The Case of Lobbying
Lobbying, one of the most complex issues in our government right now. Lobbying has had a clear impact on our society through the laws passed, policies made, and overall how our government is run. The questions of if its moral detriments outweigh its economic and political benefits or vice versa and how it is performed today have traveled across nearly every government official’s mind.
So what is lobbying? Lobbying is basically someone asking for something from the government. Most lobbyists work for special interests groups where they ask congressmen to pass or not pass laws that would help their interest groups. Lobbyists reach this goal by trying to persuade these congressmen over many occasions on behalf of their employers.
The reasons why many perceive lobbying as a detriment to the government are quite clear. It allows the wealthy to dominate the government, the public suffers, and lastly it is never going away.
It is clear that lobbying is essential to businesses as they spend nearly 2.6 billion dollars every year on it. Not only this, but the richer businesses can hire more lobbyists thus giving them more say in the government. Why is this bad? Since the richer businesses have more say, it is much more likely for them to determine which bills are passed and rejected based on if they make the business more money or not (Hill). This means that money has an immense influence on congressmen. Ultimately, this leads to rich companies becoming richer while the public is left to deal with the consequences. An example of this is from the pharmaceutical lobby in which it influenced the government to create stricter patent and trademark laws (Ludwig). These laws allowed prices of certain drugs to remain extremely high as generic brands could not copy the drugs. In 2015, Mark Shkreli increased the cost of an HIV drug from $13.50 to $750 (Long and Egan). Imagine being infected with HIV and not being able to treat the disease ultimately suffering until you perish. How did Mark Shkreli achieve this? He was protected by the patent laws that were passed because of the pharmaceutical lobby. This raises the question of if a law is unethical for protecting unethical behavior. Unfortunately, there is no law specifically preventing Shkreli from carrying out such behaviors. However, we are in absolute need of such laws. For example, a price limit to certain types of medications before their patents are expired would be beneficial in stopping these unethical acts from even starting.
The process of lobbying has also had a very large negative impact on the public as a whole. As stated before, the political agenda is much more focused on business issues instead on the needs of the public. Policy makers would rather spend time on issues that matter to business groups than the public due to the constant pressure put on them by these businesses. In addition to this, corporations are essentially getting paid to lobby. In 2014 a study revealed that for every dollar a corporation spent on lobbying, they would get 760 dollars in return (Hill). In other words, businesses are making extra money at the expense of the people’s needs. In addition, this number keeps on getting bigger and bigger for every policy passed that was influenced by one or more large corporations.
Lastly, the process by which lobbyists actually persuade congressmen has grown to become highly corrupt and intense. If lobbyists cannot get their way with constant pestering, “favors”, etc., they will resort to threatening the congressmen. There was one case when a congressman refused to vote for a bill that a lobbyist was endorsing. Because of this, the lobbyist began threatening the congressman claiming that he would ruin his son’s chances of ever being elected to become a member of the house. This resulted in the congressman being forced to vote for the bill despite its clear favoritism to large corporations.
Despite the overshadowing by the enormous companies that heavily invest in lobbying, many citizens forget the fact that lobbying has represented democratic ideals in the past. It has acted as a mouthpiece for individuals and small interest groups that otherwise might not have been heard (Farley). Because of it, smaller and less popular interests were not be neglected. For example, in 1980, an organization by the name of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) pressured the government to increase the drinking age from 18 years to 21 years. Due to the organizations sheer size by 1984, the use of lobbying allowed its message to reach government officials. This is because numerous members of MADD, led by Candy Lightner, “buttonholed congressmen while representatives of MADD chapters flooded their offices with letters and telegrams”(NYRA). Ultimately, this convinced congressmen and resulted in the increase in drinking age.
Clearly, the government deals with a significant amount of issues on a daily basis. This significant amount of work leads to them forgetting the needs of citizens. Without lobbyist constantly pestering government officials, it is extremely likely that they will fall into the “out of sight, out of mind” trap (Weiser). Issues that are not pressured by lobbyists are easily superseded by the ones that are. Despite this, it is extremely easy for an average citizen to become a lobbyist in order to have their message reach policy makers directly. No education requirements are needed but one does need to be an expert in the field they are lobbying for (as they are trying to persuade congressmen). Furthermore, no license is needed to pursue lobbying but it is required that one registers with the federal and state governments. This is similar to modern day work environments in which you don’t just sit there and hope for a promotion, you strive to project yourself and why you should get the attention. Essentially, if lobbying did not exist or was banned, the needs of the public would be brushed to the side and likely never be considered as there would be no way for the public to voice its opinion to policy makers on a face to face level. This face to face conversation is what ultimately determines if a policy maker will consider. However, a significant portion of the time, the face to face conversation is not enough as there is no money or other benefits backing it up.
Due to the extreme difficulties of bringing attention of congressmen to the needs of the public, people have resorted to the modern day protest as a new form of lobbying. The reason for this is people believe that a massive group of people congregating for the same goal will help bring attention to their issues. An example of this is the March for Our Lives protests that were held on March 24, 2018. These protests had the goal of promoting gun control in efforts of reducing gun violence. With over 700 sibling marches and over 800,000 people in attendance (Moyer), it is clear that the people in attendance wanted their voice to be heard by policy makers. It is nearly impossible to have 800,000 people protesting across the nation for a common goal and not take their arguments into consideration. Furthermore, the influence of money does not have any affect on protests. The only cost of a protest is the cost of hosting it. In the end, we are always lobbying, through the acts participating in marches, hosting speeches, or even writing essays, our voices are being heard.
