resolved : that organized political lobbying in the united states does more harm than good

Pro affirms that "In the United States, organized political conducting of activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation does more harm than good. " To negate this, I will first explore the ramifications of his choice of definition, provide counterexamples that show lobbying producing more good than harm, and then discuss his three contentions in light of those points. Definition arguments: Pro has chosen to define lobbying as "to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation. " To relate to the resolution such activities must be organized and political. As pro has not defined organized and political, I will use definitions which I hope will be relatively uncontroversial. organized: Having a formal organization or structure, esp. to coordinate or carry out for widespread activities [1] political: Exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality, etc. [2] The point of this is to define what behaviors we're looking at. We're looking at behavior that arises from a formal structure or organization trying to exercise power in government affairs through influencing public officials, especially members of a legislative body on legislation. That is, organizations that, through any means, attempt to influence government affairs through influencing politicians. Having fully defined terms, we now move to the counterexamples. Counterexamples: It is initially unclear whether Pro is affirming that lobbying does more harm than good in all cases or that there is more harmful lobbying than beneficial lobbying. However, in light of Pro's contentions, I argue that it should be read as an argument that lobbying is universally bad. In each of his contentions Pro has treated lobbying and lobbyists as monolithic, making no distinction between acceptable and unacceptable practices. Contention 1 reads"Political lobbying contributes to the breakdown of our political system. " Contention 2 leads with "Lobbyists use. .. " Contention 3 reads, "Since lobbyists advocate. .. " If Pro's initial case was unclear as to universality, his contentions have clarified it. In each case he refers to Lobbying and Lobbyists as a monolithic whole. A single entity and activity. Thus if Con can show that it is not the case, that there are instances of positive lobbying, then Con has shown that "organized political lobbying can do more good than harm" and has negated Pro's resolution as stated. With that in mind, lets look at examples of positive lobbying. 1. NAACP: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has been lobbying for racial equality for more than 100 years, including within the political sphere. "The NAACP's Washington, D. C. , bureau, led by lobbyist Clarence M. Mitchell Jr. , helped advance not only integration of the armed forces in 1948 but also passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1964, and 1968, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. " [3] Unless my opponent plans to run a racism-good argument, he must concede that this was lobbying that brought more good than harm, which negates his resolution. 2. ACLU: In addition to it's legal aid in support of constitutional rights, the ACLU also concerned with influencing public officials directly, through lobbying campaigns designed to influence Congresspersons through communications from their constituents[4]. Some of the good that came through this lobbying was, just in the state of Washington, "voting rights reform, extension of domestic partnerships, privacy for car travelers, and fair play in community sports[5]. " 3. Petitiononline. com: This online petition site produces neither harm nor good. It is a site where anyone can post a virtual petition and others can sign it[6]. While it may help people blow off steam, it's widely accepted that online petitions aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on for a number of reasons[7], some having to do with the reliability of internet petitions reflecting constituent opinion and if decision makers actually care about an internet petition enough to read it. This example shows that even if lobbying doesn't do more good than harm, it's possible to have no effect, which also negates the resolution as stated. Now that we've examined counter examples which show the flaws in the resolution's monolithic conception of lobbying, lets examine the contentions. Contention 1: "Political lobbying contributes to the breakdown of our political system. " Clearly and obviously it does not, given that the right to petition government, as an individual or as an organization, is protected by the first amendment to the Bill of Rights which states, "Congress shall make no law . .. 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. " Our political system is based on the idea that the people can and should try to influence our politicians to address the problems that exist. Thus political lobbying as defined cannot contribute to the breakdown of our political system. It IS our political system. Furthermore, Pro does not support his assertions in this contention. His assertion that lobbyists have greater influence than the general population (as opposed to, say, being composed of the general population) as well as his assertion that speaking out against (undefined) special interest groups are pointless is unsourced and unsupported. The sources that are quoted here are Mill, a 19th century philosopher, and Hamilton, a National Security specialist. Neither source is relevant to these assertions. Also, Hamilton only speaks to perception, not fact. For these reasons, this contention can be dismissed. Contention 2: "Lobbyist[s] use unethical and immoral methods to fill their requirements. " Pro paints a picture of a Mafia-esque group of thugs terrorizing and bribing politicians into doing their nefarious will. Pro's only support for that is a ten-year-old quote[8] from a student journalist wire service[9] article which also discussed the positive aspects of lobbying and legislation which curbs the stated abuses. Those of you concerned about misrepresentation of sources may wish to pause here and consider your conduct vote. In addition to failing to support the claim of lobbyists as mafia, Pro insinuates that no one would have a desire to influence politicians except for purposes of corruption. Please see my above examples as a counter to this. Pro needs to prove that lobbyists are universally unethical and/or harmful. He has failed to prove that they are unethical or harmful AT ALL. Please dismiss this contention. Contention 3:". .legislation that they help pass may negatively affect others. " Not every situation is win-win, which doesn't make win-lose situations always bad. In any case, Pro's argumentation in this thread only works if you consider public health care reform to be a harm rather than a good. The article Pro cited goes on to say,"Yes, the drug companies are getting tremendous sweetheart deals" from Obama, said Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist who studies the history of health reform and other major social and economic changes. "But these bargains are the price of admission for achieving substantial reform. [10]" Pro's article presents a balanced picture of the costs and benefits of lobbyists interacting with politicians but leaves the conclusion to the reader whether or not it is a good or bad thing. I reiterate my statement about misrepresenting sources. Pro has again failed to prove his contention. He needed to show that legislation helped by lobbyists always produce a net harm. He has failed to show it produced ANY net harm Cites in comments