Resolved: In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

The format for this debate will be as follows: Round 1: Presentation of cases presenting the affirmation or negation of the resolution. Rounds 2, 3 and 4: Rebuttle of opponent's case while strengthening and reconstructing your own. Round 5: Closing arguments. In this round, NO NEW EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS MAY BE PRESENTED. You may only give your final remarks on why you have won the debate by showing how your points outweigh your opponent's. Directly answering a question asked in the previous round is allowed. With that said, let us begin! I wish my opponent the best of luck! _____________________________________________________________________ RESOLVED: In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good. I will first provide definitions by Oxford Dictionary for round clarity: Organized: arranged in a systematic way, especially on a large scale, in order to carry out activities Political: of or relating to governments, a government, or the conduct of government Lobbying: an organized attempt by members of the public to influence politicians or public officials I affirm the above resolution for three main reasons. First, political lobbying in the United States is infused with corruption. Second, lobbying results in government officials often or always voting with the platform of their respective lobbyists instead of on the merits of the legislation itself. Finally, the practice is undemocratic, as political power is shifted from the populace into the hands of special interest groups. Contention 1: Regarding my first contention, corruption has run rampant throughout the lobbying industry. According to Bell Foundation scholar George Neumann of Northern Illinois University, Even when allowed by law, lobbying acts can become distortive if disproportionate levels of influence exist — by companies, associations, organizations and individuals. A prime example is the tobacco industry, which spends more than $100,000 a day lobbying members of Congress to deregulate said industry. This is despite the almost indisputable evidence showing the harmful effects of tobacco on public health. Also, Japan's Toshiba Corp, which in 2000 sought to build a nuclear reactor in Alaska, lobbied for the Bush Administration's proposed extension of laws reducing corporate liability for injuries or death caused by nuclear accidents. Furthermore, actions by lobbyists not only go against public interest, but the number of incidences of cases involving bribing or other illegal activity is growing. In the well-publicized Jack Abramoff scandal, he spent millions of dollars in gifts and campaign contributions to legislators in order to sway their vote to allow unrestricted internet gambling. Therefore, because the objective of lobbying is to influence politicians, it is becoming all too tempting to do so through unethical and illegal methods. Contention 2: Additionally, lobbying influences politicians to vote purely on the platform from the lobbyists, regardless on the merits or objective of the legislation in question. Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn was endorsed by the National Rifle Association in 2008 for her reelection. Chris Cox, NRA Chairman, stated, "Marsha Blackburn has a perfect pro-gun voting record in Congress. " As an avid NRA member herself, Blackburn has co-sponsored legislation based purely on the platform of the NRA, which does not take into account circumstances unique to the local level (for example, the recent bill eliminating restrictions on guns in public parks). Pursuing this concept further, the Supreme Court struck down the ability to line-item veto in 1998, which further allows lobbyists to pass their cause through influencing legislatures. According to the CATO Institute, during the Bush Administration, lobbyists included a clause in an Energy Spending bill allotting $286,000 for research to enhance the flavor of salted peanuts. So the question we need to ask ourselves is, "Is that how you want our government to be influenced? By lobbyists with financial backing, or you, John Q. Public? " Contention 3: Finally, political lobbying by its very nature is undemocratic. Lobbying organizes for special interests, and by influencing lawmakers, power is transferred from the people (who the politicians should be representing) to those special interests. Now the con side may argue that the right to petition the government is a necessity guaranteed by the First Amendment, but that does not take into account the very nature of this debate, that political lobbying does more harm than good. Petitioning the government may be a necessary freedom, but the corruption and the numerable abuses committed by the lobbying industry prevents the clause from satisfying what the framers had in mind: that the common man should be able to let his voice be heard. The lobbying industry is simply too large and powerful for the common man to be heard, and in the end, organizations with monetary influence will have a greater opportunity to exert that influence. For example, in 2008, citizens voted on a referendum requiring Nashville to conduct its government business in English only. The measure would not have even been introduced if the Virginia-based group Pro-English had not spend thousands of dollars lobbying council member Eric Crafton to introduce the measure. The enormity of the modern lobbying industry also results in lobbyists interfering with the built in framework of checks and balances that were written by the founders of our government. Our political system was designed for the common citizen to have a voice. If people disagree with the record of a legislator, said legislator can simply be voted out of office at the next election. Furthermore, each branch of government is endowed with various ways to "check" the power of another branch. Because of this, the influence of the majority is heightened, as whoever is voted into government is able to extend his influence to other branches. Therefore, in this day and age, the unnecessary influence and abuse of power by lobbyists show that in the United States, the harmful effects of organized political lobbying far outweigh the benefits.