In my last post I discussed how gun control legislation seems to be favored by the majority of American citizens but is not passed because of pro-gun rights lobbyists are able to essentially "buy" Congressmen's votes to promote their ideals. While lobby groups are not allowed to pay Congressional members for their votes, as this is bribery and is against the law. However, this does not mean that lobbying groups are not able to influence Senators and House Members. Lobby groups employ many different methods to gain the support of a member of Congress. Some lobby groups will treat members or their staff to a meal or give them presents, others may gain influence by donating significant amounts of money to the members' campaigns, still others will use in-person meetings to try and sway a member. Lobbying has become so big that it is estimated that 100,000 people are employed as lobbyists in the United States. The scale to which lobbying has grown has made some to believe that our government is turning into an oligarchy, a system in which everyday citizens essentially have no power. The government has realized this and implemented regulations on Lobbyists. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 was the first bill introduced to control lobbyists and further regulations were implemented by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, signed into law in 2007. These bills forced lobbyists to register with both the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, regulates gifts that can be given to lawmakers and their aides, and requires groups to disclose their expenses. These regulations have helped but are simply not enough.
In order for the government to truly function lobby groups need even stricter regulations so that lawmakers can listen to their constitutes and instead of special interest groups. Several improvements can be made to current regulating legislation in order to achieve this. One possible solution is banning special interest groups from giving gifts and only allowing Congress members' constituents to give them gifts, so long as the gift is not affiliated with a special interest group. This new regulation would help to cut down lobbying group's influence, but other regulation would still be needed. I propose that campaign donations be anonymous so that lawmakers do not know which special interest groups are backing them. This would mean that lawmakers would not know how to pander to the lobbyists and would therefore have to listen to their constituents. Lastly, I would also recommend that lawmakers be forced to meet with every citizen from their district that wishes to before they are allowed to meet with special interest groups. This would help everyday citizens to have their voices heard and place them on equal footing with the lobbyists. These regulations are only the starting point. Unless the government is truly able to separate itself from special interest groups, it will not be able to properly function. The only way to regain our democratic form of government is by severely limiting the influence of these groups.
Jacob Greenly wrote a post about how lobbying could lead to the development of an oligarchy. And while I agree with him on his main argument, I disagree with some of his suggestions.
ReplyDeleteOur country and university’s system of government is based on the concept of representative democracy, a system where the voices of all people have the right to be heard, not just the voices of people who can afford unlimited spending. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Here the founders were careful to emphasize Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech. While every person has the right to freedom of speech, the freedom itself must then be defined. Freedom cannot be the ability to do anything and everything; there must be limits put in place. Thus, the idea that spending is a form of speech and therefore should be unregulated is flawed when the definition of freedom itself has constraints. How humanity defines freedom then affects what Congress can control. In a political campaign, the cost of communication leads to the development of money as a powerful influence. Therefore, the financial backers behind a campaign will ultimately decide what issues will become important and heard by the rest of the common people. This corruption of republican ideals was what our founders fought against when drafting the Constitution, as they understood the inevitable power money has over men.
However, I do disagree with some of the proposed methods for regulation. For one, members of an interest group are still constituents individually. Trying to prevent a group from giving a gift would not do much, as each member can just give a gift – in the end, it is the same effect, just with one person representing the whole. Secondly, the reason why campaign donations are public is to keep the lawmakers and groups accountable. By knowing who is giving what exactly, the nation is aware of who is influencing lawmakers. For example, if the NRA were able to give anonymously, would it be that obvious that they are the ones controlling the GOP? Again, lobbyists still form a politicians’ constituents – they just are more vocal and organized than others. Yes I agree special interest groups represent the majority faction and populism that the Founding Fathers feared – however, they are inevitable, and arguably, they represent a good portion of the people. Freedom of speech is still guaranteed to them, no matter what their viewpoint is. And while this freedom of speech can lead to some people’s voices being heard, regulations to balance groups with the regular people, such as in limiting monetary donations, still allow everyone’s voices to be heard without completely barring one portion of the population. In the end, everyone deserves freedom of speech and that right should be protected. I am not saying that interest groups or corporations are people – I firmly believe they are not. But interest groups in particular represent a group of people with the same view – and if they want to collectively give, it is their right to do so.