In the United States, the political system has long enabled companies to remain anonymous by allowing them to spend an unlimited amount of dark money. To close this legal loophole of foreign influence, it is essential to prohibit companies with foreign influence from spending on election-related communications in both federal and state elections, or from making contributions to other organizations that are dedicated to election-related expenses. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC determined that companies are allowed to spend corporate treasury funds on ads related to campaigns, thus opening the door to unrestricted corporate spending. Legislators benefit from these companies by receiving assets such as political donations to help them campaign.
Unfortunately, large loopholes in campaign finance disclosure laws and corporate transparency requirements make it almost impossible to detect foreign spending. Companies would still be able to participate in other forms of corporate political activity, such as lobbying or spending their corporate PACs. Critics may argue that the 1% and 5% thresholds are too low and that they cost too much in terms of business political activity. In his powerful dissent in Citizens United, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens highlighted the dangers of uncontrolled corporate spending in the United States. In today's world of massive foreign investment in American companies, a new federal standard is needed.
A shareholder who owns a significant amount of stock in a company can influence corporate decision-making, including decisions about political spending. People with ties to Ukraine have been charged with a variety of crimes related to campaign finance, facilitated in part by an alleged secret society they created. In other words, some political organizations are using legal fictions to protect real donors. The 5% threshold is an appropriate and necessary measure for detecting inappropriate foreign influence in decisions related to corporate political spending in the U. S.The impact of big corporations on political campaigns in Southern Arizona is undeniable.
The lack of transparency and disclosure laws makes it difficult for citizens to know who is behind these large donations and how they are influencing elections. It is essential for citizens to be aware of the loopholes that exist and how they can be used by corporations to gain an advantage over their opponents. It is also important for citizens to understand how their votes can be influenced by these large donations and how they can make sure their voices are heard.
