**TL;DR: When corporations donate to political campaigns, it puts the politician in debt to them. Since corporate interests are not in the best interest of the people, they should not be being implemented by politicians. Therefore, corporations should not be able to donate to campaigns** Although there are some restrictions on corporate donations to political campaigns, there are just as many (acknowledged) loopholes. One particularly shady example is the American Legislative Exchange Council ([ALEC](https://www.alec.org)). [ALEC](https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed) is a thinktank comprised of nearly every major corporation, from Exxon to Coca-Cola. Although politicians usually cannot accept donations from corporations, corporations can donate to ALEC (or are already a part of it), and then ALEC essentially campaigns for them; making ads and the like. ALEC *also* creates model bills that support their agendas and gives them to various state legislators, who are then bound by an understood debt since ALEC is largely responsible for getting them elected. Similarly, PACs (Political Action Committees) support many politicians and their campaigns. This is bad for (at least) two reasons - the first being that what is in the best interest of corporations is rarely in the best interest of the people. This is a whole other argument, but basically, their goal is to maximize profit at all costs, and in this case the “costs” include but are not limited to unfair wage, environmental damage, and pushing smaller businesses out. Secondly, their donations put a certain kind of politician in the race, since you have to have an extremely high minimum of money raised before you can even get on the debate stage. Politicians who do not accept this money, who are not “bought”, have a slim chance of even getting on the ballot. Proponents of the corporate right to donate to campaigns say that it’s a matter of “free speech”, but in fact giving corporations this right reduces their own individual power of “free speech”, since the corporation has a much greater ability to donate than the average person.

**TL;DR – Corporations cannot physically vote and so should not be able to influence political campaigns. However, should they be permitted to donate money, their actions must be openly and independently regulated.** • It is hardly controversial to assert that [donations can influence political campaigns](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-money-still-rules-the-roost-in-british-politics/), thus it is reasonable to suggest that only the electorate – i.e. individuals who are capable of placing a ballot in the box – should be able to make donations. Conversely, corporate personhood is a [legal fiction](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/12/personhood-for-corporations-and-chimpanzees-is-an-essential-legal-fiction.html); they are not real individuals who can vote. Hence, they should not have the power to influence the outcome of elections in this way. • Moreover, corporations are immensely wealthier than the vast majority of private citizens. In order to prevent corporations from dominating the political landscape, one could argue that it is better to prevent them from donating money altogether. • However, we can also acknowledge that, like private citizens, corporations are stakeholders in the state’s economic and political affairs. Considering this, one could suggest that _if_ corporations donate money, the amount should be limited and the transaction should be recorded on a register. This practice will help to promote pluralism, fairness, and transparency.

**Corporations and politics do not mix well.** • Sums of money paid by corporations to political campaigns are effectively bribes disguised as _‘donations’_. If they were truly donations, they would not be accompanied by the expectation of policy change and political favours. • Corporate money in politics is a particularly controversial topic. Morally, there is a lot wrong with the concept that companies and corporations with a lot of money, can buy into a politician or party and then benefit from their position of power. This can be on different scales - donations can be made to smaller politicians, like those running for Congress, or similarly bigger politicians, like those running for President of the United States. • For example, once elected to the office, Donald Trump approved the construction of an oil pipeline, which was particularly controversial considering the _climate crisis_. During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump took a lot of [donations from oil companies]( https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/do-corporate-campaign-contributions-buy-influence) - it’s estimated that the energy sector contributed nearly _1 million dollars_ to his campaign. This obviously poses a considerable ethical problem. • Money in politics is a real problem. It has been for a long time and will probably continue to be while the American political system remains as it is. Buying political influence is extremely wrong and is why I agree that corporations should not be able to donate to political campaigns.