Advocacy Groups and Transparency

527 and 501 advocacy groups have become more of an issue in today’s politics. Individual contributors giving money to their candidate is one thing but the combined efforts of a company or group that far outweigh the efforts of a few individuals is quite another. Companies especially often only hold interests in the field of profit and are less inclined to the good of society as a whole. To mark these groups as having the same rights as individuals and then preventing the public from seeing what interests these groups serve creates a lack of transparency that Americans want in politics.

            In recent campaign appearances, President Obama has called for Democrats to contribute in an effort to match the money that is being given to the Republican Party (Cooper). He also mentioned a report by the Center for American Progress that asserted that the Chamber of Commerce may be mixing money from foreign contributors in with its domestic funds in its payments for political advertisements and other activities, allowing for foreign influence on our elections (Cooper). Foreign influence is the last thing that the American people want in their elections of law makers as that kind of conduct could paralyze the country in any foreign policy that has to do with a country that has a now “vested interest” in some of our leaders. This is the extreme but it is something that must be considered carefully and guarded against to prevent things from getting out of control.

            More of a realistic problem is private companies that conduct business at the expense of the American people having more of a say in government in an order to sway it in their direction. Recently President Obama refused to sign a bill that was criticized that it could facilitate foreclosure fraud (Calmes and Streitfeld). The Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called for lenders to voluntarily suspend foreclosures until their internal investigations are completed (Calmes and Steitfeld). Is it not possible that some companies may want to contribute towards candidates that will try and override the president’s veto if it allows them more leeway in conducting their business? This specific case may not be a problem but it shows how companies who have a stake in legislation passed concerning their field of business may want to work towards promoting a candidate more favorable to their interests.

            In American industries there is a need for transparency to prevent a powerful corporation from abusing its power. The same is true of American government. If people are aware of illegalities taking place, action is more likely to be taken. This process acts as a deterrent for most companies if they are ever tempted. If government is subject to heavy corporate influence then that transparency is lost along with accountability. Governments should certainly consider the needs of industry as they help make this country strong and provide goods, services, and jobs for American citizens. There is balance that must be maintained and a standard that must be upheld.

Calmes, Jackie, and David Streitfeld. "Obama to Veto Bill That Could Speed Foreclosures." The

New York Times 08 Oct. 2010, New York ed., B1 sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 07 Oct. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/business/08mortgage.html?ref=politics>.

Cooper, Helene. "Obama Calls for Voters to Outweigh Outside Money." The New York Times 08

Oct. 2010, New York ed., A16 sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 07 Oct. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/us/politics/08campaign.html?ref=politics>.