Presidency and Congress Evaluate Dickinson's thesis, in the light of the evidence he provides in his article, and the evidence I provided in lectures. Is Congress now a nationalized legislature? Or is it still a collection of representatives of local and special interests?

Matthew Dickinson's article provides a fascinating take on the state of the U.S. Congress as society knows it- Dickinson states that "all politics are local" and that 'Congress had entered a new, more partisan area of increasingly nationalized politics"; but, though fascination, Dickinson is far from the mark. Congress remains partial and politics is very much apparent at the national level, in addition to the local level.

Foremost, the fundamental underpinning of Congress is that it would be a collection of representative from local districts and states, with each district and state fostering special interests. The reason that individuals elect certain people to Congress is to represent their local and special interests at a national level. To say, as Dickinson has, that "all politics is local" would be a direct implication of the very foundational concepts that Congress has been built on. Using this has a framework to thoroughly evaluate the reasons and thinking behind the argument against Dickinson's thesis.

Campaign contributions illuminate the very idea of special interests. Campaigns, in addition to federally funded money, are the way that certain candidates are able to fuel their campaigns to Congress. Campaign contributions can come from individuals who support the ideals and the ideas a specific candidate has or from corporations who have the ability to donate a larger sum of money than an individual. Like individuals, corporations also have a vested interest in what laws are passed so that their company may profit from it. If a candidate is elected to Congress who is oppose to the type of business...

Campaigns rely on contributions that will accumulate into the millions and candidates scramble for people's and companies donations- for instance, President Obama is aiming to outdo his $750 million dollar fundraising campaign that he made for the 2008 election, by mainly relying on individuals as well as corporations (Feldmann). These corporations will expect that since they are making contributions of a considerable magnitude then their interests will be reflected in the administration's policy. Special interests that come through the use of campaign contributions are evident at the most basic local levels of government, Congress and even at the Presidential level. Campaign contributions, in modern society, are the epitome of special interests in government which further contradicts the statement that Dickinson has made about Congress being a nationalized legislating body.
Furthermore, partial politics also remains apparent in regards to the power of committees and sub-committees. Partial politics is very apparent in committees, especially ones that decide spending and represent local interests. For example, Boeing is a large airplane maker that is responsible for sometimes making planes for the military. If a representative from the district that Boeing is located in serves on the Armed Services Committee that decides the budget for military spending, it will likely be in Boeing's favor because there are likely many jobs that district that are also Boeing employees. When someone who represents a district with powerful industry, in this example Boeing, and are assigned to a specific committee then those local and special interests are going to be heard in those specific committee hearings or when awarding contract positions to specific places.

Also, voting cohesion amongst party lines…