Lobby groups and other special interests allow Americans a voice in government. What dangers are present in American democracy when that access into the government is abused?
Watch the following video and offer your opinion using at least two vocabulary words from the unit.
When access to the government is abused through bribes and other political payoffs, it effectively robs the American people of their voice in government. Ideally, yes, lobby groups SHOULD provide a voice for the people, but that is no longer the case. Former politician Abramoff was labeled the poster boy of government corruption for doing what almost every politician in America is doing today; they use their political power to essentially “sell the government to the highest bidder.” This can result in bills or non-germane amendments (an amendment adding new or different subjects to the bill) being proposed in favor of the highest bid or even influencing votes of the Congressmen. The largest failure of this system is that it robs the American people of their voice because the Congressmen are no longer voting along the representational theory of voting (Congressmen voting along the majority views of their constituents). Instead, a blank slate for the upcoming agenda of the government is handed to the group with the most capitol.
Obviously, lobby groups and Super PACS which effectively form the iron triangle and therefore nearly control government have become detrimental to the average voter who cannot use contact with congressmen or money to influence legislation, however, it is not that simple. There is essentially no clear cut way to limit the influence of lobby groups, corporations and wealthy individuals without stripping away their rights, which is and should be illegal. In my opinion, PACs and Super PACS, though they often find loopholes in the legal system to coordinate with candidates, are not necessarily the problem. When it comes down to it, each and every citizen has their own right to vote and the wealthy have no more votes than average citizens; PACS have a right to voice their opinions, and every citizen has a right to disagree with those opinions and demonstrate that via voting. I personally think that the most dangerous problem regarding lobby groups is their ability to control congressmen and senators, rather than their ability to promote them, but, unfortunately, that is much much harder to regulate. People naturally do favors for one another and help those who have helped them, whether money is involved or not. It is unfortunate that congressmen are often 'bought' by lobby groups and other big organizations, but when it comes down to it, the only way to stop that from happening is to vote them out of office.
As proven through history, money is power. This power can be used for good purposes as well as, unfortunately, bad purposes. Super PACs and Lobby groups can use to their advantage the money they provide to congressmen in order to get legislation pushed through. Over time however, the legislation that was pushed through became less and less important for America as a whole, and more designed for the groups specific benefits. Their power has become so influential, that some may consider it abuse. The danger becomes that Congressmen are no longer acting in the interests of their constituents, but of their donors. Despite these dangers, it all comes down to the voters. Super PACs and Lobbyists can support a candidate all they want, but it comes down to the voter. These government institutions just have a larger means to spread awareness than the average person, and it is their right to do so. If a person loves the NY Yankees and spends millions of dollars for a blimp that reads "Go Yankees" and buy the right to fly it during a game, why is it then "corrupt" for a super PAC group to do the same thing, only instead have the words read "vote John Smith". Yes. There are some blatant instances of abuse as exemplified in the video, but one instance does not mean the whole system is entirely flawed; if it was, it would be removed. Like stated previously, the true power lies in the right to vote. Research on a candidate is free, yet many do not take the time to find out the facts, only react to those who have taken it upon themselves to support another to a large degree. Yes, money may be power, but power is and always will be with every individuals vote.
Jack Abramoff had a many logical points about the corruption that is filling Washington Politics. The power of brides, which include any contribution, and the ideology of companies to buy a politician expecting something back in return are major negativities that occur in the system. However, the point that stood out the most was how disengaged the average American is with politics. Super PACs and lobby groups take advantage of this fact by pushing for special interest that is supported with more money than any average individual. Abramoff later suggests that lobbyist should not be able to give "a dollar politically" to anyone in government. Additionally, the fact that many Americans do not vote is troubling because it gives more power to PACs allowing them to target the minority of the population that do vote. People expect things to be done, but do not vote to change the outcome getting upset when the legislative agenda starts to favor corporations that take part in government.
The ex-lobbyist who spoke in the video talked about many points argued by the liberal side during our debate. He was a man who knew how to use the government, with money, to get what his clients wanted. Congress was literally being bought by special interest groups. When only lobbyist groups' voices are hear it droughts out the voices of the people. During the time this video was being filmed people were protesting on wall street, trying to get their voices heard since there was no other way. It seems the only way the ordinary person's voice can be heard is if there's mass outrage, like currently what is going on in Ferguson. Other than marches, the only voice Congressmen hear are the ones who are giving them thousands of dollars. Similar to what the ex-lobbyist said, I do believe our system needs changing. However, special interest groups aren't all bad. For example the NAACP was one of the first lobby groups, and they accomplished amazing things, and are still strong today. The true problem with special interest groups today is, most are not a voice for a group of people, but are a voice for a group of companies and corporations. These companies and corporations are not people, so they do not have the same interest of people. Corporations do not care about health care, or the environment, they care about profit. If a system can be created where companies voices can be heard, but do not overpower the issues Americans have, that would be a system our country can be proud of.
Is it right for a PAC or special interest group to attack a competitor? Should corporations be able to run legal ads against candidates? NO, this takes the power from the citizens and influences citizens incorrectly with false facts. Citizens are easily swayable and with people like Jack Abramoff, this because incredibly apparent. The PACs, special interest groups, and lobbyists cause a shift in the power of a vote towards the corporations. I agree with Brian Howe when he said that government is basically sold to the highest bidder. Money is what makes our government go around, but without that need for billions, people like Jack Abramoff would have no relevance. Our current level of corruption in government is highlighted by the need for monetary funds. Using the funds helps many "cheat" the government and its rules. Citizen's United vs. FEC opened up the ability for soft money to officially taking over elections and with that greater basis on money, more corruption will grow in government.
When lobbyists, special interest groups and super PACs abuse their power to get involved in the federal government, many issues arise. When power is abused, the difference between what mutual dependency between the Legislative Committee and special interest groups of the Iron Triangle and what is bribery on the part of lobbyists must be analyzed carefully. As in the case with corporations, as debated in Citizen's United v. FEC, when corporations spend extraneous amounts of money for political influence, many times the citizens' voices get lost even though the corporation is run by citizens themselves. In this case, citizens of a corporation who have too much monetary influence on the national government get in the way with what these particular citizens want, politically.
I don't think that lobbyists or Super PACS are a bad thing and in theory they are very beneficial to the nation. If lobbyists and donors had pure intentions for what is best for the people then having a lot of power would not be an issue. The system is supposed to get the people what they want by listening to lobby groups and pushing legislation that is therefore in the interest of the people. If this were the case it would not matter how much money these lobby groups or Super PACS had or how much they spent or donated. Instead quite often the main interest of these groups is business and making as much money as possible. This overrides the interest of constituents and goes against what the system is designed for. Even though they don't have more votes and technically have the same power in that sense their influence in slanderous ads and power over legislation can sway the peoples vote and therefore is taking power away from they people and gaining more of it.
In United States politics, lobbyists, PACs, special interest groups and other groups of people that work on K-street abuse their power, which has created corruption in the federal government. These groups operate by buying support from elected officials in order to push their agenda through to them. Their goal to make a government official dependent on them for finance and election support in order for them to do what they suggest. By doing this these lobbyists have these officials in the palms of their hands primarily because the overwhelming mass of wealth that they possess and use impulsively to sway the opinions of officials. This creates corruption and bad government because the average citizens no longer have much of a say in what goes on in the government because their official can longer represent them well. The average citizen does not have nearly enough money to push their views of something on their official over the view of the lobbyists.
Yes, PACs and lobbies open the doors to corruption, but just because a few Abramoffs or an Enron come through the scene now and then, doesn't make the whole system inherently toxic to democracy. The government works on indirect representation in the first place with elected officials who draw power from the people, and special interest groups operate similarly in that they acquire their huge sums of money by appealing to people and receiving their donations, a form of a 'vote' in this case. Meaning, by choosing which group's agenda you agree with and supporting them, you're essentially voting for the officials to pay attention to environmental concerns, or gun owners' rights, or any other cause backed by a lobby or PAC. Thus, these entities can do what they wish with the money they accumulate, as protected by the First Amendment. And, because they've received First Amendment protection in so many past cases, corporations can spend their money just as freely as the aforementioned groups can, as was cited in the decision by the Supreme Court, in the famous Citizens United case, to strike down the limits established by the McCain-Feingold Act on campaign contributions from corporations.
What I took from Abramoff's interview was that there is no way for the government to clean up the system. It's almost like the phrase, "you can't teach an old dog, new tricks". Like Abramoff said, the corruption he participated in was not something he thought of. Corruption has and always will be a part of government and limiting a right that people have been given since the formation of this country is not going to solve any problems, but instead may raise additional ones. When Abramoff contradicts himself in the video, it is further showing that attempts can be made to fix and limit Super PACs and corporations, but at the end of the day, the system has been in place for too long that it cannot be changed.It is a part of government now. At first, he explains how he is proposing that money is separated from politics and that lobby groups should not be allowed to given money and political contributions. This would ultimately interrupt the iron triangle which helps the government accomplish its tasks and thus his plan would prevent the government from accomplishing anything.Then, later on he agrees that the decision made in Citizen's United v. FEC is a good one. He explains that corruption is "legal" in politics. This further shows that despite attempts to clean up Washington, the voters are the only ones who can exercise their power and rights to help decrease the corruption in the government.
Abramoff’s statement of how the “American people don’t need lobbyists, they need to organize themselves” was the most significant point that he made in discussing the actions that he had involved himself in before being sent to prison. The significantly low voter turnout numbers are just giving the lobby groups and Super PACs more power and influence on the government than they already have. I agree with Andrew in that we both see the disengagement of American citizens as a deciding factor in the political system of the United States. Some of Abramoff’s other points could be brought back to the reading we did from Richard Fenno’s Home Style. The results of self-presentation on the parts of not just the candidate but the lobbyist are critical into gaining trust. This trust then gets translated into lobby groups spending money to help out candidates and the candidates focusing on the issues critical to the lobby group. This gives both lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and other Special Interest groups a huge advantage over the average citizen and the Iron Triangle will keep persisting to rotate on top of Capitol Hill until outsiders step in to stop corruption. Americans should use this interview to recognize that these kinds of “bribes” are occurring every day of the year and their influence will only become stronger and more numerous if they are allowed to continue and ideas and money are continued to pass through the iron triangle.
Abramoff, like many other lobby group members, was a man with a plan. Lobby groups are corrupt in this government and that’s just something that the American people are going to have to deal with because it is very unlikely that Congress will create a law banning this because this is a way that they receive a lot of their campaign finances. It is also interesting how elected officials who had worked with Abramoff and his clients in the past were bashing him in Court to try and act like they weren’t a part of the corruption. Although it will be difficult to get rid of these practices, it must be done some how because it is not a good idea to have corrupt Committees in Congress because those are the people who create the laws. When looking at the way that Congress is controlled by the special interests of lobby groups and corporations, American politics starts to look a lot less like the democracy that we are raised learning about. Everyone does not have equal say in the government, it is starting to seem, more and more, as if people’s votes really don’t count because their congressman will get bought out by corporations and lobby groups anyway.
Lobby groups, and Super PACs are not completely harmful to the government, because in essence they can be beneficial by voicing peoples opinions. The truth is they too often use corrupt ways to give money and in forms of bribes get something beneficial to themselves out of the campaign contributions. Some sort of reform should be aimed for although it would be extremely difficult since practices like Abramoff's are done every day and go unnoticed. This causes people to have less of a voice since much of what is done is influenced largely by these groups through the iron triangle. As said in the video people need to vote out the ones taking these contributions and abusing them, and voters taking action would be the way to fix this since clearly it will be hard to limit contributions. As seen in the Citizens United case, spending cannot be limited because it goes against the first amendment right to spend your own money how you want. But as Abramoff said, people should be giving money to help someone who they support, not giving money and expecting something back from the official. So these groups are taking away from the peoples say by basically buying congressmen and therefore they will be making decisions highly influenced by these groups over the say of majority of people who cant necessarily contribute like the interest groups.
As shown in this video, lobby groups and super PACS can abuse their power. However, I do not think that they should be completely blamed for all of the corruption in American politics. As shown in Citizens United v. FEC, these groups have the power to spend their money as they please, as backed by the First Amendment. It is difficult to reduce the corruption within the groups because politicians such as Abramoff will find ways to work around the law. The only way to help reduce this corruption is for the people to step up. The foundation of the American government is that the people have the power. In this case, the constituents have the power to vote untrustworthy people out of office. The people should not blame the government if their congressmen are corrupt; they should vote them out of office. The fault in this is the voter apathy. Voting will not eliminate corruption as a whole, but it will undoubtedly help.
What I took away from this video and Abramoff’s interview was that corruption will always be a part of our government no matter what. He even said that when he was doing it he didn’t really know it was corruption and that corruption is “legal.” I agree with Stephen in that I also thought it was interesting how his previous clients and elected officials who had worked with him were bashing him in court. The problem with lobby groups and super PACS is that they try to get their own agendas pushed by making officials dependent on their money. Like Abramoff said, these groups should be giving money to candidates because they agree with what the candidate stands for, not because they want to buy their way in to get what they want passed. This makes it less fair for the American people-- obviously they don’t have millions of dollars to just throw at the candidates that they support. Therefore this gives the average American less of a say in candidates they want to choose.
Agreeing with Devon, I believe that the lobby groups and super PACS are not all to blame. Yes they do indeed abuse their powers, but this is only due to the lack of restraint put upon them. Giving the power back to the people of the United States is the only way to begin to move towards a change in our economy. Without voters wanting to see a change and willing to step up and say something we will always be stuck in this corrupt economic state. Voter apathy needs to become prevalent in the battle against these over powering companies or we do not have a fair fight.
Lobby groups and other special interests allow Americans a voice in government; at the same time, when super PACS, special interest groups, and lobby groups abuse their access into the governments, dangers become present in American democracy. For example, in class when we debated the FEC v. Citizens United case, we learned that corporations have a great deal of power (even more power than the people). By spending large sums of money on campaigns and attacking other candidates, corporations are able to influence elections; thus threatening democracy if the citizen's original opinions are swayed or if the issues argued for are not in the best interest of the American citizens (many corporations are international). However, as illustrated by Jack Abramoff it is difficult to reduce corruption in politics. We learned this too during the debate when we learned that corporations have the same rights as individuals and that their actions are backed by the First Amendment.
In my opinion, financial contribution to politicians could be legal without corruption. It is an extension of free speech and assists in voicing the opinion of a person or group of people. However, the current system of funding to Congressmen is broken, flawed, and facilitates exploitation. Lobbyists, special interest groups, and super PACs all operate in the favor of those who possess the most capital; the current structure accommodates to rich corporations with unique interests (which may not coincide with the interests of the American people). A potential solution to this mess could be to set up publicly operated funds (in contrast to privately owned and operated super PACs) for each politician in which any corporation, company, group, or citizen could donate or contribute to in order to support that respective candidate and his/her platform. A caveat could be that these donations would be regulated by a special governmental committee elected by the people and/or that the donations could have a layer of anonymity. This would ensure that the politician doesn't corruptly vote for/sponsor legislation that would solely benefit the interests of one group or organization. Jack Abramoff is right, the average American citizen simply cannot compete with wealthy corporations and special interest groups.Casino Jack himself said that general interests should prevail over special interests. Something must be done.
Lobby groups and special interest groups in the U.S. government are necessary ways for people to voice their opinions on certain concerns within the government itself. Although this is a great thing, there is a potential threat in this. This threat is shown greatly through Jack Abromoff and his corruption within these organizations. Donations through Lobby groups, spaecial interest groups, and Super PACs could be a great way of using the first amendment to voice your opinion on which candidate you wish to see win. This, however, can all change if it is not correctly regulated. An example of how this can get out of hand is soft money. Jack Abromoff found money holes in the system such as this and took it to his advantage in a corrupt way. I agree with Anthony up above, something must be done about this before all politicians start falling inline with Jack Abromoff.
As seen in the video, super PACs and lobbyist groups cause the corruption of power on capital hill. Big corporations have the advantage to “buy others out” for political advantages so they can voice their opinions and abuse is shown when they start using the large amount of money they have, to have their opinions be advertised everywhere and sway peoples views on candidates during elections. Abramoff showed that Congressmen are controlled by lobbyist groups/ corporations and negotiations are given out through this iron triangle in order for them to get what they want. This is what is proving to hurt America’s democracy and what is continually not helping is that these corporations have the same first amendment right as an individual citizen (shown through the FEC v. Citizens United case). I feel that specialized groups have started out with good intentions but it has lead to the complete control over decisions in the government and influence over politicians. In order for congressmen to have their own fair ideas and advantages in government, citizens must vote these corrupt people out and become more involved in how their country is being run in order to realize who is the best to trust.
I think that the corruption prevalent n the United States Government and related Lobby Groups can be fixed by men like Abramoff. The government often uses caught hackers to combat cyber-terrorism, and men who know the trade can be used against it. Exposing this practice to the American People won't cause much outrage, since the "face" of the corruption is now gone (not the corruption itself), Americans will go back into their political apathy or will latch onto another media buzzed event. FEC v. Citizens United, and cases that change law (hopefully the correct way) are the only way to combat this issue. While Lobby Groups can control those who make the laws with funding, since congressmen need to get re-elected, they have no sway over the supreme court, the only people they can't back with their vast resources. (It's my birthday, making this on time would be a great present)
When access to the government is abused through bribes and other political payoffs, it effectively robs the American people of their voice in government. Ideally, yes, lobby groups SHOULD provide a voice for the people, but that is no longer the case. Former politician Abramoff was labeled the poster boy of government corruption for doing what almost every politician in America is doing today; they use their political power to essentially “sell the government to the highest bidder.” This can result in bills or non-germane amendments (an amendment adding new or different subjects to the bill) being proposed in favor of the highest bid or even influencing votes of the Congressmen. The largest failure of this system is that it robs the American people of their voice because the Congressmen are no longer voting along the representational theory of voting (Congressmen voting along the majority views of their constituents). Instead, a blank slate for the upcoming agenda of the government is handed to the group with the most capitol.
ReplyDeleteObviously, lobby groups and Super PACS which effectively form the iron triangle and therefore nearly control government have become detrimental to the average voter who cannot use contact with congressmen or money to influence legislation, however, it is not that simple. There is essentially no clear cut way to limit the influence of lobby groups, corporations and wealthy individuals without stripping away their rights, which is and should be illegal. In my opinion, PACs and Super PACS, though they often find loopholes in the legal system to coordinate with candidates, are not necessarily the problem. When it comes down to it, each and every citizen has their own right to vote and the wealthy have no more votes than average citizens; PACS have a right to voice their opinions, and every citizen has a right to disagree with those opinions and demonstrate that via voting. I personally think that the most dangerous problem regarding lobby groups is their ability to control congressmen and senators, rather than their ability to promote them, but, unfortunately, that is much much harder to regulate. People naturally do favors for one another and help those who have helped them, whether money is involved or not. It is unfortunate that congressmen are often 'bought' by lobby groups and other big organizations, but when it comes down to it, the only way to stop that from happening is to vote them out of office.
ReplyDeleteAs proven through history, money is power. This power can be used for good purposes as well as, unfortunately, bad purposes. Super PACs and Lobby groups can use to their advantage the money they provide to congressmen in order to get legislation pushed through. Over time however, the legislation that was pushed through became less and less important for America as a whole, and more designed for the groups specific benefits. Their power has become so influential, that some may consider it abuse. The danger becomes that Congressmen are no longer acting in the interests of their constituents, but of their donors. Despite these dangers, it all comes down to the voters. Super PACs and Lobbyists can support a candidate all they want, but it comes down to the voter. These government institutions just have a larger means to spread awareness than the average person, and it is their right to do so. If a person loves the NY Yankees and spends millions of dollars for a blimp that reads "Go Yankees" and buy the right to fly it during a game, why is it then "corrupt" for a super PAC group to do the same thing, only instead have the words read "vote John Smith". Yes. There are some blatant instances of abuse as exemplified in the video, but one instance does not mean the whole system is entirely flawed; if it was, it would be removed. Like stated previously, the true power lies in the right to vote. Research on a candidate is free, yet many do not take the time to find out the facts, only react to those who have taken it upon themselves to support another to a large degree. Yes, money may be power, but power is and always will be with every individuals vote.
ReplyDeleteJack Abramoff had a many logical points about the corruption that is filling Washington Politics. The power of brides, which include any contribution, and the ideology of companies to buy a politician expecting something back in return are major negativities that occur in the system. However, the point that stood out the most was how disengaged the average American is with politics. Super PACs and lobby groups take advantage of this fact by pushing for special interest that is supported with more money than any average individual. Abramoff later suggests that lobbyist should not be able to give "a dollar politically" to anyone in government. Additionally, the fact that many Americans do not vote is troubling because it gives more power to PACs allowing them to target the minority of the population that do vote. People expect things to be done, but do not vote to change the outcome getting upset when the legislative agenda starts to favor corporations that take part in government.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe ex-lobbyist who spoke in the video talked about many points argued by the liberal side during our debate. He was a man who knew how to use the government, with money, to get what his clients wanted. Congress was literally being bought by special interest groups. When only lobbyist groups' voices are hear it droughts out the voices of the people. During the time this video was being filmed people were protesting on wall street, trying to get their voices heard since there was no other way. It seems the only way the ordinary person's voice can be heard is if there's mass outrage, like currently what is going on in Ferguson. Other than marches, the only voice Congressmen hear are the ones who are giving them thousands of dollars. Similar to what the ex-lobbyist said, I do believe our system needs changing. However, special interest groups aren't all bad. For example the NAACP was one of the first lobby groups, and they accomplished amazing things, and are still strong today. The true problem with special interest groups today is, most are not a voice for a group of people, but are a voice for a group of companies and corporations. These companies and corporations are not people, so they do not have the same interest of people. Corporations do not care about health care, or the environment, they care about profit. If a system can be created where companies voices can be heard, but do not overpower the issues Americans have, that would be a system our country can be proud of.
ReplyDeleteIs it right for a PAC or special interest group to attack a competitor? Should corporations be able to run legal ads against candidates? NO, this takes the power from the citizens and influences citizens incorrectly with false facts. Citizens are easily swayable and with people like Jack Abramoff, this because incredibly apparent. The PACs, special interest groups, and lobbyists cause a shift in the power of a vote towards the corporations. I agree with Brian Howe when he said that government is basically sold to the highest bidder. Money is what makes our government go around, but without that need for billions, people like Jack Abramoff would have no relevance. Our current level of corruption in government is highlighted by the need for monetary funds. Using the funds helps many "cheat" the government and its rules. Citizen's United vs. FEC opened up the ability for soft money to officially taking over elections and with that greater basis on money, more corruption will grow in government.
ReplyDeleteWhen lobbyists, special interest groups and super PACs abuse their power to get involved in the federal government, many issues arise. When power is abused, the difference between what mutual dependency between the Legislative Committee and special interest groups of the Iron Triangle and what is bribery on the part of lobbyists must be analyzed carefully. As in the case with corporations, as debated in Citizen's United v. FEC, when corporations spend extraneous amounts of money for political influence, many times the citizens' voices get lost even though the corporation is run by citizens themselves. In this case, citizens of a corporation who have too much monetary influence on the national government get in the way with what these particular citizens want, politically.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that lobbyists or Super PACS are a bad thing and in theory they are very beneficial to the nation. If lobbyists and donors had pure intentions for what is best for the people then having a lot of power would not be an issue. The system is supposed to get the people what they want by listening to lobby groups and pushing legislation that is therefore in the interest of the people. If this were the case it would not matter how much money these lobby groups or Super PACS had or how much they spent or donated. Instead quite often the main interest of these groups is business and making as much money as possible. This overrides the interest of constituents and goes against what the system is designed for. Even though they don't have more votes and technically have the same power in that sense their influence in slanderous ads and power over legislation can sway the peoples vote and therefore is taking power away from they people and gaining more of it.
ReplyDeleteIn United States politics, lobbyists, PACs, special interest groups and other groups of people that work on K-street abuse their power, which has created corruption in the federal government. These groups operate by buying support from elected officials in order to push their agenda through to them. Their goal to make a government official dependent on them for finance and election support in order for them to do what they suggest. By doing this these lobbyists have these officials in the palms of their hands primarily because the overwhelming mass of wealth that they possess and use impulsively to sway the opinions of officials. This creates corruption and bad government because the average citizens no longer have much of a say in what goes on in the government because their official can longer represent them well. The average citizen does not have nearly enough money to push their views of something on their official over the view of the lobbyists.
ReplyDeleteYes, PACs and lobbies open the doors to corruption, but just because a few Abramoffs or an Enron come through the scene now and then, doesn't make the whole system inherently toxic to democracy. The government works on indirect representation in the first place with elected officials who draw power from the people, and special interest groups operate similarly in that they acquire their huge sums of money by appealing to people and receiving their donations, a form of a 'vote' in this case. Meaning, by choosing which group's agenda you agree with and supporting them, you're essentially voting for the officials to pay attention to environmental concerns, or gun owners' rights, or any other cause backed by a lobby or PAC. Thus, these entities can do what they wish with the money they accumulate, as protected by the First Amendment. And, because they've received First Amendment protection in so many past cases, corporations can spend their money just as freely as the aforementioned groups can, as was cited in the decision by the Supreme Court, in the famous Citizens United case, to strike down the limits established by the McCain-Feingold Act on campaign contributions from corporations.
ReplyDeleteWhat I took from Abramoff's interview was that there is no way for the government to clean up the system. It's almost like the phrase, "you can't teach an old dog, new tricks". Like Abramoff said, the corruption he participated in was not something he thought of. Corruption has and always will be a part of government and limiting a right that people have been given since the formation of this country is not going to solve any problems, but instead may raise additional ones.
ReplyDeleteWhen Abramoff contradicts himself in the video, it is further showing that attempts can be made to fix and limit Super PACs and corporations, but at the end of the day, the system has been in place for too long that it cannot be changed.It is a part of government now. At first, he explains how he is proposing that money is separated from politics and that lobby groups should not be allowed to given money and political contributions. This would ultimately interrupt the iron triangle which helps the government accomplish its tasks and thus his plan would prevent the government from accomplishing anything.Then, later on he agrees that the decision made in Citizen's United v. FEC is a good one. He explains that corruption is "legal" in politics. This further shows that despite attempts to clean up Washington, the voters are the only ones who can exercise their power and rights to help decrease the corruption in the government.
Abramoff’s statement of how the “American people don’t need lobbyists, they need to organize themselves” was the most significant point that he made in discussing the actions that he had involved himself in before being sent to prison. The significantly low voter turnout numbers are just giving the lobby groups and Super PACs more power and influence on the government than they already have. I agree with Andrew in that we both see the disengagement of American citizens as a deciding factor in the political system of the United States. Some of Abramoff’s other points could be brought back to the reading we did from Richard Fenno’s Home Style. The results of self-presentation on the parts of not just the candidate but the lobbyist are critical into gaining trust. This trust then gets translated into lobby groups spending money to help out candidates and the candidates focusing on the issues critical to the lobby group. This gives both lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and other Special Interest groups a huge advantage over the average citizen and the Iron Triangle will keep persisting to rotate on top of Capitol Hill until outsiders step in to stop corruption. Americans should use this interview to recognize that these kinds of “bribes” are occurring every day of the year and their influence will only become stronger and more numerous if they are allowed to continue and ideas and money are continued to pass through the iron triangle.
ReplyDeleteAbramoff, like many other lobby group members, was a man with a plan. Lobby groups are corrupt in this government and that’s just something that the American people are going to have to deal with because it is very unlikely that Congress will create a law banning this because this is a way that they receive a lot of their campaign finances. It is also interesting how elected officials who had worked with Abramoff and his clients in the past were bashing him in Court to try and act like they weren’t a part of the corruption. Although it will be difficult to get rid of these practices, it must be done some how because it is not a good idea to have corrupt Committees in Congress because those are the people who create the laws. When looking at the way that Congress is controlled by the special interests of lobby groups and corporations, American politics starts to look a lot less like the democracy that we are raised learning about. Everyone does not have equal say in the government, it is starting to seem, more and more, as if people’s votes really don’t count because their congressman will get bought out by corporations and lobby groups anyway.
ReplyDeleteLobby groups, and Super PACs are not completely harmful to the government, because in essence they can be beneficial by voicing peoples opinions. The truth is they too often use corrupt ways to give money and in forms of bribes get something beneficial to themselves out of the campaign contributions. Some sort of reform should be aimed for although it would be extremely difficult since practices like Abramoff's are done every day and go unnoticed. This causes people to have less of a voice since much of what is done is influenced largely by these groups through the iron triangle. As said in the video people need to vote out the ones taking these contributions and abusing them, and voters taking action would be the way to fix this since clearly it will be hard to limit contributions. As seen in the Citizens United case, spending cannot be limited because it goes against the first amendment right to spend your own money how you want. But as Abramoff said, people should be giving money to help someone who they support, not giving money and expecting something back from the official. So these groups are taking away from the peoples say by basically buying congressmen and therefore they will be making decisions highly influenced by these groups over the say of majority of people who cant necessarily contribute like the interest groups.
ReplyDeleteAs shown in this video, lobby groups and super PACS can abuse their power. However, I do not think that they should be completely blamed for all of the corruption in American politics. As shown in Citizens United v. FEC, these groups have the power to spend their money as they please, as backed by the First Amendment. It is difficult to reduce the corruption within the groups because politicians such as Abramoff will find ways to work around the law. The only way to help reduce this corruption is for the people to step up. The foundation of the American government is that the people have the power. In this case, the constituents have the power to vote untrustworthy people out of office. The people should not blame the government if their congressmen are corrupt; they should vote them out of office. The fault in this is the voter apathy. Voting will not eliminate corruption as a whole, but it will undoubtedly help.
ReplyDeleteWhat I took away from this video and Abramoff’s interview was that corruption will always be a part of our government no matter what. He even said that when he was doing it he didn’t really know it was corruption and that corruption is “legal.” I agree with Stephen in that I also thought it was interesting how his previous clients and elected officials who had worked with him were bashing him in court. The problem with lobby groups and super PACS is that they try to get their own agendas pushed by making officials dependent on their money. Like Abramoff said, these groups should be giving money to candidates because they agree with what the candidate stands for, not because they want to buy their way in to get what they want passed. This makes it less fair for the American people-- obviously they don’t have millions of dollars to just throw at the candidates that they support. Therefore this gives the average American less of a say in candidates they want to choose.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Devon, I believe that the lobby groups and super PACS are not all to blame. Yes they do indeed abuse their powers, but this is only due to the lack of restraint put upon them. Giving the power back to the people of the United States is the only way to begin to move towards a change in our economy. Without voters wanting to see a change and willing to step up and say something we will always be stuck in this corrupt economic state. Voter apathy needs to become prevalent in the battle against these over powering companies or we do not have a fair fight.
ReplyDeleteLobby groups and other special interests allow Americans a voice in government; at the same time, when super PACS, special interest groups, and lobby groups abuse their access into the governments, dangers become present in American democracy. For example, in class when we debated the FEC v. Citizens United case, we learned that corporations have a great deal of power (even more power than the people). By spending large sums of money on campaigns and attacking other candidates, corporations are able to influence elections; thus threatening democracy if the citizen's original opinions are swayed or if the issues argued for are not in the best interest of the American citizens (many corporations are international). However, as illustrated by Jack Abramoff it is difficult to reduce corruption in politics. We learned this too during the debate when we learned that corporations have the same rights as individuals and that their actions are backed by the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, financial contribution to politicians could be legal without corruption. It is an extension of free speech and assists in voicing the opinion of a person or group of people. However, the current system of funding to Congressmen is broken, flawed, and facilitates exploitation. Lobbyists, special interest groups, and super PACs all operate in the favor of those who possess the most capital; the current structure accommodates to rich corporations with unique interests (which may not coincide with the interests of the American people). A potential solution to this mess could be to set up publicly operated funds (in contrast to privately owned and operated super PACs) for each politician in which any corporation, company, group, or citizen could donate or contribute to in order to support that respective candidate and his/her platform. A caveat could be that these donations would be regulated by a special governmental committee elected by the people and/or that the donations could have a layer of anonymity. This would ensure that the politician doesn't corruptly vote for/sponsor legislation that would solely benefit the interests of one group or organization. Jack Abramoff is right, the average American citizen simply cannot compete with wealthy corporations and special interest groups.Casino Jack himself said that general interests should prevail over special interests. Something must be done.
ReplyDeleteLobby groups and special interest groups in the U.S. government are necessary ways for people to voice their opinions on certain concerns within the government itself. Although this is a great thing, there is a potential threat in this. This threat is shown greatly through Jack Abromoff and his corruption within these organizations. Donations through Lobby groups, spaecial interest groups, and Super PACs could be a great way of using the first amendment to voice your opinion on which candidate you wish to see win. This, however, can all change if it is not correctly regulated. An example of how this can get out of hand is soft money. Jack Abromoff found money holes in the system such as this and took it to his advantage in a corrupt way. I agree with Anthony up above, something must be done about this before all politicians start falling inline with Jack Abromoff.
ReplyDeleteAs seen in the video, super PACs and lobbyist groups cause the corruption of power on capital hill. Big corporations have the advantage to “buy others out” for political advantages so they can voice their opinions and abuse is shown when they start using the large amount of money they have, to have their opinions be advertised everywhere and sway peoples views on candidates during elections. Abramoff showed that Congressmen are controlled by lobbyist groups/ corporations and negotiations are given out through this iron triangle in order for them to get what they want. This is what is proving to hurt America’s democracy and what is continually not helping is that these corporations have the same first amendment right as an individual citizen (shown through the FEC v. Citizens United case). I feel that specialized groups have started out with good intentions but it has lead to the complete control over decisions in the government and influence over politicians. In order for congressmen to have their own fair ideas and advantages in government, citizens must vote these corrupt people out and become more involved in how their country is being run in order to realize who is the best to trust.
ReplyDeleteI think that the corruption prevalent n the United States Government and related Lobby Groups can be fixed by men like Abramoff. The government often uses caught hackers to combat cyber-terrorism, and men who know the trade can be used against it. Exposing this practice to the American People won't cause much outrage, since the "face" of the corruption is now gone (not the corruption itself), Americans will go back into their political apathy or will latch onto another media buzzed event. FEC v. Citizens United, and cases that change law (hopefully the correct way) are the only way to combat this issue. While Lobby Groups can control those who make the laws with funding, since congressmen need to get re-elected, they have no sway over the supreme court, the only people they can't back with their vast resources. (It's my birthday, making this on time would be a great present)
ReplyDelete