Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Charles Koch Speaks Out in Defense of His Large Campagin Donations
Charles Koch, someone who normally prefers to avoid the media, has recently been very exposed due to the release of his new book. In a recent interview, he also spoke out in defense for his large contribution to politicians campaigns. Koch blatantly states that he wants something back from his donations, but implies that his donations are justified through his intentions, which are, in his eyes, good. Is does Koch's defense truly justify his actions? Furthermore, is it right, even so, for someone to buy legislation they want passed? Finally, which is a more pressing freedom, the freedom for people to be able to use what they have however they want, or the freedom for everyone to have their own political needs fairly represented through government (this being in situations where they directly interfere with one another, such as this one)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am generally pretty torn between the rights of people to use their resources and the rights to be fairly represented, but it seems to me that there is so much money involved in elections nowadays that they are hardly elections of the people at all. This trend needs to be reversed. However, I do not think that throwing Charles Koch's money into the election will help this. It is just wrong that people can buy their own legislation, no matter what the legislation is. I admit that there are probably times when I will think that a certain law is worth the money, but I hope that even in these situations, justice will prevail. Whether that be the will of the people or not depends on the individual situation. In order to change the way that our elections are run, we must take the money out of the equation and allow third party candidates and others a fair shot at the people's votes. Our legislation has gotten so complicated that it is time to take a step back and simplify it.
ReplyDeleteCharles Koch isn't doing anything wrong. The political system he finds himself in allows him to use his money to buy political influence; he would be foolish not to do so. Therefore, he isn't at fault as much as the system he finds himself in. Should people be allowed to donate to campaigns? Of course they should. Should rich people be able to donate more to campaigns than poor people? Probably. Should rich people be able to buy legislation that is destructive to the general public or against the beliefs of the majority of Americans? Probably not. Long story short, I am of the belief that the rich should be able to donate more money than poor people to campaigns and other political causes, as long as their are reasonable limits on how much they can spend. Through this, they get to retain their freedom of speech while the rest of the country still gets to have influence on the political process.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I don't like that Charles Koch is basically buying legislation, he's not doing anything illegal or wrong. He's simply using the system. There aren't any rules that prevent this. However, I believe that the freedom of people having equal representation throughout government is more important than using one's resources and the system. While Koch is not doing anything legally wrong, in my belief, it is wrong. However, it is not his fault, but the laws and policies set by the government that fail to prevent those with more money from buying votes, legislation, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn 2010 the supreme court decided that a corporation is a person, and because of that we have upheld the idea that this small group of people and their interest are supported with a ridiculously more exponential amount of political power than the interests of the majority. While the ruling pinpoints this as legal, should it be? It is my opinion that when the scales of political power from one citizen to another are off-balance (off-balance being an absolute understatement) then we are catering to the needs of some more than others, and our idea that all citizens despite race, creed, background, personal fortune, etc is hampered on, as the representation itself is unequal. Of course he is arguing in favor of this sort of misrepresentation, as it benefits him but what about everyone else?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Koch's actions are completely justified by his defense. He says that his donations are justified by his good intentions. However, everyone has different intentions, so while some may see him as a benefactor, others would oppose his beliefs and not think so well of him. Even though large donations are totally legal in our system of politics, I think it undermines the principles of equal representation in our country. Many politicians would rather act based on the intentions of a man who gives them thousands of dollars rather than the intentions of a common person who donates little or no money. As a result, the common, less wealthy citizens have less political representation and less political power. Perhaps there should be a limit on how much individuals as well as Super PACs can donate to political elections, since Super PACs are just a loopholes in the political system that allow mass amounts of money to be given to politicians. The limit would be considered a violation on citizens' rights since it controls how they spend their own money, but without it there would be a lack of equal and fair representation.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Charles Koch is doing anything wrong legally, so technically he is justified by his defense although he is buying the legislation. Although that's not illegal, he's using the system to his advantage. The political system allows him to use his money to buy political influence. I believe the rich have the right to donate more than the poor because they have that kind of money to do so and worked for that, but I don't believe that rich people should be able to buy legislation. The rich should be able to donate more money but within reasonable limits on their spending. With this, the rich get a say and use their freedom of speech, which everyone else still have influence on the political process as well. However, I still believe that the freedom of people having equal representation thoughout the government is more important than using one's resources and the system. Although Koch isn't doing anything wrong and it's not his fault, the governemt. Should be the ones to blame. They have the laws set up where this can be done legally and something should change becasue using the system like that isn't right.
ReplyDeleteFinally, which is a more pressing freedom, the freedom for people to be able to use what they have however they want, or the freedom for everyone to have their own political needs fairly represented through government (this being in situations where they directly interfere with one another, such as this one)?
ReplyDeleteI think Koch's defense does justify his actions. He's just admitting that we wants something in return for all his donations, and it doesn't seem like such a selfish thing he's asking for. Many wealthy people who donate to campaigns want something in return. "What's in it for me" is basically what they mean to say. And even when you vote for someone in an election aren't you expecting them to address your problems? I don't know if you can really "buy" legislation. It's hard to get Congress to work harmoniously in the first place. I'm torn for the last question. Ideally the second idea where everyone is equally represented is preferable, but it's not realistic in the least. People will abuse power and take as much as they can get. The first idea seems most in tune with that reality.
Koch isn’t necessarily doing the right thing by practically buying legislation, but he’s not doing anything illegal or wrong. He’s just using the flaws in our political system to his advantage. I think there should be limits on amount people can donate to candidates so people like Koch can’t buy other people into office. Koch should be able to use his wealth to benefit him, but he shouldn’t be able to buy legislation that benefits him and no one else. The government should do something to stop wealthy people like Koch from being able to buy legislation or votes for candidates.
ReplyDeleteWhile Koch is not technically doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law (or himself), he is crossing the ethical boundary by a wide margin. No one citizen should be able to have almost exclusive access to representation in government, especially when many critical issues fall to the wayside in the process. Obviously our political system has deep flaws, and instead of using his influence to fix these issues, Koch seeks only to utilize them to press his own agenda.
ReplyDeleteTo look at this from another perspective, Koch may actually be helping to alleviate the situation he helped create. By highlighting an issue that previously has gone unnoticed, Koch's actions have brought the issue to the political forefront. Hopefully cases like this will bring an overhaul to our current campaign finance system.
Ah, election season. It' s the time of the year where a bunch of old white dudes get to throw their money behind a politician for hopes of personal gain. This. Is. Awful. It is essentially legal bribery. If someone that Koch gives money to gets any sliver of political power, Koch will certainly be waiving that all over whomever's head that is for his own personal gain. As wrong as I think it is, I can see the whole, "It's his money he can do what he wants," side of the argument. But, it is most certainly unfair. The election process needs to be regulated much more to ensure equal opportunity for all candidates. I feel as though there should be a set amount of candidates so you don't have to weed through all the the loons. There should be a set campaign fund as well, but the candidates can do what they want with it. There should also be a set time-frame. That way, candidates could all have a fair opportunity to win and corrupt rich guys don't gain political power.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what we read about this summer. I was disgusting then and now that its that time of year and I'm still disgusted. Big money should not play this big of a role in politics. Imagine how more efficient our political system would be if money did not play a role. Politicians would think for the better and not think about the people that gave them millions of dollars doing their campaign. We always complain about how we get nothing done in washington. This is the main reason. BIG money is ruining what our founding fathers imagined when they drafted our constitution. They are rolling in their graves. This is not what our country is about and we need to do something.
ReplyDeleteI think the issue of telling people what they can and cannot do is a complicated one. On one hand, the Koch brothers do have the right to do mostly whatever they want with their money. They are private citizens who earned their money legally and therefore should have relative freedom regarding what they do with their money. What's the difference between them and a person who donates a hundred dollars to Bernie Sanders? Both are using the amount of money they see fit for the person they believe deserves it. On the other hand, money in American politics is flowing too freely. Money should not be able to buy neither policy not politicians themselves. Koch argues that by donating money, he is able to get things done. I argue that if policy should truly be made in the first place, it will be made whether or not a politician gets paid to make it. That being said, we've learned that motive behind policy making doesn't necessarily make that policy bad. But I still believe that money has become too pervasive in American politics.
ReplyDeleteThe modern American presidential campaign is all money, it isn’t based on who is the more accomplished candidate or who has the best legislation to pass. Campaigns are only successful through funding. The more money the more successful the campaign and the better chance that you have of winning. This method has led to the ability of wealthy individuals to buy politicians favor and form an alliance of sorts. The alliance can benefit the funder through the newly elected politician passing or presenting legislation that benefits said funder. In my mind this is as corrupt as buying votes, and I therefore do not support it. I think the freedom of people to be represented and heard is more important than being able to do what you want with what you have. The voices of the many should out way the voices of the one.
ReplyDelete