¶ … special interest groups have too much power in politics today? Why or why not? Do you think we should allow these interest groups to continue to function as they currently do? Why or why not? What do you think would happen to our nation if we did not allow interest groups to continue to operate? I do feel that special interest groups have too much power in politics today and I feel that this is a big part of the appeal for "outsiders" like Sanders and Trump in the race today. Special interest groups like AIPAC for example can make or break political careers, which is why when Netanyahu visits Congress to speak, nearly every member bows and bends at the knee: AIPAC is a big donor to campaigns. Likewise, Wall Street interest groups and corporate interest groups are also big donors to campaigns and Establishment politicians like Hillary benefit from them that the status quo might continue into the foreseeable future if she is elected. If our nation did not allow interest groups to operate, politics would be a very different animal. There would be fewer career politicians because that off which they feed would be gone; the main incentive for acting as a political representative would be the good of the country -- but of course what that actually means would have to be clarified too. Are the current trade deals good for the country, for example? Establishment politicians say they are -- but that is probably because they are bought by the special interest groups who stand to benefit from them. So banning interest groups from the political process would likely change the way legislators vote for/against bills.

2. How has the news media evolved from the nation's founding to what it is today? Discuss the various functions the news media has in American society. How well do you feel...

With overlapping boards of directorates among the MIC, media companies, government special interest groups, agencies, etc., it is not difficult to see how Big Business and the MSM (mainstream media) work together to promote a view that is corporatist and statist. In the nation's founding, media was slower: print information did not circulate quite as fast as digital media today; therefore, while the power of media was still persuasive and used by those government and business (Hamilton's Federalist Papers for instance were an example of propaganda for a federal, centralized government), it was not as pervasive. Today, digital media is everywhere and the MSM is loud and triumphant (and exultant) in its deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Politicians that the Establishment wants out of the way are targeted by the media and harassed or ignored (such as Ron Paul, Donald Trump). This is of course a generalization -- and some media outlets still manage to inform the public.
Alternative media outlets, however, are providing perspectives that are not presented by the MSM and that go against the narrative proffered by Establishment politicians. From alternative media outlets like Global Research, RT, or ZeroHedge, one can read various perspectives on geopolitical, economic and social issues that impact the world today. Thus media are still presenting viewpoints on the world, and there are different viewpoints that can be accessed -- it just depends on where one looks: the MSM is essentially establishmentarian in general, while alternative media is essentially anti-establishmentarian in views in general. Thus, media still performs the function of providing information…