While corporate influence on Washington, D.C. is not a new phenomenon; it has exponentially risen in scale over the past several decades. Corporate Political Action (CPA) is no longer subtle and neither is public opinion. A recent CBS poll shows that 84 percent of the public express a lack of confidence in corporations and another 67 percent view corporate executives as dishonest. Furthermore, 38 percent of respondents view “Big Business” as the greatest threat to the country, second only to “Big Government” (Ciulla, Martin, Solomon 2007, 514). This salience in public opinion is not unfounded, evidenced by the fact that 83% of all Fortune 500 companies routinely make political donations (the 17% that don’t are usually foreign nationals prohibited
…show more content…
While corporate greed and self-interestedness may be a product of human nature and a Capitalist system – corporate influence becomes unethical when it fails to consider the rights of others and profits at the expense of the general good (Gao 2008, 153 ). In other words, Corporate Political Actions become unethical mainly as a result of means (i.e. PAC contributions, lobbying efforts) as opposed to motivation (i.e. human traits such as greed, selfishness). According to Utilitarianism, corporations should pursue the greatest good for the greatest amount of people and, according to Virtue Theory, corporate action should uphold certain virtues in the eyes of the public. Contemporary Corporate Political Actions (CPAs) are in constant contention with both of these ethical theories. Therefore, in the following paper, I will argue that much of today’s corporate influence is unethical, as well as offer an ethical framework in which we can judge CPAs. I will use companies such as Enron and Halliburton as the basis for my discussion on corporate influence and, although I draw from previous ethical theories, the framework I offer will be …show more content…
Bush Administration era (2000-2008) saw some of the most blatant state-corporate crime in recent memory, as corporate America extended its reach beyond Congress and into the Executive Branch. Although more than 3/4ths of the Cabinet secretaries appointed between 1897 and 1972 came from corporate backgrounds, there had never been a member of the Executive Branch with the level of corporate connection that Vice President Dick Cheney held (Draffan 2013, 18). Cheney maintained the CEO position at Halliburton, an oilfield services company, from 1995 to 2000. There was virtually no gap between Cheney’s tenure, which meant that, “…Cheney had a direct financial interest in the value of Halliburton’s stock and financial profitability during the first two years of his vice presidency” (Michalowski 2006, 22). In this case, Cheney was a part of corporate influence and, thus, engaged in numerous Corporate Political Actions (CPAs) while serving as Vice President. That said, the relationship between Cheney and Halliburton established a precedent of increased corporate-state access that still resonates in American politics. Overall, from 2001 through 2003, Halliburton reported spending $990 thousand dollars on lobbying, yet receiving around $6 billion in defense contracts (22). Many other corporations within the oil sector were effectively shut out in favor of
While corporate greed and self-interestedness may be a product of human nature and a Capitalist system – corporate influence becomes unethical when it fails to consider the rights of others and profits at the expense of the general good (Gao 2008, 153 ). In other words, Corporate Political Actions become unethical mainly as a result of means (i.e. PAC contributions, lobbying efforts) as opposed to motivation (i.e. human traits such as greed, selfishness). According to Utilitarianism, corporations should pursue the greatest good for the greatest amount of people and, according to Virtue Theory, corporate action should uphold certain virtues in the eyes of the public. Contemporary Corporate Political Actions (CPAs) are in constant contention with both of these ethical theories. Therefore, in the following paper, I will argue that much of today’s corporate influence is unethical, as well as offer an ethical framework in which we can judge CPAs. I will use companies such as Enron and Halliburton as the basis for my discussion on corporate influence and, although I draw from previous ethical theories, the framework I offer will be …show more content…
Bush Administration era (2000-2008) saw some of the most blatant state-corporate crime in recent memory, as corporate America extended its reach beyond Congress and into the Executive Branch. Although more than 3/4ths of the Cabinet secretaries appointed between 1897 and 1972 came from corporate backgrounds, there had never been a member of the Executive Branch with the level of corporate connection that Vice President Dick Cheney held (Draffan 2013, 18). Cheney maintained the CEO position at Halliburton, an oilfield services company, from 1995 to 2000. There was virtually no gap between Cheney’s tenure, which meant that, “…Cheney had a direct financial interest in the value of Halliburton’s stock and financial profitability during the first two years of his vice presidency” (Michalowski 2006, 22). In this case, Cheney was a part of corporate influence and, thus, engaged in numerous Corporate Political Actions (CPAs) while serving as Vice President. That said, the relationship between Cheney and Halliburton established a precedent of increased corporate-state access that still resonates in American politics. Overall, from 2001 through 2003, Halliburton reported spending $990 thousand dollars on lobbying, yet receiving around $6 billion in defense contracts (22). Many other corporations within the oil sector were effectively shut out in favor of