Keeping money in politics will never have a positive outcome. It’s doesn’t matter what any of the party leaders tell you, money in politics is the blood at keeps the corruption in our government alive and well. It’s what puts dollars in the pockets of sellout politicians who make grave decisions based on their big donors. Don’t believe those that tell you it’s necessary to keep the party alive and functional, or those that claim their organizations donate it to charity. In one manner or another, that money is sailing right into the hands of the greedy, those who care for a paycheck and political power more than the well-being of their people. The key to having politicians who represent the people is to have grassroots campaigns that make a point of only accepting money from ordinary people and other groups that fight for the common man, and never from avarice fueled corporations that donate with an intention to sway politicians’ stances or gain advantage from a political outcome.

Never will there be a time when a corporate donation does not affect policy. Some may argue something along the lines of the democrats taking Wall Street’s economic power very seriously despite many major members including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton receiving large sums of money from them. I’d counter with the question, did they do enough? That’s the sly thing about politics; sometimes simply reducing the damage is a win. Progressive democrats as well as others that identify themselves outside of the party were never content with Obama’s approach or Clinton’s. Senator Sanders refused to take such donations, and his plan to break up big banks regardless of “risk factor” and implement a speculation tax was much more aggressive.

Cases of this can be found in almost every decision made by our politicians. Consider a case I personally hold close to heart as a future pharmacist and someone who was raised in New Jersey. A few months ago, an amendment led by Senator Sanders to lower prescription drug prices in the United States by importing the same exact drugs from Canada at a significantly lower price failed to pass. Although many people were responsible for its failure to pass by a slim margin, Democratic Senator Booker’s (NJ) vote against the amendment particularly interested me. This is because Senator Booker actually received an enormous $267,338 for the past six years since the failure of the amendment from the pharmaceutical industry. While some defend his vote by saying his state is the home of many pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the amendment would result in a loss of jobs, I doubt that would be the case. Rumor has it that Booker is considering running for president at some point in the future, and what would be a better incentive to vote against the amendment than the large funds he’s receiving from one of the most indisputably greedy and corrupt industries in the United States.

These are just a few examples about how accepting donations from special interests affects policy. However, they also affect the information we see and the bias narratives we are fed by “neutral” news outlets. Consider the Clinton Foundation and the substantial amounts of money they have received from various sources of news such as PBS, CNN, The New York Times, etc. All these news networks have donated large sums of money to the Clinton Foundation, and in return they often get access to exclusive stories or interviews. Simply put, news networks could pay a charitable organization and in return were given favors by the Clinton’s and the organization to obtain stories. While initially that doesn’t seem so bad, the end result is having those same news outlets releasing stories that are clearly bias in favor of the Clintons and corporate democrats. Simply comparing the title of the stories between unbiased sources such as the Associated Press or U.S. Uncut and those of donors such as CNN and The New York Times shows an abundantly clear contrast. The unbiased sources simply state what the article is discussing whereas donor sources often make their partners sound victorious or their enemies sound defeated before even reading the article. But that’s just scratching the surface. These donor sources are known for putting out bogus stories to spew hate or negative emotions toward their opposition as well as pinpointing specific situations and discussing an appealing side of situation rather than being comprehensive enough for readers to decide for themselves. Simply put, special donor donations for politicians not only affect policy but also affects the information we are receiving from sources that claim to be reputable and unbiased.

I only selected a few cases that I thought were relevant to explore this issue but it can be found in all shapes and forms, particularly in American politics. I also spoke critically of the Democrats, but this does not rule out Republicans either; as corrupt as the Democrats may be, Republicans run almost exclusively on avarice and whatever puts the most money into their pockets as well as the upper class. Nevertheless, the issue is evident among both classes, and initiative must be taken to elect leaders who thrive on their supporters and make a point to not accept donations from special interest. It is vital in order to keep politics clean and ensure that it represents the people and not those with enough pocket change to stir American politics in their favor.