Money And Politics Critical Thinking Samples

The abundance of campaign finance laws and regulations demonstrates an attempt to equalize the potential impact of wealthy contributors influencing politics. A person who is wealthy can provide generous monetary contributions to the candidate of their choice and in return, that candidate supports positions and policies that are beneficial to that individual. A person of low or moderate financial means cannot afford to make sizeable contributions to influence legislation. The problem that contributions create is that the elite rather than the people end up controlling politics and implementing policies that may be unfavorable to the masses, but benefit the few elite.
The problem of campaign contributions and donations is also noticeable in the judiciary. The judiciary is entrusted to uphold the law and to decide legal disputes in a fair, neutral, and unbiased manner. A judge is supposed to be detached from the case and only make decisions based on legal rules and grounds, such as the admissibility or exclusion of evidence or witness testimony. While some judges are appointed, eliminating the pressures that contributions could create, other judges are elected through constituent vote. In the case of the elected judge, contributions serve to taint that judge’s impartiality. If a particular person or group contributes a substantial amount of money to a judge, the judge will certainly make rulings that are favorable to that donor or will decide a case in that donor’s favor.
Similar to the way that money talks in politics, with an elected judiciary, money has the same influence over judicial decisions. While the judiciary is supposed to be free from the conventional political pressures, contributions turn the judiciary into an entirely political battle. Parties with the most money will be able to make contributions to those judges that support their viewpoints and will necessarily decide cases in their favor. Since many judicial decisions set precedent and are binding on future cases, the precedent set by the judge who was heavily influenced by the large donor may serve as a detriment to future litigants. Judges are supposed to make disinterested rulings and should not have an interest in which party prevails. But contributions have the effect of giving the judge a personal stake in the outcome of the case, tainting the independence of the entire judiciary.