Paper #3 One of the most intensely debated issues in American politics today is the amount of influence special interest

groups have over legislators positions. Recent finance reform legislation and court rulings have increased awareness of this issue and citizens are growing concerned. While there are certain instances where interest groups have benefited society, I personally believe that a majority of the groups influence on legislation harms citizens.

Proponents of special interest groups see the groups as a vital component in American democracy. Special interest groups can increase public awareness of issues, and bring about change. For example, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), is a special interest group founded to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons (NCAAP 2008). The NCAAP frequently uses various techniques to influence government policy. They fight legal battles in the courtroom, as well as lobby congress for legislative changes. In 1922, they successfully lobbied Congress to introduce and pass the first Anti-Lynching Bill of its kind.

Supporters of special interest groups believe that competing groups work against each other, ultimately balancing each other out until the common good is achieved. This idea, commonly referred to as pluralism, works great in theory however it fails in reality. Does a local environmental group have the access and influence in Government as an energy conglomerate? The answer is no.

Special interest groups are to blame for many of the problems in American today. These groups are essentially able to buy legislation to further their own agenda. All one has to do is look at the vast amount of money and lobbyists in Washington. In fact, in 2012 there were over 12,000 registered lobbyists spending an estimated $3.3 billion to influence government policy. There is also concern for the correlation between political corruption and special interest groups. In a paper published by Richard Damania, a well knowing lobbying expert, said, evidence suggests that political corruption is often closely linked to the lobbying activities of special interest groups (Damania 2008). One of the most famous opponents of special interest groups was President James Madison. In his essay Federalist Number 10, Madison writes, among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, non deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction (Madison 1787). Madison feared that factions (or special interest groups) would impose tyranny by the majority

(Madison 1787), where a large faction could impose its beliefs on others, simply due to their size.

Critics of special interest groups often point to examples of a minority opinion, with large financial resources, influencing legislation that negatively impacts the majority. A perfect example of this would be the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Stegall Act. Originally this act prohibited commercial banking interests from collaborating with investment banking firms. It was passed in response to the failure of the banking industry after the Great Depression. The act advanced through the House of Representatives and Senate before being signed into law by President Roosevelt. Immediately after the law passed, the banking industry lobbied for its repeal. While very few banks failed between 1933 and 1999, the banking industry was extremely unhappy with the limits, which were placed on them. In 1999, President Clinton and a Republican Congress repealed the act. Many people think that the deregulation of the banking industry is what lead to the financial meltdown and eventual bailout of banks in 2008.

If a special interest group contributes to a legislator because they agree with their viewpoints, there would be little concern of corruption. However, if a group contributes in an attempt to sway a legislators decision, there is cause for concern.

This dilemma poses an interesting challenge. How does one differentiate between these? The answer is roll call voting.

Typically voting in Congress is done by voice vote, which does not record which way a Congress member vote. It only records whether the measure passes or fails. Not recording a legislators vote creates a problem of accountability and historical voting trends. Roll call voting is where every name of those voting for and against a piece of legislation is officially recorded. This ensures an accurate voting history for each politician, making it easier to spot possible corruption.

For example, lets take a politician who has been routinely against off shore drilling (as evident by his roll-call voting record). If his campaign receives a contribution from an oil company and his position changes to now support off shore drilling, we can infer that contribution contained some level of corruption. Creating an accurate voting history for politicians and cross referencing it with donation records, can paint a very interesting picture on the level of influence special interest groups have in Washington.

Currently there are differing rules on how a roll call vote may be called. In the Senate, a Senator must request the roll call vote and upon approval from one-

fifth of the Senators present, the request will be granted. The House of Representatives is a bit more complicated. A roll call vote will be granted if there is approval from one-fifth present or automatically if the subject concerns budget, taxes, or appropriations. Congress has the power to change the rules to require roll call voting on all legislation but it would require wide support across the two parties.

While special interest groups have benefited society in the past, their disadvantages far outweigh their benefits. Today votes go to where the money is, regardless of what is best for society. Abolishing lobbying in government and implementing roll call voting not only increases accountability and transparency in Congress, but also allows for citizens to be able to trust their Government.

Works Cited
Damania, Richard. "Corruption and Political Competition." Economics Discussion Papers, March 2008. Madison, James. "Federalist Number 10." November 1787. NCAAP. Our Mission: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. September 5, 2008. http://www.naacp.org/pages/our-mission (accessed June 1, 2013).