The Process Of Lobbying Through Political Action Committees In The US

The issue of financial misconduct hampers processes of successful governance across the globe (Gold & Narayanswamy, 2016). Major democratic governments have been concerned with measures to reduce corruption. For example, in the United States, the issue of corruption is a public concern and citizens expect the government to set and implement frameworks meant to reduce, prevent, and completely mitigate corruption. However, currently, different forms of unethical financial practices have emerged, which could shape, prevent, or impact effective governance and the fight against corruption. In the United States, corporate and individual lobbying during elections has influenced elections and congress. Primarily, this has become one of the key concerns among scholars when it comes to the fight against corruption (Igan & Mishra, 2014). One of the major characteristics of the concerns regarding corporate and individual lobbying during elections is the manner in which the expenditures have been unlimited with little scrutiny for ethical practices. Literature ascertains that when corporations engage in political-related lobbying, it creates a conflict of interests. In the Dartmouth College Case of 1819, the chief justice defined corporations as artificial beings, which implied that they only have powers that are limited to what they have been conferred to undertake (Igan & Mishra, 2014). However, the Santa Clara Case recognized and defined corporations as persons. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment echoed that corporations are not citizens and therefore cannot be perceived as natural persons, which means the participation of corporations in election-related lobbying is limited under the statement clauses. Nevertheless, corporations are still part of the lobbying activities during election campaigns.

The expenditure and the lobbying activities are linked to the roles and mandate of the Political Action Committees (PAC). PAC collects and spends money during elections, which implies that other interest groups are not allowed to undertake the role (Nownes, 2013). When other groups want to collect and spend money relating to elections, they are required to create a PAC. By 2010, there were over 4,618 PACs based on the Federal Election Commission. In 2019, the PACs raised a total of $555.7 million and later contributed over $174.4 million to candidates during that election period. The lobbying expenditures have been estimated at $4.2 billion per any single political cycle (Igan & Mishra, 2014). The data collected between 1999 and 2006 shows a lower expenditure; however, the value has been increasing over the years. During elections, PACs act on behalf of the candidates to collect and spend the amount based on the approved criteria. The role of lobbying in political elections has been used to strengthen the influence of different candidates (Gold & Narayanswamy, 2016). The percentage of expenditure has influenced the activities of candidates when seeking support.

Apart from elections, lobbying cases have equally dominated the Congressional bills and policies. Scholars who have examined the lobbying tendencies on bills in the United States have ascertained that these policy dimensions have been associated with high expenditures. For example, different bills have been passed in Congress after significant financial lobbying. Some of the key examples include the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act, and the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act (Donnelly, 2016). A similar situation was witnessed with the enactment of the American Dream Downpayment Act. However, the percentage expenditure for congressional bills varies depending on the scope and the targeted policy area. A study that focused on congressional bill lobbying found out that the average expenditure is evenly distributed across the reincarnations. Through the outcome of such lobbying, it is apparent that there is a relationship between the politically-influenced financial efforts in the corporate sector and the financial regulations enacted or reincarnated by congress.

Although different people have expressed contradictory perspectives on political-related lobbying, it important to highlight how PACs have played a key role in shaping campaigns and election expenditures. The inclusion of money from eternal mobilization into the political pursuits is considered as a more complicated agenda when compared to the process of determining who wins a particular election (Donnelly, 2016). In fact, lobbying has been shaping the perception of the public regarding a particular candidate especially the executive. The cost of election campaigns has been the reason why many potential politicians have been unable to ascent to political positions; however, through lobbying has fostered the extent to which an individual becomes closer to winning (Donnelly, 2016). Nevertheless, this is not usually guaranteed but it is apparent that those who fail to raise election budgets are subjected to loss. On the contrary, lobbying has been used to influence the outcomes of major political decisions after elections. Those who contribute higher amounts towards a specific lobbying course, for example, corporate ventures and prominent business individuals, have been considered influential.

A key scene in the U.S. elections is the role that lobbying played in Donald Trump’s election into the executive. RNC and private or corporate donations to Donald trump in 2016 influenced the manner in which he was presented to the public as a presidential candidate. The 19 consultants initially employed by Trump’s team were increased to 200 (Lee, 2019). By May 2016, he had spent more than $63 million. Notably, it is estimated that the pro-Trump team spent a total of $531 million. On the other hand, it is important to note that by 2017, over $92 million has been channeled to firms that provided consulting services. When compared to Hillary Clinton, Trump had an estimated proposed budget of $957.6 million against $1.4 billion for the democrats. Trump received over $79 million form super PACs while Hillary got $204.4 million (Narayanswamy, 2017). Former presidents such as Barack Obama had different views regarding lobbying for campaigns; however, their stern stand changed over time due to the overwhelming compulsion (Fisher, 2018). Super PACs contributions played a key role in the success of Trump by offering financial support to cushion campaign expenditures during the 2016 period.

Ultimately, while the process of lobbying through PACs is considered as an organized way of supporting political and congressional complains, it is equally an avenue for corrupt practices and political favoritism. There are current efforts to reduce lobbying in elections and congress based on the increased debate among aspirants and policymakers. One of the proposed strategies includes the establishment of a minimum limit that should be set to support a candidate’s agenda during the elections. Other proponents have focused on the total abolishment of lobbying. However, based on this review, there is a need for more research to determine how corruption loopholes could be addressed to enhance the efficiency and accountability of lobbying framework and practices.