Arguments Against Government Interest Groups
The formation of interest groups goes back to the beginning of the development of the U.S Government. The types of groups that helped form the nation today are economic, environmental, equality, consumer and public interest, professional, and government interest groups. Two things interest groups do when they interact with the government is shape policies and gather information. Many argue that interest groups do more bad than good for democracy, one of the main arguments in favor of interest groups is pluralism and the main argument against interest groups is that some groups are so powerful that they can crowd out other voices and those that are wealthy can contribute more money, and money can conclude to corruption.
In 1946, (Boundless) …show more content…
Since legislators are prone to giving in to bribery I do believe some limitations on interest groups, but not excessive ones because I believe they are able to express their viewpoints as their participating in a group. I believe money does revolve around everything; money tends to get people to the front row and leaving everyone who is economically disadvantaged behind and unheard. A way we can get everyone’s voice heard is have limits how much money can be raised by an interest group and how much of the earnings are pocketed by high level officials. For example, 60 percent of the money raised for The Wounded Warrior Project went to higher level officials such as the CEO and other higher level members on the committee, and only 40 percent went to the actual war veterans. I believe if we a have a limit on how much a group can raise and do, all interest groups would have an equal voice.
People are influenced in many different ways, and interest groups can be a part of their ideology. I don’t think that interest groups have a high percentage on extensively influencing today’s politics. Things that influence politics today are problems we face today such as immigration, gun control, foreign affairs, and excreta. Interest groups are divided into two categories and those are economically and noneconomic which I think can have a small influence, but “we the people” have a greater influence since we participate and give feedback to political
In 1946, (Boundless) …show more content…
Since legislators are prone to giving in to bribery I do believe some limitations on interest groups, but not excessive ones because I believe they are able to express their viewpoints as their participating in a group. I believe money does revolve around everything; money tends to get people to the front row and leaving everyone who is economically disadvantaged behind and unheard. A way we can get everyone’s voice heard is have limits how much money can be raised by an interest group and how much of the earnings are pocketed by high level officials. For example, 60 percent of the money raised for The Wounded Warrior Project went to higher level officials such as the CEO and other higher level members on the committee, and only 40 percent went to the actual war veterans. I believe if we a have a limit on how much a group can raise and do, all interest groups would have an equal voice.
People are influenced in many different ways, and interest groups can be a part of their ideology. I don’t think that interest groups have a high percentage on extensively influencing today’s politics. Things that influence politics today are problems we face today such as immigration, gun control, foreign affairs, and excreta. Interest groups are divided into two categories and those are economically and noneconomic which I think can have a small influence, but “we the people” have a greater influence since we participate and give feedback to political