Corruption will be created by the elimination of the

Corruption is said to be the face of a democracy; that is, a vote is merely an illusion. Money is the true game changer in terms of political influence. I will be discussing the influence which money or private interests can have on a leader’s decisions and voting procedures, and if money really is the defining feature of a democracy. Influence is the pinnacle of achieving change or preventing it, which is why it is an important issue to discuss – how people or organisations are able to buy specific influence in supposedly democratic countries. This is clear in countries such as the USA – with the federal government drawing up and sending a tax bill which reduces corporate tax rates from 35% to 21% and increasing taxes on the bottom of the economic ladder from 10% to 12%. Specific tax deductions such as the elimination of a standard $2500 deduction for taking out a mortgage have been removed – this is in order to compensate for the cuts to the rich as a $1.5 trillion deficit will be created by the elimination of the Estate Tax and corporate tax rate deductions. As such, it is important that policies which favour the rich be discussed, as it affects global political systems in one form or another – even if it is not immediately clear that corruption is indeed at play. Main BodyPolicies have been introduced by various governments which have negatively affected the general population whereas favouring those with extreme amounts of wealth. This can be linked back to those who donate to political campaign contributions or extort politicians in order to introduce policies such as tax breaks which favour them and nobody else. An example of this would be in Ukraine. This is due to the fact that corruption is rampant in Ukraine and as such it is often referred to as a kleptocracy and not a democracy. Crucially, this can be found in the Financial Times which states that “You get $1,500 for the capture of a kalashnikov (rifle), and $10,000 if you catch a ‘terrorist” – this means that the oligarch who is the governor had appointed bounties on the heads of the Ukrainian separatist movement. Consequently, this means that the police force had been bribed by the oligarchs – which means that they no longer served the needs of the population, but rather the very wealthy. However, one could argue that it is not corruption at play, but rather that the police force are not paid enough money and as such are forced to take money from individuals merely in order to survive. This can also be found to be true via the Financial Times which states that:”The problem left over from the old regime is that most government salaries were low and so employees relied on kickbacks and corruption,” Mr Filatov says. “For the police to function properly they need to get paid adequately.”As such it is clear that the government’s inability to pay the police force a nominal salary forces them to take bribes and commit actions which may be deemed corrupt. This further illustrates that the aim of the police force is not to serve the very wealthy, but rather to survive – as such they take payments from the oligarchal governors. This is also because the oligarchs are the governors of specific regions in Ukraine, as such they have no choice in the matter if they follow through with the decision or not.Corruption is often so commonplace that people often do not notice it’s existence due to it hiding in plain sight. This is exemplified in the USA, where in effect legalised bribery has been deemed okay – this is in the form of campaign contributions in which wealthy individuals or corporations can donate money to a candidate through the usage of a PAC – Political Action Committee. This is where politicians or political parties can raise money to fund their electoral campaigns or presidency bids – however, those who are donating do so not for the kindness of their hearts, but for something in return. In the normal form of a PAC, a person or politician can only accept $5000 per person – and cannot accept money from corporations. However, a different form of PAC exists in the USA, this is known as a Super PAC where no limits exist on how much people can accept or any rules set in place – as such they are free to raise unlimited sums of money from even nefarious sources, they may also spend unlimited sums on whatever they deem necessary. This can be found before when Super PAC’s were introduced in 2008 when Hillary Clinton supported a Medicare For All option for healthcare only to immediately turn around in 2012 to go against it – 2 years after Super PAC’s were implemented. Since then a total of $1.4 billion has been donated to various candidates through the usage of Super PAC’s – with Hillary Clinton receiving over $200 million over 5 years. Consequently, Hillary Clinton chose to adopt a weaker version of a single-payer proposal – a public option.However, one could argue that Super PAC’s are not acts of corruption as they help to fund the ludicrous amount of money required to run a presidential bid – exceeding $1 billion in every run against a candidate. This is because political advertisements are protected as a classification of free speech, and advertisements for political campaigns cost huge amounts of money especially for highly urbanised areas – be it New York, California or otherwise. This means that in order to fund the