Imagine a nation where a just and equal government is promised. Power is arranged to be held in the hands of elected representatives who take non-biased actions with the best interests of their constituents in mind.

The United States by no means meets this farfetched ideal. Instead, the political playing field is largely manipulated by the shifty hands of massive corporations.

Their intentions? To gain favor of the government and push for admittance of legislation the corporations will benefit from.

One alarming statistic is the surge of campaign support through financial backing in recent years. AT&T, the top contributor for the political spectrum from 1989-2010, spent $1.7 million total in the 1990 election cycle, yet 20 years later, spent $3 million in the 2010 election cycle, almost double their previous expenditures.

Additionally, Democrat Barack Obama raised $745 million, compared to Republican John McCain’s $368 million raised in the 2008 presidential race.

The accumulated amount of cash raised by candidates for presidential campaigns, and the relation to the winner is simply another confirmation of the aforementioned surge of campaign financial support.

Had Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States, not raised roughly twice the money that John McCain had raised, it is questionable whether he would have succeeded in the 2008 presidential race.

Therefore, the financial backing of donors is ultimately what leads a candidate to victory; money is the key and assumedly, for the candidate with more dough, election will be a cakewalk. Is this the America to be proud of? A land where money is king and charismatic leaders can claim the crown?

Of course, Obama arguably raised the $745 million through persistent campaigning and efficient means of inspiring volunteers to spread his name like wildfire. Furthermore, one would expect those who supported him financially to know his policies and future plans and favor them.

Another politician the media has flocked around because of lobbyist interactions in the past two decades is Republican House Representative and Minority Leader John Boehner.

Boehner has been involved in numerous controversial and questionable lobbyist interactions throughout his political career, most notably his support for tobacco and cigarette companies.

In June 1995, Boehner, with immense financial backing and influence from tobacco companies, distributed several checks from Brown & Williamson Corporation’s political action committee, all addressed to Republican House members. Even more appalling is the fact that Boehner had the nerve to hand them out on the House floor, either a slap in the face to the American ideal supporting honest politics or preventative measures to prevent accusation of an underhand deal.

Either way, the fact that a single industry or even a single corporation can wield such immense influence over politics simply by means of money is frightening.

Now, 15 years after the aforementioned incident, Boehner is again accumulating attention for his interactions with lobbyists as the one year anniversary nears for another incident concerning over 100 lobbyist groups and blockage of a bill. As “A G.O.P. Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists” by Eric Liptop of New York Times points out, it is hard to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars, private jet rides, and trips to luxurious resorts, but not be influenced by the providing corporations.

Escalating the worrisome corrupting influence is the landmark Supreme Court case earlier in January this year, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that the government cannot ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The 5-4 division of in the Supreme Court reflected the slight majority opinion which argued that the government cannot regulate political speech; therefore campaign spending cannot be limited or regulated because the contributions are a “form of speech”.

The reasoning behind the ruling is understandable but we must ask, is it worth the devastating corruption that will penetrate the political membrane in coming years?

Furthermore, while corporations must still disclose their spending and provide disclaimers in advertisements, a sigh of relief, they still brandish their loaded pockets as weapons with which they can steer the direction of legislature.

As a nation, we can only wait, cringing with the hope that politicians can steer a straight moral course.

This is the vicious cycle of corruption in American and surely foreign politics. Is it just? No.

Should it be stopped? Not necessarily; without political funding, candidate names would never reach the far corners of the United States. Yes, even Palin’s house with the lakefront view of Russia would not be reached.

However, it is important to understand that politics in America is very shady business.

Very shady business indeed.