Should lobbyists be more regulated? Essay

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.

In a pluralist democracy like in the United States, interest groups have played a major role throughout the history through highly organized factions and are aimed at different levels of government. Lobbying is one of the tactics of the interest groups to aid their agenda through implementing new laws and regulations. "If you want to have your face in the light, you should have your back in the dark". Similarly, the influences of the interests groups and lobbyists have good and bad effects on the people and the society.

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.

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.

The Democratic and Republican presidential nominees for 1999 raised an astounding 126 million to finance their campaigns in the primaries (Godfrey). The U.S. national political parties raised a record 107.2 million dollars in soft money contributions in 1999 (Campaign Finance Reform). During the 1995-96 elections, public citizens estimated that an astounding 150 million dollars was spent on "phony" issue ads designed to support or oppose congressional and presidential candidates (Campaign Finance Reform). This outrageous influx of money into congressional and presidential campaigns has placed a blanket of corruption and injustice over our nation’s elections. With the rise of campaign corruption, many

Lobbying is an issue that has recently found itself at the forefront of the American politics. Many feel that lobbying is essentially a legalized form of bribery and has lead to the government catering to the needs of special interests instead of the interests of America at large. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 74% of Americans believe that elected officials place their own interests ahead of the country's. So it seems many Americans wonder who their representatives are actually representing. Lee Drutman, a political scientist, compares the current situation of

They own the elections and can shape the entirety of them, it is unfair to the average person because the ideals of the person they are voting for can be easily swayed by money from a special interest groups. Now that out of the way it leaves us with the issue of money, you can not have an election without money and financial backers. However left unchecked this could be a dangerous tool as proven by special interest groups who have led to the outcome of decisions throughout history. In the late 1800’s it was the sugar and banana lobbies that made us go into the latin countries and colonize them because it was the proper place to grow their crops.throughout the 1900’s the cigarette lobbies fought for laws to back them and not having to make them show what is in cigarettes. How do we solve this you ask? Well you show who is backing you and how much money they gave you this would show what the cause for every action you make is. If they are being backed by a big industry like oil and they put in place a law that favors oil and we will know why because money talks and it has some crazy ideas sometimes. These special interest groups are the real power behind the election along with the electoral college.

With the introduction of “soft” money in politics, elections no longer go to the best candidate, but simply to the richer one. Soft money is defined as unregulated money that is given to the political parties that ends up being used by candidates in an election. In last year’s elections, the Republican and Democratic parties raised more than one-half of a billion dollars in soft money. Current politicians are pushing the envelope farther than any previous administrations when it comes to finding loopholes in the legal system for campaign fundraising. The legal limit that any one person can contribute to a given candidate or campaign is one thousand dollars. There is, however, no limit on the amount of money one

With the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye.      There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.

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

It is not uncommon to have a candidate’s campaign to be funded by people who are not constituents, but are organizations or lobbying groups. While it is fine that a particular cause or organization support one candidate over the other due to their beliefs or even donate to their campaign in order to get the person elected it is however, not okay to let an organization or cause to dictate what side you will have on a issue or even how you will vote on a measure or law. This issue is not exclusive to presidential candidates or governors as there are senators and representative who receive funds from special interest groups. Nor is this issue only relevant to big districts such as Los Angeles, San Diego, or San Francisco. Alejandro Lanzo (2015) of the Wall Street Journal has stated that, “Political spending by outside groups on statewide and local elections totaled more than $80.6 million in

Many people think that lobbyists are detrimental to society because they favor the people they represent, but who doesn't right? If a lawyer was paid to represent his client and even if his client was guilty, it is his job to represent his client regardless if he knows the truth that is his client is 100% guilty at fault. I think society need to not judge the job, but need to be open minded and look from different angle about such

Campaign races are expensive and the only way to fund them is with large amounts of money from corporations. Although corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates, they can contribute money to political action committees, or PACs. These PACs then can then donate and buy ads under the protection of free speech. If a candidate wants to receive this money, they have to make promises to the corporations, officially or otherwise. They then have a financial incentive to make certain decisions. If this is the case, they will not truly be making decisions for the people and instead for the corporations. Thus, the people are not being represented if the person is elected. Even if they do not want to, candidates are forced into pleasing corporate donors if they want to get reelected. Although the law states that companies cannot donate to campaigns, the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling allows companies to donate to PACs which are not allowed to coordinate with candidates. In theory this would protect the first amendment while not allowing direct donations, however this is poorly enforced and campaigns are still coordinated so the companies are still donating and having a large effect on elections. [The economist, 2014] One way to fix this would be to put a limit on all donations, including to PACs to ensure that politicians are following the will of the people and not the will of the rich or

Yes, perhaps some may be left out in the cold without having a say in the hearing, but these lobbyist are professionals who “are good at attending hearings and analyzing all the testimony” (23) and have the intellect to get business done right. Corporate lobbyists follow the same process as the aforementioned “fancy suit”. They will pay a person that is available and usually in need of money to stand in line for hours, in order to save a spot in a congressional hearing. Senator Claire McCaskill is quoted saying, “[to] buy a seat at congressional hearings like they would buy tickets to a concert or football game is offensive to me.” However, the fact that these lobbyists from company X are paying to get seats in hearings is a necessary evil. These are the men and women who are aware of company X’s necessities, thus assuring that the correct decisions are made in order to benefit Company X’s profit margins. With increased profit margins, the value of a company X’s stock increases as well, thus benefitting the hundreds or thousands of people who have their savings invested in company X. Sandel’s claim of maintaining fairness is achieved when company X assures that policies create profits, which in turn also benefit the consumer. It is because of consumers that lobbyists suffer through the