitarian ethics is to produce as much happiness as possible. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Morality in Utilitarianism is that which creates the most amount good for the most people, all while causing the least amount of harm. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).

Utilitarianism operates under a system of impartiality, which means that any Utilitarian analysis of a particular act requires the recognition that no ones welfare is more important than anothers. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). A Utilitarian is not only required to consider the welfare of others, but is also required to serve the welfare of society as a whole. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). For the Utilitarian, an act isnt good or bad on its own: An action is only good if the consequence of the action is good, and an action is bad if the consequence of the action causes harm. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). In addition, Utilitarian analysis requires us to take into consideration overall affect the act has on all of its stakeholders. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Thus, if all the stakeholders of a particular act experienced a greater amount good than harm, then the act is moral and if not, the act is immoral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).

13 | P a g e

2.

UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS

Since utilitarianism was intended to be a scientific ethical analysis, the system provides a mathematical morality test for any specific act to determine whether the act is good or bad. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The Utilitarian analysis of a particular act requires one to test the act using the following standard: 1. Accurately and narrowly state the action to be evaluated? 2. Identify all stakeholders who are directly and indirectly affected by the action (Including the companys constituent groups as well as society). 3. Specify for each stakeholder group directly and indirectly affected by the act, all the reasonably foreseeable consequences pleasurable and bad painful consequences of the action, as far into the future as appears appropriate, and consider the various predictable outcomes, good and bad, and the likelihood of their occurrence. 4. For each stakeholder group, including society as a whole, measure and weigh the total good consequences against the bad consequences, and determine which predominates for each stakeholder group. 5. Quantify the good and bad for each stakeholder group on a numerical scale (-5,-4,-3,-2,1,0,+1,+2,+3,+4,+5) which quantifies the extremes of pleasure and pain. 6. Sum up all the good and bad consequences assigned to the stakeholder groups;

If after the analysis, the action results in an overall positive number, it produces more good than bad, and is a morally right action; and if the action results in an overall negative number, it produces more bad than good, and is morally wrong; based on this model of the Utilitarian ethical theory. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
14 | P a g e

The action being evaluated using the Utilitarian model is: Whether it is moral for a corporation to contribute to the campaigns of political candidates in exchange for legislative favors once the candidate is in office. 1) The stakeholders who are directly and indirectly affected by the action are: a. The Government of the United States; b. State and Local Governments; c. Directly affected politicians; d. The citizens of the United States; e. The corporation; f. Company stock holders; g. Corporate employees; h. Environmentalists; 2) The most important consideration, which dominates over all others, is that the people of the United States are sovereign, that our politicians are only our representatives, and that they are constitutionally required to reflect the will of the people in executing their duties. As such, the voice of the majority in a democratic republic can never be muffled by the minority. 3) The following is a determination of the pleasure and pain experienced by the following stake holders: a. Government of the United States: i. Foreseeable Good: 1. Legislation that is favorable to corporations can potentially stimulate the economy in the short-term, resulting in more tax

15 | P a g e

income, which strengthens the position of the United States globally. Moderately likely. ii. Foreseeable Harm. 1. When corporations use political contributions to gain influence over the political process, the integrity of the federal government is compromised. Overtime, the federal government will very likely ignore its charge to represent the people, and will instead represent the corporations which are the quantitative minority. Additionally, the resulting corruption will cause the government to operate less efficiently. Very likely. b. State and Local Governments: i. Foreseeable Good: 1. The foreseeable good for state and local governments is the same as for the federal government. ii. Foreseeable Bad: 1. The foreseeable harm for state and local governments is the same as for the federal government. c. Directly affected Politicians: i. Foreseeable Good: 1. The foreseeable good for politicians is that they receive political contributions from the corporations, which strengthen their run for office. Very Likely.

16 | P a g e

2. Supporting corporations may stimulate the economy, which may provide more jobs for constituents. Moderately likely. ii. Foreseeable Harm: 1. The foreseeable harm for politician is that they ignore the majority of their constituents in favor of corporations, and if the interests of the corporations conflict with the interests of the majority; the behavior may result in a future campaign defeat. Likely. 2. If a direct link between corporate campaign contributions and passing legislation is established, the politician and the corporation may be subjected to federal bribery laws. Slightly Unlikely. d. Society as a whole: i. Foreseeable Good: 1. Legislation favorable to business, stimulates the economy, and creates jobs for the American people. Moderately Likely. ii. Foreseeable Harm: 1. The American people will eventually lose their voice and their republic, and will be eventually subjected to the rule of an oligarchy. Corporations may eventually influence the evolution of a legal system, which ignores the Constitution, where corporations become a privileged class, and the American people become nothing but subservient workers that keep the corporate machined greased. History has shown that great nations always degenerate Moderately

17 | P a g e

as a result of corruption, and eventually fade away. Extremely Likely. e. The Corporations: i. Foreseeable Good: 1. Ensuring the election of politicians who are supportive of the corporation, and the corporations industry may result in the giving the company a political edge. Very Likely. ii. Foreseeable Harm: 1. By condoning this practice, there is a possibility that larger and more powerful corporations receive the same benefits at the expense of the smaller corporations, causing harm to the corporation and the free market. Extremely Likely. f. Stock Holders: i. Foreseeable Good: 1. Increased revenues resulting in increased share prices. Moderately likely. ii. Foreseeable Harm: 1. Favorable legislation may only be favorable in the short term, and may in fact be harmful in the long term. Just as likely as not. g. Employees: i. Foreseeable Good:

18 | P a g e

1. Favorable legislation may lead to a better performing company, which could result in higher revenues, which may result in higher salaries, and better job security. Just as likely as not. ii. Foreseeable Harm: 1. Favorable legislation may result in a less regulated work climate, lower salaries, longer hours, and less job security. Just as likely as not. h. Environmentalist: i. Foreseeable Good: 1. Corporate abuse of the environment may be brought front and center, as a result of a disaster caused by favorable legislation, which may result in environmental awareness. Moderately likely. ii. Foreseeable Harm: 1. Favorable legislation may result in incredible leeway to abuse natural resources, irreparably harm the environment, and cause other species to become endangered. Moderately likely. 4) Measuring the Good against the harm: a. Government of the United States: There is much good that comes from a strong economy resulting from legislation that favors corporations, but that good can never be allowed to outweigh any harm that is inflicted on the integrity of the government. It is the republic that first and foremost keeps the nation strong, and the nations economy is always secondary. b. State and Local Governments: Same as above.

19 | P a g e

c. Directly affected Politicians:

If politicians allow campaign contributors to

influence their decision in office, that decision may lead to the politician being thrown out of office in the re-election. The politician becomes a political puppet when they agree to return favors for campaign contributions, which not only compromises their personal integrity and decision making capabilities, it undermines the position they charged with executing faithfully. Any economic benefit cannot outweigh this. A strong economy is a means to an end for the people; whats the use of money if you dont have freedom? d. Society as a whole: Though society may benefit from more jobs, it is not worth losing your political influence. e. Corporations: Condoning this action may appear to be in the short-term interest of the corporation, but it is also in the interest of larger and more powerful corporations. When the interests of different companies conflict the more

powerful company usually wins. f. Stockholders: Stockholders will benefit from the higher corporate revenue, and stock prices. g. Employees: If the company becomes more profitable, employees will likely have better job security, and the employees quality of life may improve. It is very unlikely that the quality of life will get lower. h. Environmentalists: Legislation that affects the environment and is favorable to corporations is likely to be harmful to the environment.

20 | P a g e

6) Stake Holders Federal & State Government Directly affected Politicians Society as a whole Corporations Stockholders Employees Environmentalists Totals Good 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 14 Harm -4 -2 -4 -1 -1 -2 -3 17

3.

UTILITARIAN CONCLUSION

After analyzing the issue according to the Utilitarian approach, we find that the act of contributing to the political campaigns of politicians who are willing to return political favors causes more harm than good. Since the harm caused by the corporate conduct outweighs the good the conduct is considered immoral according to Utilitarian ethical philosophy. The reason that the harm outweighed the good is that the harm was serious enough to undermine the Constitution and the American political process, and as a result the analysis necessarily had to give more weight to this concern.

21 | P a g e

B.

KANTIAN ETHICAL ANALYSIS

1. INTRODUCTION TO KANTIAN ETHICS

Kantian ethics was developed by its namesake, German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the late 1700s. Kants ethical philosophy believed that reason and acting with a sense of duty was the foundation of morality. Reason, Kant believed, is the foundation, content, and force behind any moral law. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Kant argued that moral law is binding on humanity because that law is supported by reason. The Kantian position holds that if a particular act is supported by reason, then that act is moral, and alternatively; if the act in question is immoral, it is because that act is also irrational. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Kant does not intend to argue that morality and reason are synonymous, but instead argues that moral ends are achieved by the proper application of reason. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Even though Kant recognized the human desire for happiness, he rejected the Utilitarian position that morality is based on humanitys pursuit of happiness. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Kant argued that basing morality on happiness would rob humanity of its uniqueness, dignity, and worth. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). What sets humanity apart from all other living beings is the ability and freedom to reason, and it is for that reason that human morality is founded on reason not happiness. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). In addition to reason, Kant also emphasizes the importance of duty, and stated that one should do their duty regardless of the personal consequences, even if those consequences result in personal happiness. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Kant rejected the idea that human beings required training and guidance in order to be moral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). He believed that the straight path was clear to all ordinary

22 | P a g e

and rational human beings. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The real issue, as far as Kant was concerned, was whether people had the intestinal fortitude and discipline to perform their societal duty; the duty to do the right thing. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The central ethical principle in Kantian ethics is called the Categorical Imperative. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The Categorical Imperative is the thought process that human beings use in order to arrive at a moral judgment. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
2. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

An understanding of the Categorical Imperative requires us to be able to distinguish a categorical imperative from a hypothetical imperative. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). An

Imperative is a command, or an unavoidable obligation or requirement. (Imperative, n.d.). In terms of Kants philosophy, an imperative instructs the individual on how they ought to act. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The hypothetical imperative outlines the necessary actions to

achieve a desired end; one must do x in order to achieve y. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The validity of the hypothetical imperative rests on the acceptance of result y, and if y is rejected then x has no force. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). In contrast, a categorical imperative is a command to act a certain way, regardless of consequence; one must do x period. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Human morality and conduct are thus governed by categorical imperatives. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The reason human conduct is categorical, is because actions are either moral or not, there is no middle ground in morality, and consequently morality cannot be based on the subjective acceptance or rejection of a consequence to an act. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Now that we understand what a categorical imperative is, we can understand Kants theory of the Categorical Imperative.

23 | P a g e

Kant did not simply believe that the Categorical Imperative was simply a principle of action: It was an ethical test conforming of conduct, where conduct was moral if it conformed to a specific form and immoral if it did not. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Kant believed that an act needed to meet three requirements in order to be considered moral: 1) the action must be possible to be made consistently universal; 2) it must respect rational beings as ends in themselves; and 3) the action must stem from and respect the autonomy of rational beings and be acceptable to rational beings. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). If an action passes all three it is moral, if not, it is immoral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
3. APPLICATION OF THE THREE TESTS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (UNIVERSAL LAW TEST; KINGDOM OF ENDS TEST; AGENTRECEIVER TEST)

Now that Kants ethical philosophy has been outlined, it can be applied to the issues presented in this discussion. In order to determine the morality of corporations financially influencing the passage or failure of legislation by contributing to the election campaigns of corporate friendly politicians, the issue will be tested by Kants Categorical Imperative. The analysis here will specifically determine: 1) Whether the corporate conduct passes the

Universality test; 2) whether the conduct passes the Kingdom of Ends test; and 3) whether the conduct passes the Agent-Receiver test. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). It is important to note that if the act in question fails any one of the three tests, it is immoral even if it passes the remaining two. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009).
a) TEST OF UNIVERSALITY

The test of Universality requires that a rational person determine whether the act in question, if universally and consistently applied, could exist continuously without being self24 | P a g e

destructive or without causing any contradiction or negation. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). If the conduct in question is found capable of being universally applied then it would be deemed moral, and if not it is deemed to be immoral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Bribery, for example, is considered an immoral act according to Kants Universality test, and the reason for this is because; any logical and rational person who engages in bribery would not logically wish bribery to become a universally applied action. Imagine a situation in which an individual was bribing a foreign official in order to expedite an application and ruling on a business permit. The reason that this individual is engaging in this form of bribery is to ensure a speedy resolution of his application for a business permit. If this individual willed bribery to become a universally applied law, then everyone would engage in bribery, illogically implying that everyone would be brought to the front of the line, and consequently no ones business permit would be expeditiously processed. Consequently, the act of bribery, if universally applied, is illogical, self-defeating, and it inevitably leads to its demise: If everyone were to engage in bribery, then bribery loses its effectiveness, and thus bribery is immoral pursuant to the Universality test. Although bribery is immoral, according to Kants Universality test, bribery and immorality continues to be prevalent in society, regardless; people still engage in bribery and other immoral conduct. These individuals are in fact parasitic in nature, feeding off an otherwise moral society. They are keenly aware of the unfair advantage they gain as a result of their conduct, and they are also aware that the universal application of immoral conduct will cause the immoral act to lose its effectiveness. As a result, immoral actors wish to the conduct of others to remain moral in order for them to maintain their unfair advantage in society. Thus, the issue

25 | P a g e

here is narrowed to: Would a corporation wish everyone to use their financial power to influence the outcome of elections, and the passage of legislation? The answer to the issue is firmly no. In applying the Universality test we find the corporate act of using a corporations relatively vast financial resources, to influence the outcome of elections, and the passage of legislation to be immoral. After analyzing the issue, one may correctly notice the similarity of this act to the act of bribery, which we have already found to be immoral according to Kants Categorical Imperative. The act of contributing to political campaigns in order to ensure the election of politicians, who will support favorable legislation, is in reality a secondary form of bribery, which is referred to as lobbying in the United States. Rational corporations would never wish for a universal application of this act because they would lose their influence as a result. If a corporation willed the universal application of the act of using financial resources to influence the political process, the conduct would lead to its own demise, and would be self-defeating. If everyone engaged in this form of bribery to influence the outcome of elections, then the political and legislative process would regain its intended nature because everyone would have an equal voice as intended by the Founding Fathers. In summary, corporations that use their financial resources to influence the political and legislative process are engaging in immoral behavior, according to Kants test of Universality: Since an act need only fail one of Kants three tests of morality, an analysis of Kants other two tests are unnecessary; however, a full analysis will strengthen the conclusion of immorality, and consequently we continue to Kants Kingdom of Ends test.

26 | P a g e

b)

KINGDOM OF ENDS TEST

The second test of Kants Categorical Imperative requires one to respect rational beings as ends in themselves, instead of a means to an end. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The

application of Kants Kingdom of Ends test states that a rational person must treat all other rationale beings with dignity and respect, and to recognize the intrinsic value of humanity as a whole, regardless of any advantage one might have. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The must respect and recognize the right of all humans, to make their own decisions, and to choose their own fate; emphasizing that dignity resides in the freedom of rationality. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Rational individuals, according to Kant, are capable of recognizing the moral law, and they obey that law out of a sense of duty, even if one receives no benefit in the performance of that duty. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). In summary, to pass the second test, one must treat others as a means in themselves, not a means to an end; in doing so, one is respecting the dignity and respect of the affected party. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). To apply the test to the corporate act of using financial influence to ensure the election of favorable politicians, we must determine the individual(s) affected by the corporate action. Here, the corporation is directly affecting the decisions of politicians who are elected to represent the majority. A corporation which conditionally contributes to the campaign of a politician,

expecting favorable legislation in return, fails to respect the dignity of the politician being elected. Politicians are elected by the majority in a democracy; and their duty is to consider the best interests of the majority of their constituents when passing or defeating legislation. When a corporation uses its financial resources to tempt a politician away from performing his or her duty, that corporation is objectifying that politician as a means to an end, and consequently fails to respect the politician as an end in themselves. As a result of the corporations failure to
27 | P a g e

respect the politician as an end in themselves, the corporations conduct is immoral. At this point the act as failed the Kants first two tests of morality: As a result the Kingdom of Ends test reinforces the immorality of the corporate act of using financial resources to elect politicians who are willing to provide the corporation with a favor in exchange for their contribution.
c) THE AGENT-RECEIVER TEST

Kants third test emphasizes autonomy of the rational being: According to Kants test, the rational being is capable of recognizing the moral law, and to live and govern their life by that same law. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The law requires rational actors to contemplate what rule they are following if they perform the action in question, and after identifying the rule; they must determine if they would want everyone to act the same way. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). If the rational actor does not wish everyone to follow the rule, then the act is immoral. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The third test is also called the Agent-Receiver test, because it requires the actor to ask themselves if they are willing to accept the action whether they are the giver or the receiver of the action. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Here, it is difficult to identify any moral law that the corporation is trying to follow in performance of the action in question. If anything, the corporation is attempting to ensure its profitability, and also ensuring that they have a voice in the legislative process, which may consequently help the employees maintain their jobs. On the other side of the coin: By

financially influencing the decisions of politicians, the corporations are not simply ensuring that they have a voice, but they are drowning out the voice of the majority. If the corporation asked itself whether it would be willing to make the action universal, they would most clearly say no as discussed in the Universality test. Also, when applying the Agent-Receiver test, the

28 | P a g e

corporation definitely would not find it acceptable to be the receiver of the action instead of the giver, because the corporation would have less of a voice if that was the case. Thus, in application of the Agent-Receiver test, the corporations conduct would also fail this test, fully reinforcing the immorality of the corporate act of influencing the political process.

4.

KANTIAN MORAL CONCLUSION

After analyzing the issue in terms of Kants Categorical Imperative, it is clear that: Those corporations that make campaign contributions to political candidates in exchange for legislative favors are engaging in immoral conduct. When subjected to Kants Universality test, the action fails conclusively, and as discussed earlier: The action must pass all three tests of Kants Categorical imperative in order for it to be regarded as moral. Thus, after failing Kants first test of Universality, the corporate conduct is rightfully considered immoral. In order to strengthen the ruling of immorality, we need only subject the action to Kants remaining Categorical Imperative tests: 1) The Kingdom of Ends test; and 2) The AgentReceiver test. The corporate conduct fails to pass the standards of the remaining two

Categorical Imperative tests as well, and consequently the ruling of immorality stands stronger than before. Thus, a corporation which provides campaign contributions to politicians, which are conditioned upon the politicians loyalty to the corporation, is engaging in immoral behavior according to Kants Categorical Imperative tests.

29 | P a g e

C.

ARISTOTLE: THE DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN AND VIRTUE ETHICS

The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle developed one of the earliest theories of morality. Aristotle firmly believed that the knowledge of good and evil was knowable, and that human beings were completely capable of rationally determining what was good for them. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Aristotle believed that seeking out the good is intrinsically part of the nature of every human being, and that since every human being seeks happiness; so happiness must be good. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). According to Aristotle, the objective of everything in the universe is to achieve its maximum potential, and as a result; the objective of every human being is to likewise realize its own potential. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Aristotle reasoned that happiness is the realization of ones full potential, or that happiness is self-realization. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Since happiness is self-realization; humans achieve happiness by doing those things that cause ones true nature to fully manifest itself. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The one attribute that sets humanity apart from all other living things is the faculty of reason. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Since the trait of reason is unique to humanity, and since happiness is self-realization: Human happiness is achieved when one realizes their ability to reason to the fullest. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Through the process of reasoning one arrives at the good, the good is the determination of the virtuous path, and Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean was his formula for walking the virtuous path. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Aristotle postulated that the virtuous act is the act between two extremes, or the act that is moderate in nature. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Vice is that conduct which walks the extreme
30 | P a g e

path of deficiency or excess. Thus, the Doctrine of the Mean, requires one to always walk the path of moderation, because the moderate path is the path of virtue. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). For example: Rashness and cowardice are extremes, one excess and the other deficiency, and as a result they are both vices; but courage is the mean between the two, and is consequently the path of moderation and virtue.
1. APPLICATION OF ARISTOTLES DOCTRINE OF THE MEANS

When using the Doctrine of the Mean to analyze the corporate act of financially influencing the political process in return for political favors, we must determine whether the act is moderate, and if so; whether the act is virtuous and moral. In order to apply the Doctrine of the Mean we must narrow in on the act that is to be analyzed. As we discussed earlier, this quid pro quo arrangement that corporation have with politicians is essentially a form of bribery, and bribery is a manifestation of corruption. The definition of corruption is dishonesty; and a corrupt person is a person who lacks integrity, and is guilty of engaging in dishonest practices such as bribery. (Corrupt, n.d.). In applying Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean to our issue we find that the two extremes are corruption and absolute truthfulness, and we find that the mean between these two extremes is honesty. Corruption is a vice because corruption is essentially equivalent to dishonesty, and extreme truthfulness is a vice because there are times when the truth can cause more harm than good. Honesty is a virtue, because honesty is the quality of being truthful, upright, fair, sincere, and free from deceit or fraud. (Honesty, n.d.). So the honest person is the mean because the honest person is truthful, fair, and free from deceit or fraud. Being honest doesnt require one to

31 | P a g e

tell the truth if the truth causes harm; it requires one to tell the truth to avoid the vice of deceitfulness.
2. CONCLUSION OF ARISTOTLES DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN ANALYSIS

The honest path is always the right path. When a corporation financially influences a politician to legislate on their behalf, they are encouraging the politician to ignore his or her duty, and they are encouraging corruption. The act of performing ones duty is generally considered a virtue, but if a bribe keeps you from performing your duty it is clearly a vice. A politicians duty in a democracy is to always consider the will of the majority, but when a politicians will is subservient to corporate money, the politician fails to do his or her duty. The politicians conduct is a vice and immoral because the politician is engaging in dishonest behavior. The corporations conduct is also a vice because the corporations actions are the source of the politicians vice. Since corruption and dishonesty are vices, then the corporate act of financially influencing the political process is a vice according to Aristotles doctrine of the mean, and it is consequently immoral.

D.

CONCLUSION OF ETHICAL ANALYSIS

After completing a thorough ethical analysis of the corporate conduct according to the theories of the Utilitarians, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle; the corporate act of making campaign contributions in exchange for legislative favors is clearly immoral. Under the Utilitarian

approach, we found that the harm outweighed the good, because the most significant harm was that the corporate conduct undermined the Constitution, the peoples sovereignty, and the charge of the government. When testing the conduct against Kants 3 tests of the Categorical

Imperative, we found that the act failed all three tests, which firmly required the conclusion that
32 | P a g e

the corporate conduct was immoral. Finally, when analyzing the issue in terms of Aristotles Doctrine of the Means, we found the conduct to be on the extreme side of the scale, thus the conduct is a vice, and it is consequently immoral.

IV.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
A. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

So far in our analysis, we have found that the law has no objections to the corporate act in question, on the other hand we have found that the action does violate the ethical theories the act was subjected to. In the event, a particular act is found to be legal and ethical; the act may also be required to pass a standard of social responsibility.

B.

DEFINING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Even if a corporations conduct cannot be held to a particular standard of morality, the corporation may be accountable in terms of social responsibility. Social responsibility is a standard which requires a corporation to work towards the social and economic betterment of society as a whole, even if there are no moral objections in regards to the corporations conduct. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). Thus, a corporation may have a social duty even in the absence of a moral duty. The idea is that an individual or corporation must work towards the betterment of society, the economy, and the ecosystem while trying to maintain a harmonious balance between them all. (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009). The important thing to understand is that the goal is to strike a balance, being too altruistic can harm the company, which in turn could harm the economy, and consequently being too socially responsible could prove to be socially irresponsible.
33 | P a g e

C.

APPLICATION OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

The corporate conduct is subjected to one last test, and this time it is evaluated against the standard of social responsibility. During this test, the issue is: Whether the corporate act of making campaign contributions to those politicians willing to return legislative favors is socially responsible. It is the responsibility of all Americans to strive, and fight for maintaining the integrity of the nation. The United States was founded as a democratic republic, and as a democratic republic the voice of the majority must never be muffled. Any act that stands in opposition to the democratic republic must be considered socially irresponsible. When a corporation contributes to the political campaigns of politicians with the expectation of future legislative favors, that company is being socially irresponsible, and the behavior undermines the voice of the people. The corporation believes that the influence it has gained will help it in the long run, but it clearly hasnt considered the old adage that: There are always bigger fish in the sea. The immediate effects of the behavior may be positive as far as the corporation is concerned, but eventually there will be a contributor with more money, and that contributor will have a larger voice then the corporation. At that time, the corporation will experience the same ill-effect as the majority, and will realize that the conduct harmed the corporation more than it benefitted it.

D.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Corporations should consider better, and socially responsible methods of getting their voice heard. A corporation could listen to the issues of political candidates, and decide which candidates philosophy is in line with the corporations best interest. To ensure that the

candidate is familiar with the corporation, the corporation should provide the candidate with all
34 | P a g e

the information it needs to make a good decision in regards to legislation that may affect the corporation. In this way the corporation ensures that its voice is fairly heard, and the politicians are left to make the decisions that they were elected to make.

E.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the analysis demonstrates that when corporations make campaign contributions in exchange for political favors, the corporation is being socially irresponsible. It is in the interest of all segments of society to ensure that the institution of democracy stands, and that all citizens have a voice. If the behavior continues indefinitely into the future, individual corporations may find that they are not members of the corporate oligarchy that they helped establish, but instead; they are members of the voiceless majority.

V.

CONCLUSION
This essay evaluated the issue of whether it is right for corporations to contribute to the

political campaigns of politicians who sympathize with the corporation by returning legislative favors. The issue was evaluated by using the 3 value approach, which analyzed the issue in terms of its legality, morality, and social responsibility. After analyzing the legality of the issue, it was determined that the Supreme Court found such corporate conduct legal, in terms of Constitutional law. The Supreme Court stated that as long as there is no direct connection between the campaign contribution and the act of petitioning legislatures to favor or defeat a bill, the conduct is legal; however, if there is a direct link then the conduct is subject to federal bribery laws.

35 | P a g e

In terms of conducting an ethical analysis of the issue, we tested the issue according to the ethical philosophies of the Utilitarians, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle; and found that the issue did not meet any of the three ethical standards. Under the Utilitarian approach we found that the harm outweighed the good, and consequently the corporate conduct was immoral. By applying the issue to Kants Categorical Imperative tests, we find that the corporate conduct fails all three tests, and is conclusively immoral according to Kantian ethics. Finally, the conduct was subjected to Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean test, which demonstrated that the corporate conduct was extreme rather than moderate, and consequently the conduct is a vice and immoral. By failing all four standards of ethical philosophy that the conduct was tested against, the conduct must clearly be ruled immoral. Finally the issue was subjected to a social responsibility analysis, which determined whether the corporate act was socially responsible in its nature. The analysis revealed the conduct to be irresponsible, because the duty of all Americans is to ensure the sovereignty of the people. Such corporate conduct chips away at the sovereignty of the people, and puts it in the hands of an elite oligarchy just as in ancient Rome. When corporations behave this way we must all be aware, and we must all put pressure on our politicians to fulfill their duty to the people. Keeping the Republic safe ensures the long-term interests of all parties affected from society as a whole to the corporations themselves. Instead of bribing our politicians we should rationally argue our positions to them, and contribute to the political campaigns of politicians who are in line with our personal philosophies, without requiring the politicians to return favors. The politicians must consider the petitions of all their constituents without favoring the position of

36 | P a g e

those that make the largest political contributions. If we fail to be watchful of this corporate behavior, we may very well see our Republic slip through our fingers, and become an oligarchy.

37 | P a g e

VI.

References

Kirkpatrick, D. (2010). Does Corporate Money lead to Political Corruption? New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html?_r=1.

Cavico, F.J., & Mujtaba, B.G. (2009). Business Ethics: The Moral Foundation of Effective Leadership, Management, and Entrepreneurship. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Paul, R. (2000). A Republic, If You Can Keep It. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.html.

Oligarchy.(n.d.). In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy.

Law.(n.d.). In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law.

U.S. Const. art. I, 3. U.S. Const. amend. IX and X. U.S. Const. amend. X. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.__ (2010). U.S. Const. amend. I. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784 (1978). Imperative.(n.d.). In Dictionary Dictionary.com online. Retrieved from dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperative.

38 | P a g e

Corrupt.(n.d.). In Dictionary Dictionary.com online. Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt?s=t.

Honesty.(n.d.). In Dictionary Dictionary.com online. Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/honesty?s=t.

39 | P a g e