The analysis begins with a presentation of data finishing contributions of the tobacco lobby during the 2000 presidential campaign. Analysis follows the presentation of data. The set back of leading tobacco lobby ratifiers is on the following page.
A partitioning of tobacco lobby contributions by type of contributor indicates that soft money contributions accounted for approximately 63 percent of add tobacco contributions. Overall, tobacco-related PACs directed 83 percent of their contributions to Republicans in 2000. The breakdown by contributor type was as follows ("2000 Presidential public life: Contributions from Industries", 2000):
Table Leading tobacco plant Lobby Contributors (Soft money, PAC, Individual)
Activists to scrubbing: Don't pardon big tobacco. (2001, July 8). American Lung Association, 1. Retrieved from the meshwork 2002-03-04 at: http://www.lungusa.org/press/legislative/ leg060801.html
Brown & Williamson Tobacco: $363 thousand (68 percent to Republicans)
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco $522 thousand (77 percent to Republicans)
Zegart, D. (2000, November 6). Bush: Marlboro's man. Nation, 271(14), 8-9.
The public and the press now put up politicians and political campaigns to severely on contributions from businesses and industries that receive special favors. Because the public and the press expect it, however, does not mean that they approve of the practice. Special favors for major campaign contributors seldom benefit other members of American society. As examples, campaign spending by the tobacco industry through PACs leads to continue federal subsidies for tobacco farmers and rejection of efforts to regulate tobacco as a drug. The only people who benefit from these activities are tobacco farmers, tobacco-products manufacturers, the health care professionals who treat tobacco-related illness, and the politicians who receive tobacco's campaign contributions.
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment