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

First of all this gentleman argument is a complete fallacy. i would like to also state that wikipedia is a non viable source of information and cannot be used in this debate for it can be edited and altered. Now for a real case and a real debate. And i would also like to state that his arguments are completely flawed as well as unresoloutional he did not once state why we need political lobbying and i will show you why we don't. Lastly i would like to state that is framework is completely flawed and it is ignorant as well as rude to take this as a joke all i did was try to show a sense of respect and let you go first. Definitions lobbying - Communication with elected officials or their staff, which expresses a position on a pending piece of legislation. walk.networkofstrength.org/Page.aspx Good- Possessing desirable qualities; adapted to answer the end designed; promoting success, welfare, or happiness harm-the act of damaging something or someone I strongly affirm today's resolution that "In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good." I don't advocate that there is not good in lobbying. I simply must argue that the bad effects of lobbying outweigh the good. Now after this resolutional analysis my partner and I have 3 contentions that outweigh the good in lobbying. They are……….. 1. Business lobbying groups are much more powerful than public interest groups. 2.Lobbying is bribery and corruption. 3.Lobbyists are responsible for earmarks and pork barreling. 1.Business lobbying groups are much more powerful than public interest groups; thus, policies are made to benefit large corporations instead of public interests. According to Dorie Apollonio 2008 (professor of political science at the university of California, Berkeley) Bruce E. Cain (assistant adjunct professor of clinical pharmacy at the university of California, san Francisco) and Lee Drutman (PHD candidate in political science at the University California, Berkeley) While the corruption problem is important, it does not address what many political scientists have identified as systemic corporate bias in the lobbying system which is not traditional corruption but an equity issue. Every count of groups in the Washington lobbying community ever done has confirmed lobbying landscape dominated by businesses and business trade associations. A consistent finding that business and profit-sector organizations have an advantage in the process of mobilization is one of the most important elements of bias in the Washington interest group community. In sum we can conclude that there are systemic reasons why the bias exists. For one, businesses tend to have fewer obstacles to mobilization than diffuse interest groups. And for another, most political conflict is structured so that the consequences of policy are highly salient to particular concentrated interests, but not the general public. Taken together, this suggests that the imbalances in the pressure system are endemic and not likely to change soon. After looking at lobbying data from 1996, they found that businesses alone accounted for $461 million on lobbying expenditures- more than half (56 percent) of the $823 million spent on lobby that year. Together, business, trade associations, and professional groups account for 85 percent of the total spending reported. Just on their own corporations accounted for 43 percent of registrations, 46 percent of reports filed and 43 percent of issues mentioned Also since business groups have money and thus money equals power they can have more lobbyists getting only their voice heard rather than the voice that speaks out for anyone of you looking at this right now. Thus creating more bias in washington. 2.Lobbying is bribery and corruption Hari Sud [a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager] September 25, 2009 There is a strong connection between lobbying and political contributions. Although direct corporate contributions for political campaigns are strictly forbidden, corporate influence peddling continues unabated. Any interest group or trade guild seeking influence in the corridors of power maintains a steady stream of cash to the election campaign of one politician or another. By the end of the year healthcare lobbyists alone will have spent half a billion dollars to block the public option from the Obama initiative. In a democracy it is legal to oppose the ruling party's initiative. In the United States there is no limit on how much can be spent to oppose an initiative; this makes the country as corrupt as any in the world. Private interest groups spend tons of money during the conventions, pushing for people they trust to get advisory jobs. Lobbyists also form the central core of the election campaign staff. Without their unique knowledge and skill base it would be hard to run an election campaign. Lots and lots of money is spent. Therefore, lobbying in the United States is a sophisticated name for corruption and bribery. Corporations call it a legitimate business activity, but it is no different from corruption in third world countries. It is hard to tell who is more corrupt. In calculating this, lobbying costs must be included. This would probably put the United States and most Western democracies on a par with most third world countries. 3.Lobbyists are responsible for earmarks and pork barreling. Hari Sud [a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager] September 25, 2009 "Earmarks" are specific to U.S. democracy – the addition of items to a spending bill for a specific project, location or institution. If a bill put forth by the administration or Congress cannot pass, additional legislators may be bribed to support it by adding money earmarked for specific projects in their constituencies. This happened when the "bridge to nowhere" was built in Alaska at a cost of about $250 million. Dozens of unnecessary spending projects are undertaken every year to favor one interest group or another. Lobbyists make sure their paymasters get their way. The Congressional Research Service, a private watchdog group, totaled earmarks from 1994 till 2004 at $53 billion. In large part, this escalation in the number of earmarks reflects the growing number of lobbyists offering to obtain them for a fee. As the number of earmarks increases with each passing year, the business attracts more lobbyists who apply more pressure on Congress to spend more on pork-barï¿½rel spending. Ronald D. Utt April 27,2006[senior research fellow in the Thomas a roe institute for economic policy at the heritage foundation] A growing body of evidence suggests that illegal and questionable lobbying practices are not uncommon and that incidents such as those involving mr Abramoff have likely been repeated in similar transactions between other lobbyists and members. A recent congressional research service analysis indicates the scope of such activities. The analysis found that the number if earmarks authorized by congress in appropriations bills alone increased from 4,155 in 1994 to 15,887 in 2005- an increase of 282 percent. 1,439earnarks in 1995, which grew to 13,997 in 2005 for an increase of 872 percent. In a large part, this escalation in the number of earmarks reflects the growing number of lobbyists offering to obtain them for a fee. As the number of earmarks increases with each passing year, the business attracts more lobbyists who apply more pressure on congress to spend more on pork-bar-rel spending. We all know earmarks do not help the United states in any way but waste our nations money which we really can't do being as we are in an economic crisis and what lobbying does is support such legislation and urge it. BECAUSE BUSINESS GROUP LOBBYISTS CONTROL WHAT GOES ON IN LOBBYING, BECAUSE LOBBYING IS CORRUPTION AND LEADS TO UNNECESSARY SPENDING ON EARMARKS