Why Is Democracy Is Endangered By Special Interest?
Do you think democracy is endangered by the need to raise huge amounts of money to run for public office? Is the need for big money leading to less democracy—that is, government by special interests? Would you support public financing of campaigns?
I feel that democracy is endangered by the need to raise huge amounts of money to run for public office. Money talks and that means that the candidates who raise the most money usually win (pg. 407). Per the textbook on page 408 the wealth and powerful have a decided advantage in the electoral politics, and it has become a contest. The courts are struggling to balance free speech and preventing political corruption (pg. 410).
It was ruled that there was no evidence that special interest groups gave …show more content…
Countries such as Japan and Germany have very few interest groups and are thus able to make decisions more quickly with a view toward the public interest. What are some arguments in favor of our Pluralist (interest group–driven) type of government? On the other hand, what are some ways that interest groups impede democracy? Which system would you prefer: one with many groups or one with few?
Some arguments that are in favor of our Pluralist type of government is that a good government would encourage this. Interest groups mobilize and educate the public. It is felt that a lot of interest will prevent one interest from making the other interest go away. The basic assumption is that all the competing interests will regulate one another, producing balance (pg. 435). An interest group may lose one issue and then win the next, and most of society will have been represented by the government. It is also felt that if interest groups compete to be represented by elected officials, all groups will benefit; a group representing a minority will beat an apathetic majority on important issues to the minority (pg.
I feel that democracy is endangered by the need to raise huge amounts of money to run for public office. Money talks and that means that the candidates who raise the most money usually win (pg. 407). Per the textbook on page 408 the wealth and powerful have a decided advantage in the electoral politics, and it has become a contest. The courts are struggling to balance free speech and preventing political corruption (pg. 410).
It was ruled that there was no evidence that special interest groups gave …show more content…
Countries such as Japan and Germany have very few interest groups and are thus able to make decisions more quickly with a view toward the public interest. What are some arguments in favor of our Pluralist (interest group–driven) type of government? On the other hand, what are some ways that interest groups impede democracy? Which system would you prefer: one with many groups or one with few?
Some arguments that are in favor of our Pluralist type of government is that a good government would encourage this. Interest groups mobilize and educate the public. It is felt that a lot of interest will prevent one interest from making the other interest go away. The basic assumption is that all the competing interests will regulate one another, producing balance (pg. 435). An interest group may lose one issue and then win the next, and most of society will have been represented by the government. It is also felt that if interest groups compete to be represented by elected officials, all groups will benefit; a group representing a minority will beat an apathetic majority on important issues to the minority (pg.