The issue of money in politics is not new. Those with the biggest pockets are able to sway government policies through donations, fundraisers and campaign finances. Analyzing this from a comparative politics perspective can prove difficult, as countries tend to deal with this issue in different ways. In America, the existence of PAC’s and Super PAC’s gives way to a disproportionate influence within Congress and the executive body, while in the UK, donors can essentially buy access to government officials and ministers. The lack of regulation on money in politics has led to a need for serious reform. Although issues like climate change and Brexit pose a more serious and immediate threat, it is difficult to ignore the fact that climate change cannot be helped without serious political organization and bipartisanship. Under a system like the USA’s, dark money from organizations like Phillip Morris, General Motors and Exxon Mobil can lead to groups like the Heartland Institute forming. They keep prominent climate change deniers on payroll and prevent any real bipartisan policy making, or change taking place. The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs FEC decided that corporations could effectively spend freely on election campaigns, and significantly increased the power and influence of PAC’s and Super PACS. This level of influence over election results is both undemocratic, and unfair on other candidates. In the 2016 US election, Bernie Sanders vowed not to take any money from outside groups and took only money from voters and personal donations up to a certain amount, whereas Hillary Clinton received millions in donations from outside sources, and a highly disproportionate amount from Super PACS in comparison to Sanders. This opened up debate over electoral reform, however what this really highlights is that money within politics has a disproportionate influence over certain candidates that would act in the favor of large corporations. This also plays a large role within the UK, as involvement with Saudi Arabia displays another instance in which money within politics can skew policy decisions away from what the people desire, toward the desires of corporations and politicians. While a majority of UK citizens would agree that Saudi Arabia’s desires and actions do not align with what the British people would consider their values and goals, the British government, under influence from weapons manufacturers and a mutually beneficial relationship with Saudi Arabia agreed to what is known as the ‘Al-Yamamah’ arms deals in which the UK illegally traded 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day to the UK government, in exchange for British fighter Jets. This mixture between so-called ‘British ideals’ and money within politics skews what the beliefs and goals of the people, and the beliefs and goals of what parliament are. Money influences the direction of policy, and although a normative issue, funds can be measured, studied and analyzed allowing access to a difficult moral debate. These examples display why, above all else money is the main problem within politics today, and although other issues may appear more threatening like climate change, or war or even health crises, the main force behind these is actually money.