Interest groups and their political influence

Democracy is recognized by most ordinary citizens in the free world as one of the most important components of modern Western society. Indeed, many of the issues around which politics today revolves concern matters of democracy such as equality in the workplace, the right to control one's reproductive rights, the right to carry arms, and so on. All of these rights are connected to the fundamental principle of freedom, which is an important pillar of democracy in today's world. However, as Hudson (2013) rightfully notes, there are those who are opposed to basic democratic principles, not only in foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, where women are denied many basic rights that an average American woman would take for granted, but also in the United States itself. Despite the principle of promoting democracy via the hands of interest group leaders, some have become so powerful that they are able to monopolize political power. This has a detrimental effect on the democratic rights of general citizens.

According to Hudson (2013, p. 22), the average citizen tends to be politically apathetic regarding matters that do not concern them directly. This leaves open the field for interest groups to contend for their views in the political arena. This system works only when interest group leaders themselves believe in the sacredness of democratic principles and the right of the public to be fully informed regarding the potential harm of certainproducts.

This is not the case for tobacco companies. According to Rosenhall (2014), tobacco companies have exponentially increased their contributions to political campaigns over recent years in order to promote their own interests. These companies are powerful because they are rich, and therefore they have the power to promote their own interests without any regard for public safety or health.

In this way, interest groups can have a decidedly detrimental effect on the democratic process, where power is removed from the public in favor of funding-supported power.

Lobbying during presidential campaigns has become part and parcel of how American politics operate. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that lobbying has gained a decidedly negative association in recent years. Many citizens have begun to lose trust in the workings of Washington following lobbying scandals such as the one involving Jack Abramoff (Thurber, 2010, p. 6). For this reason, President Obama has put in place several stringent requirements that restrict lobbyists from abusing their power and funding. Hence, an increase of lobbying has been somewhat discouraged over the last two presidential elections, and official figures seem to support this. One should also take into account, however, that lobbying does not only involve the actual exchange of money. Lobbyist influence can also occur in more subtle ways, which is far more difficult to measure than monetary contributions.

Official lobbying contributions are easy to measure, as indicated by OpenSecrets.org (2014). According to the site, there has been a stead decrease in lobbying contributions between 2010 and 2014, from $3.55 billion in 2010 to $3.24 billion in 2013 and $1.64 billion so far in 2014. The same is true of the number of lobbyists, with 12,960 in 2010 to 11,079 in 2014. It is possible that this decline in official contribution number is due to the regulations imposed by President Obama.

However, the solution might be said to be excessively simple in a wild complexity of relationships among lobbyists, politicians, and consultants, especially when it comes to factors like reciprocity, consulting, and paying for election campaigns. The result is that may hidden expenditures and services are at issue, which are not openly declared on sites such as OpenSecret.org. A large amount of the funding may not be officially declared, for example.

I would therefore conclude my impression as being that, despite the numbers, there was an increase of lobbying efforts, encouraged by more stringent regulation and increased desperation among lobbyists.

3. Interest groups have gained a large amount of power over the election process, especially in recent years. Part of this power lies in their financial prowess and size, but they also have power in terms of their political relationships. Lobbyists, for example, can form close relationships with political powerhouses in terms of congressional leadership. They can use these relationships to gain political power for their own interests and further financial gain. Often, this is done by means of swaying public opinion and gaining official support among political leaders. Not all of these groups have as their focus the interest of the public, or indeed of democratic principle. For this reason, their power and reach should be curtailed by federal law.