While corporations can fund political elections, political contributions from corporations or businesses should be illegal because corporations are buying politicians. This makes the politician vulnerable to pressure from the highest donor and, the persuasive power of money clouds people’s judgment. In the 2012 Presidential election, the US political system spent $1,107,114,702.00 for the Democratic presidential candidate and $1,238,097,161.00 for Republican presidential candidate for a total of $2,345,211,863.00 just to get elected to office (www.opensecrets.org / Center for Responsive Politics). All contemporary democratic societies are based on systems of representation. In a theoretical representative democracy, citizens form positions on issues and convey their views to elected representatives, whose job is to make policies consistent with those positions. (Bey, D. and Mizruchi, M. 2005). This is the theory however, if a corporation or a group of corporations donate money to a political party, they expect something in return. Like favoritism when the politician votes for certain bills or political contracts awarded in their favor. This type of structure in government is known as elite pluralism. American society was dominated politically by a small group of leaders that included both the heads of major organizations as well as top political officials. These elites, having formed a largely cohesive community, unified not only through common interests in maintaining their privileges but also through common socialization experiences (including attendance at elite prep schools and universities), common membership in social clubs and policy-making organizations, and social and kinship ties. (Bey, D. and Mizruchi, M. 2005). During the 1980s, data on the campaign contributions of corporate political action committees (PACs) in the United States became widely available for the first time. There is considerable debate over the meaning of these contributions and, as is well-known, there are several alternative forms of business political action. The weight of the evidence suggests, however, that corporations view PAC contributions as expressions of the firms’ perceived political interests (see Mizruchi, 1992; Chapter 5; Clawson, Neustadtl, and Scott, 1992). The political parties are supported by certain corporations, Democrats were and still do control most of the Union workers. Republicans have a lot of support from white collar and big business operations. If the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations or AFLCIO, donates to the Democratic/Liberal political system they want a return for their investment. Which, is not to say is a bad thing. Unions support the worker when no one else will. Unions and the businesses they represent create jobs for the country and help the economy. The same holds true for the Republicans/conservatives, the financial sector is far and away the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties, with insurance companies, securities and investment firms, real estate interests and commercial banks providing the bulk of that money. The financial sector contributes generous sums to both parties, with Republicans traditionally collecting more than Democrats they too want their voices heard. (www.opensecrets.org). The big corporations who contribute millions are utilizing the perspective of ethical egoism. The literal meaning of "ego" comes from the Greek word for "self," or "I," and that notion is at the center of egoism: I do what I want to do in order to increase my own happiness, my own pleasure. Simply put, I know what I want, and something is good, or right, if it helps me to obtain that desire (and bad, or wrong, if it interferes with my doing so). If doing something promotes my own happiness or helps me reach my desired goals, I should do it. That is the fundamental principle of ethical egoism. (Mosser, K. 2013).If you don't have money to buy a politician your concerns won't be heard that seems to be the trend. The deontologist would consider the fact that big business contribute millions to the political party of their choice is not a moral issue. Rather than looking at the consequences of an act, deontology looks at the reason for which an act is done, and the rule according to which one chooses to act. Deontology doesn't deny that acts have consequences; rather, it insists that those consequences should not play a role in our moral evaluation of such acts (Mosser, K. 2013).

A natural way to see whether an act is the right thing to do (or the wrong thing to do) is to look at its results, or consequences. Utilitarianism argues that, given a set of choices, the act we should choose is that which produces the best results for the greatest number affected by that choice (Mosser, K. 2013). Looking at political contributions from corporations through the eyes of Utilitarian, political contributions in the millions to candidates is the right thing to do if that person will help the greatest number of people. However, this is not the only result. In the process of helping the greatest number of people, the contributions are clouding the judgment of the individual in such a way that now the politician is thinking about the coffers instead of the issue at hand.

The most important reason it should be illegal is because corporations are buying politicians. The politicians are losing touch with their constituents, and the problems that they face every day.
A position that contrasts sharply with the classic ethical theories of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics—and most religions—is called ethical egoism. The literal meaning of "ego" comes from the Greek word for "self," or "I," and that notion is at the center of egoism: I do what I want to do in order to increase my own happiness, my own pleasure. Simply put, I know what I want, and something is good, or right, if it helps me to obtain that desire (and bad, or wrong, if it interferes with my doing so). If doing something promotes my own happiness or helps me reach my desired goals, I should do it. That is the fundamental principle of ethical egoism

In conclusion, although people think corporations represent the people that work for them, it should be illegal for two main reasons. First, if you don't have money to buy a politician your concerns won't be heard. But most importantly, corporations are buying politicians. Which is morally and ethically wrong.

References

Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and Social Responsibility (Second ed.). (S. Wainright, Ed.) San Diego: Bridgepoint Education Inc.

Bey, D. and Mizruchi, M. (2005). Corporate control, interfirm relations, and corporate power1. In The handbook of political sociology: States, civil societies, and globalization.