The influence of special interest groups on American public policy

6

The United States government has many internal and external stakeholders. The internal stakeholders, those that work for the government, rely on the government for their livelihood and want to keep policies in effect that keep their position secure. Those that represent the external stakeholders like businesses, United States citizens, and non-governmental organizations, rely on the government for to maintain in mind their needs and interests. These all come together to shape how American public policy informed. In an ideal world, there should be a balance between meeting the needs of all these stakeholders and maintaining order. However, that is usually impossible or in the very least, difficult to achieve. That is why the American government is having difficult constructing public policy that is beneficial for everyone. Although Congress, the President, regulatory agencies, and the Judicial branch all have a role to play in American public policy, there has been a recent trend in the last few decades of private companies coming in and having an influence in how policy is written in the United States. These companies often lobbied for by special interest groups, aim to change public policy to benefit them and suit their needs. While the branches of American government have explicit power, these special interest groups have implicit power and may have more power than they should. This could be extremely problematic for the United States as a whole because the special interest groups only aim to help themselves and do not have at their core, the desire to help the nation. Special interest groups have implicit power. That means they are not directly in power, but have influence over those that do. “Powerful economic interests seem to be pervasive in the United States government. Companies and private investors often pay lobbyists to lobby to Congress to pass certain legislation that will allow them to make more money off of laxer laws” (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2004, p. 143). These groups often have lobbyists that ‘persuade’ the government to keep or change policy. While this has existed since the formation of the United States government, in the last two decades, it has become pervasive in American politics. They even have influence in regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies as discussed in chapter 11, often have to deal with pressure not just from Congress and the president, but from private interest groups that have wealthy people in charge. These wealthy people pay to ensure policies that suit their needs are passed. “…the degree of independence possessed by an agency my fall short of that apparently conferred on it. As already noted, the president, Congress, and powerful economic interests frequently interact with a regulatory agency, thereby affecting what it does” (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013, p. 477). Although there are several stakeholders at play in regulatory agencies, there is some safety these kinds of agencies possess, like being shielded from the president. “Commissioners cannot be fired by the president; staggered terms inhibit presidential ability to ‘sweep out the old and bring in the new’; and partisanship in the agencies’ makeup is limited by law” (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013, p. 77). Still even, with limited powers, the president can have powerful influence on the composition of regulatory agencies and thus the direction of polices. This is something to consider when the Trump Administration aims to change policies concerning major private businesses. Although news sources have not provided any confirmation, fears are that major changes may be made to benefit wealthy corporations. This is exactly why special interest groups and lobbyists funded by private corporations should not have such influence in the government. As more of their implicit power grows, there is a fear among industry professionals and experts that these special interest groups could take over the government and have absolute power. The Trump administration for example, has powerful business people taking key positions in the United States government. A good example of this is Rex Tillerson. He is the current chief executive officer and chairman of ExxonMobil. Another CEO, Steven Mnuchin, is Secretary of the Treasury and he is Director of CIT Bank, Sears Holdings, and CEO of OneWest (Harrington & Gould, 2017). These people are business people first and foremost and have little to no political background. Yet, because Donald Trump, a businessman with no political experience, had the power to appoint his cabinet, he was able to do what he wanted and ensure his connections achieved powerful positions within the United States government. This is the reality of having special interest groups in the White House. When special interest groups exist, there is a potential for such people to come and take over a government and corrupt it. Therefore, public policy has become problematic in the American government. If the United States citizens are not allowed to have say in the way public policy is developed, how is the American government keeping the interests of these external stakeholders met? One key issue where American citizens felt their voice was not heard was in the popular vote difference in the Trump and Clinton Presidential election of 2017. Seen as the biggest difference between Presidential candidates, some people felt they were not fairly represented in the voting due to the electoral college way of choosing a President. Donald Trump lost the popular vote in last month’s US presidential election by a bigger margin than any other US president in history. The Republican is currently trailing Democrat rival Hillary Clinton by 2.8 million votes as the last remaining postal ballots are counted – despite him winning the November 8 election because of the Electoral College system. That deficit is more than five times bigger than the 544,000 by which George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in 2000 - the second biggest popular vote deficit in history for a candidate who has still gone on to become President (Kentish, 2016). It may seem unfair to some that a President was chosen amidst such a great difference, but that is something that cannot be changed because of the electoral college. However, things like healthcare reform and tax reform can be changed, and should be changed to provide for the American citizens the help they need to lead better lives. But again, because businesses and lobbyists, other key external stakeholders have influence on key internal stakeholders like members of Congress, the President, and regulatory agencies, it can be very difficult to pass public policy that will benefit the American people. Rather, policy may be passed that only suits the needs of the businesses. A key recent example of this are the Trump Tax cuts aiming to provide a 7% reduction in taxes for the wealthy, while the bottom earners pay 2% more. The plan contains up to $6 trillion in tax cuts, according to independent analysts, which Trump and top Republicans say they would offset by eliminating loopholes, deductions and tax breaks and boosting annual economic growth. Hungry for legislative victory after repeated failures in their push to overturn Obamacare, many Republicans are now willing to accept a tax plan that raises the federal deficit, a fact that bothers some deficit hawks (Morgan, 2017). This seems to benefit more the top 1% of American earners and hurt the middle and lower class. This shows that the American government wants to satisfy the needs of businesses and wealthy individuals over common American citizen. If that is the case, this is just a taste of what is to come for the American government now that special interest groups have seemingly taken over. In conclusion, the United States government has key stakeholders involved in how the American public is impact by policy. These people have explicit power. They belong in the three main branches of government: The Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative. All these branches and the regulatory agencies help to create and pass policies that promote positive or negative outcomes for the general American population. However, when special interest groups being taking over via implicit power thanks to their paid lobbyists, can assume office, that is when things get out of hand. The Trump Administration in 2017 demonstrated just how far special interest groups have come. They have begun to assume powerful positions in the United States government and may end up having a profound effect on American public policy. If that is the case, perhaps this can serve to prove that special interest groups and implicit power should be kept in check. If people see and experience the horror of selfish special interest groups and their great political influence, may people will be more willing to limit the influence of lobbyists and funding of campaigns and government officials through wealthy corporations. There is still so much that is needed to understand how pervasive this kind of influence is. Hopefully the Trump Administration will provide enough information for a better analysis. With the way everything is going, this era will bring forth enough evidence against giving power to only a few stakeholders.