RESOLVED: organized political lobbying does more harm than good

Normally I would address my opponent's arguments before moving onto my own, but seeing as how I have already thrown debate format out the window by ruining Round 1, I will go ahead and address mine first. Political lobbying does more harm than good for three key reasons. The first reason is that political lobbying is detrimental to public interest. It prevents our legislators from acting in the best interests of the country. Nathan Witkin writes in the Ohio State University Journal on Dispute Resolution that the lavish gifts and contributions that lobbyists are willing to provide to legislators distract lawmakers from their core duties and, "...have led to corrupt dealings that hinder legislators from acting in the best interests of the country" (1). When legislators recieve contributions from specific lobbying organizations, they have little choice but to vote in favor of that organization or risk losing important financial backing. This results in legislators voting with the highest bidder, rather than with the majority of American people. Though polls conducted by the New York Times indicate that two-thirds of Americans are in favor of stricter gun control, senators like Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee who are backed by the National Rifle Association and similar organizations consistently vote against gun control; despite the wishes of the American people (2). Secondly, political lobbyists have far too much power, and far more than the average American citizen. Lobbyists use their sway with government to cloud the issues for their own benefits. Look to the actions of wind industry lobbyists back in 2009. When a Spanish study from a nonbiased education institution indicated that wind power actually causes more job loss than job creation, the American wind energy lobby began pushing the Energy Department to to produce a counterstudy, which they soon did (3). Obviously, if American legislators had paid attention to the Spanish study, they should have been voting against pro-wind power energy legislation because it has the potential to be extremely harmful to our economy. However, since this would harm the jobs of those in the wind power sector, of course they would want a study produced that proves otherwise. So who is to say whether the study of the Energy Department was legitimate, or just a ploy to counter the less biased Spanish study? When lobbyists are affecting the validity of information available to legislators, they are clearly abusing their power and abusing our political system. I do not see how that is more beneficial than detrimental in any way. Lastly, political lobbying has negative impacts on the protected rights of American citizens. First, it is important to realize that or modern lobbying is not what the founding fathers envisioned. Louise Slaughter, a Democrat Representative from New York, writes in the US Fed News that, "They [Founding Fathers] never intended to condone a system in which private lobbying firms, wielding vast sums of money, spend their days shaping our nation's legislation, and do so to a degree the average citizen can't even dream of" (4). Similarly, Leon Panetta, former Chief of Staff, member of Congress, and Director of the Office of Management and Budget, claims that citizens now must be prosperous in order to partcipate in government to the extent which lobbyists do (5). This cocept directly challenges a quote by James Madison: "The door of government must be open to merit of every description—without regard to poverty or wealth." Unfortunately, the vastly wealthy lobbying organizations drown up the phone call or e-mail of the the average citizen to their lawmakers. Citizen voices can simply no longer be heard. Anita Krishnakumar of St. John's School of Law explained in the Alabama Law Review that lobbyists have far more access to congresspeople than other citizens. This greater access inherently leads to a partiality towards lobbyists versus the greater majority of citizens (6). Since our politicians can't hear our voices over the conniving whisper of lobbyists, this is certainly a harmful impact. Now, I will move to address my opponent's contentions. He first stated that lobbyists promote community interest, and his main point is that anyone can higher lobbyists, not just big corporations. Indeed, many lobbyists lobby for organizations that could be considered beneficial for the majority of Americans. However, out of the top twenty highest spending lobbying firms in 2009, the vast majority are corporations whose interests often collide with those of the majority. These include Exxon, BP, etc. So though my opponent is correct in the fact that many good groups are legally ALLOWED to lobby for their own good, I would contend that they are unable to do so effecively because of the powrful, high-spending corporations that sway our legislators. Secondly, my opponent wrote that lobbyists are necessary for a representative government to function. He contends that lobbyists provide important information for the political process, and that this information allows for a better informed Congress. However, we have to recognize that there is a difference between accurate and biased information. I point you again to the wind energy example I discussed earlier. It is only natural for lobbyists to present only those facts which benefit their clients. However, this means that congresspeople are not necessarily getting the best information, but only the information that the lobbyists want them to recieve. An article called "Access and Lobbying: Looking Beyond the Corruption Paradigm" in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly says that, "...it may not always be the case that legislators get to hear both sides of an issue and can thus triangulate between two competing views" (7). A lawmaker is inherently most likely going to be persuaded by the arguments that they're most exposed to. Therefore, the information provided by lobbyists is not necessarily a good thing. Finally, my opponent wrote that lobbyists give people a say in our government, which you will find is in direct clash with my third point, that lobbyists have negative impacts on our protected rights. My opponent claims that lobbyists give the little man a voice. However, I still stand by my contention that lobbyists are too powerful to allow the little man to have a voice, and generally back large corporations. While this may benefit some Americans, it certainly does not benefit the majority. My opponent must prove that political lobbying helps the majority of Americans in order to prove his case. For all those reasons, I remain in firm affirmation of this resolution and likewise urge a strong vote towards affirmation from you. Again, I apologize for my misconduct in round 1 and thank my opponent for this debate. Sources: (1) "Interest Group Mediation: A Mechanism for Controlling and Improving Congressional Lobbying Practices" by Nathan Witkin in the Ohio State University Journal on Dispute Resolution. (2) http://www.ontheissues.org... (3) http://www.investors.com... (4) Louise McIntosh Slaughter: "Representative Slaughter Addresses ‘Corrosive Ethics Crisis' During Third Rules Committee Ethics Reform Hearing. US Fed News. (5) http://www.campaignfinancesite.org... (6) "Towards a Madisonian, Interest-Based, Approach to Lobbying Regulation" by Anita S. Krishnakumar in the Alabama Law Review. (7) "Access and Lobbying: Looking Beyond the Corruption Paradigm" Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly.