politic

Okay, I can tell what you're going for. First I will rebuttal your four arguments, and then I will state my case.Unfortunately, the term "interest groups" is extraordinarily vague. Although I don't want my argument to devolve into just pointing out semantics loopholes, this is a problem. Encyclopedia Brittanica defines interest groups as, "any association of individuals or organizations, usually formally organized, that, on the basis of one or more shared concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favour. All interest groups share a desire to affect government policy to benefit themselves or their causes [1]." And according to Merriam Webster, they are, "a group of people who try to influence politics or the policies of government, business, etc., in a way that helps their own interests [2]." Since no definitions were provided, I will refer to those definitions in the future.Rebuttal1. You provide no examples or citations of the laws you speak of. You also fail to mention that, while pressure groups recieve no direct scrutiny from the government, they also do not possess nearly the amount of power and direct influence the actual branches of government do. Richard A. Smith, in a thesis for New York University, commented on several studies that suggested interest groups to have no real influence on the house on the senate [3].2. Again, no evidence. Also, according to the same thesis from my last rebbuttal, it cannot be proven that money from interest organizations buys a greater amount of governmental influence [4]. Furthermore, "According to 18 USCS prec § 201(b), whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence that person’s official act will be fined for the offence of bribery [5]." So your point is moot, as it is laughable to think that regulating interest groups that are already commiting crimes will change anything.3. This point assumes that interest groups are a bad thing, which my point will argue against.4. Saying that "the government worked better" is an extremely subjective opinion, and one that seems not to be based on facts. You also fail to say when and how interest groups "became so powerful." With your final sentence, you suggest that many (if not the majority) of public interest groups are breaking the law. As I already mentioned, even if it was true (which it most certainly isn't) these groups are not given "too much power" by the government if they are activiely breaking the law.My CaseWith my case, I would like to claim that, not only do interest groups lack the extent of power they describe, but they are benefiticial to the American public as a whole. I say this for the following two contentions:1. Interest groups are an actual "voice for the people." In America, an individual person has little power in the goings-on of the government. Richard A. Smith, in regards to the groups, wrote, "Much of it has been cleverly concieved and executed, and it has pushed academic inquiries into new and promising directions [6]." Supporting an interest organization is a reliable way for the common person to voice their opinion when simply voting for representitives or not.2. Like it or not, all of the legal processes of interest groups are constitutional. I know you already partially quoted the constitution in your third contention, but I hope you'll indulge me: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances [7]." All interest groups within the law cannot be "too powerful" as mandated by the constitution.Works Cited [1]: http://www.britannica.com...[2]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[3]: http://www.nyu.edu...;(page 92)[4]: http://www.nyu.edu...;(page 93) [5]: http://bribery.uslegal.com...[6]: http://www.nyu.edu...;(page 122)[7]: http://www.law.cornell.edu...;