These are really two different questions—I'm only going to spend time on the issue of commas with because. (You should ask a separate question for the case of but.)
It depends on the context. Sometimes you need a comma and sometimes you don't.
Here's an excellent example and explanation from The Chicago Manual of Style FAQ blog:
Q. When do you use a comma before “because”? I feel that I never need to put a comma before “because” because any information after it is necessary. What are your thoughts?
A. I disagree. Here’s the old example that comes to mind:
He didn’t run, because he was afraid.
He didn’t run because he was afraid.
In the first sentence, “because he was afraid” isn’t necessary; the main thing is that he didn’t run, and the reason is incidental. The second sentence, which omits the comma, is unclear. It might mean that he ran, but not because he was afraid. To prevent confusion, sometimes you need the comma. For more examples, see CMOS 6.31.
To expand on that:
He didn't run, because he was afraid.
This means that the reason he didn't run was that he was afraid.
He didn't run because he was afraid.
This could be interpreted in a couple of ways:
- The reason he didn't run was that he was afraid.
- He did run but it wasn't because of fear—it was because he saw somebody break into his car and start to drive it away.
Without going into any detail, you can refer to Daily Writing Tips on the use of commas before but. However, the short answer is a particular construct will determine whether or not a comma should be used.
Postscript: This answers the question as it's currently written—which is interesting in terms of general grammar. But I have just noticed that you provided more information in comments below the question. If the question is edited to only be about those two sentences, then it turns it into one of proofreading, which is not really appropriate at any site . . .