Lobbyism Pros And Cons

Golden discusses many different problems of the legislative branch. One of the first things he talks about is the four defects, and the three effects of the defects. He refers to this as the 4-3. The first defect he talks about is the money flood. This is arguably one of the biggest defects of the legislature. While the three other defects only affect the House of Representatives or the Senate, the money flood affects all 535 members (Golden 2015). Most of the money raised by these members is paid by special interests groups, and all the money they receive is legal. In 2012 the money the House and Senate raised was more than $1.8 billion, and special interest groups accounted for $400 million of that (Golden 2015). This is scary because it means that politicians have to spend more of their time negotiating with small amounts of people who are able to give large sums of money, rather than most of the American public who can only afford to donate small amounts of money. This is alarming because it implicates them

Billions of dollars are spent by thousands of lobbyists that work within Congress each year to see if they can alter or eliminate federal policies that they feel need are no longer needed or that need to be modified. Does the influence of money make it possible for the lobbyist to be more effective in changing the federal policies? This is a question that has been asked many times and with different points of views and opinions. It is sometimes said the person with the most money has the most influence but I don’t believe that that is always true.

Dating back many decades, it appears that lobbying and politics have always gone hand and hand on any political stage. Lobbying has always had a strong presence in the legislation system. Lobbying is the process of offering campaign contributions, bribes, or information to policymakers for the purpose of achieving favorable policy outcomes. Conventional wisdom suggests that lobbying is the preferred mean for exerting political influence in rich countries and corruption in poor countries. The legislation is meant to benefit society and ensure that citizens are having their voices heard, instead of hindering them in favour of the multi-national corporations. Lobbying has a negative influence on legislations in both developed and developing

Since the creation of the United States government, political lobbying has played a large role in influencing the creation and modification of laws. The act of lobbying is to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body (Dictionary.com). There has always been controversy surrounding the political lobbying system, due to the potential of corruption through bribery. Two important pieces of legislation became laws as a result of this controversy. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 and the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were created to prevent potential abuse within the political lobbying system.

State government should focus on making limitations for interest groups spending in the campaign contribution in legislative session. A lobbyist spending in food or extra curriculum activities are never revealed whether it is for right cause or not. 1 “To know that, you have to know whom they were entertaining and then watch that beneficiary’s votes, debates and other actions”. (Ramsey, 1) All the financial activities carried by the lobbyists should be clearly monitored by the government.

First, Lazarus argued that most members of Congress received small donations from the same organizations for which they pursed earmarks. While this is not illegal, it certainly is not ethical. In the most glaring cases, at least five United States Representatives received over $100,000 due to earmarks. Lazarus points out that these numbers do not include donations made to members by lobbying firms on behalf of the companies seeking earmarks, as well as, money donated by individuals associated with those companies. Taking all of these factors into account, Lazarus concluded that on average members received $30,000 in campaign donations per earmark. Finally, supporters of the ban on earmarks argue that only the most skilled or powerful politicians will secure beneficial earmarks for their constituents. Therefore, the areas that need federal aid the most will not be fairly served by earmarks, unless their representative is particularly skilled or

Both sides of the topic have gripping reasons why they feel the way they do. The supporters believe that lobbying is acceptable and contributes to a healthy democracy. In this light, lobbyists are simply seeking power within governmental and public affairs. In the United States our political system is based on power, authority, and legitimacy. One of our nation’s values is the fact that people can and should try to influence our political system; individuals have the power to bring attention to important issues, matters of public concern, and current problems. Supports argue that lobbying cannot contribute to the demise of American democracy. All these factors contribute to what is our political system and lobbyists are arguably doing their best to advocate for the people, even if huge sums of money are involved.

Many times the American people have asked themselves why certain topics take precedent over other topics that may seem worthy of attention. The common speculation is that money from special interest groups have infiltrated re-election campaigns are the ones who really have the power and last say on what occurs in government. Many people have campaigned in order to pass a reform that would disclose how a political campaign is funded or set a limitation on how much can be donated to a specific campaign. Some people may argue that doing so may infringe on the rights of voters and their decision on how much to donate or that it prevents individuals from expressing their opinions on political issues, but by not having rules in place on what can

Each year billions of dollars are spent on getting candidates of various offices of government elected. Many candidates have had tremendous success through the efforts of much needed monetary contributions to their campaign. Contributors range from unions, religious leaders, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and senior citizens groups. When these groups, known as special interest groups, donate to candidate’s campaign, they expect the candidate to respond to their issues. Because special interest groups, as well as private citizens donate more and more money to campaigns, there is some concern that there is a great need for campaign finance reform.

I feel that money is an important factor to lobbyist whose connection with people at the top is crucial. Representative Lloyd Doggett agrees that in most cases, “All the lobbying is focused on a handful of people at the top”(Wayne, NYT, 10/01/01). It seems to me that major corporations have an easier time

Lobbying by individuals or business organization is fine until it starts to benefit the politician. What I mean by that is if I meet with you and present my opinions depending on whether or not I can persuade you to agree with my ideas should be determined by the quality of my idea, not the amount of money I give you. As soon as I give you money or a trip to my house or on my plane, I am now bribing you instead of simply convincing you with the quality of my ideas.

Throughout the course of history, society had stereotyped women, making it merely impossible for a woman to achieve her goals and desires in life. This had weighed them not as equals, and for this, they were given different standards by which to live. At this day and age, and during the ancient Greek times, women have always been treated as second best by biased men, although today’s society has started to understand this inequality better as time progresses further into the future. Even with society becoming more equal for women, females are still treated similar as to time of the ancient Greeks. Women still don’t have as much power as men, are still “blamed” for wrongdoings and thought as untrustworthy, and are still used as “currency”

Interest groups can be both bad and good for democracy. The interest groups are able to lobby to congress to help out different organizations. They basically work on a “you do a favor for me and I’ll do a favor for you later” basis. This gives the lobbyist an influence over congress. They can be bad for the democracy because too much influence and power can be a bad thing. The issue they are lobbying for may not be a good cause.

As several authors this week contend, lobbying tends to carry a negative connotation in everyday language. The key issues that the authors seek to address this week, are when lobbying occurs, the nature of lobbying, and how it works. Overall, there is some agreement on the fact that lobbying is prevalent, the disagreements arise over what purpose lobbying serves, and what the strategies underlying lobbying are.

Capital Punishment is viewed with two different thoughts, those for it and those against it. There are those who feel that it is not right to take another person’s life for it makes the system responsible for the death no better than the convicted murderer. The Catholic Church is on of this out there who opposes to the death penalty. “Over the past several decades, the Catholic Church has become an influential voice in the public debate about the death penalty(Klein).” Because of the influence the Catholic Church they can hold a lot of weight of in the discussion of Capital Punishment. The Catholic Church wants to protect the other side of those effected by Capital Punishment. “The Church’s position does not require an absolute