Political dialogue in America is frequently peppered with accusatory references to “special interests.” These special interests are organized groups that play active political roles, either through making contributions to parties and candidates, or through lobbying government offi- cials in an attempt to influence legislation and public policy. Many of these groups have millions of dollars at their disposal. The question is whether this money corrupts the political system—that is, are legislators more concerned with pleasing donors and lobbyists than they are with responding to the will of average citizens? Long a concern, the issue came to the fore during the Administration of George W. Bush as a result of a series of congressional scandals and the revelation of the K Street Project, an effort designed to encourage lobbying firms to hire Republicans and to reward lobbyists loyal to the Republican Party with access to high congressional and Administration officials.
PROS
No person who is financially dependent on someone else is truly free to serve the public good in a disinterested way. When a politician depends on huge sums of money contributed by an organization, his or her vote is inevi- tably influenced by the wishes of that organization rather than by what is best for the country.
The size of contributions has become so large that donors certainly expect some kind of payback. A manufacturers’ association will not give $100,000 away just as a ges- ture of good will; it expects to see its concerns favorably addressed in legislation.
For generations, lawmakers have recognized that the power of special interests can lead to corruption; more than 50 years ago, for example, Congress forbade unions from acting to influence federal elections. But the cre- ation of political action committees (PACs) and the proliferation of soft money have allowed special interest groups to violate the spirit of the law while obeying its letter.
Money purchases access to politicians, who are more willing to make time for donors than for average citizens. Access leads naturally to influence. The average citizen is shortchanged by the current system, which favors cash- rich organizations.
Organizations often spend hundreds of millions of dol- lars to lobby politicians. They would not spend such sums if they did not think such expenditures were effec- tive in helping them get what they want. Again, money clearly is shaping legislation.
CONS
If a politician were dependent on only one source of funding, undue influence might be a possibility. But so many special interest groups are active in Washington that politicians get contributions from dozens, if not hundreds, of them. The influence of any one group, therefore, is negligible; even a contribution of $10,000 is only a “drop in the bucket” when campaigns cost millions.
Accusations of undue influence are often vague and unsupported by facts. Watchdog organizations like to make statistical correlations between donations and votes, but that is not real evidence that votes have been “bought.” Don’t forget that actually buying votes is a crime and is vigorously prosecuted.
Special interests are condemned for having too much influence, but the causal logic of the accusers is fun- damentally flawed. When the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) makes contributions to politicians, it does not buy the votes of legislators who would have voted differently on repro- ductive issues. Rather, NARAL gives money to candi- dates who have already indicated their support for poli- cies in line with NARAL’s position.
People who want to kill special interest groups are usually thinking of groups that support a position they oppose. Special interest groups span the political spectrum and represent many points of view. Indeed, the variety of groups with competing interests is an indication of a healthy and vigorous political system.
Individuals should organize themselves into groups to represent themselves more effectively. Congress passes laws that affect the daily lives of teachers, for example; surely, teachers have the right to have their voices heard— through their unions—when those laws are drawn up.
1|The Debatabase Book
Sample Motions:
This House would change campaign finance laws to allow contributions from individuals only. This House would lobby Congress to advance its interests.
Web Links:
• Missing the Point on Campaign Finance. <http://www.claremont.org/writings/precepts/20020321ellmers.html> An essay from the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy that argues that the fear of special interest groups has been exaggerated.
• Money and Politics: Who Owns Democracy? <http://www.network democracy.org/map/welcome.shtml> A project of Informa- tion Renaissance and National Issues Forums Research, this Web page discusses the pros and cons of various proposals to change the role of money in politics.
• Your Guide to the Money in U.S. Elections. <http://www.opensecrets.org/index.asp> Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics provides data about campaign contributions by donor and by recipient. “News alerts” flag instances where contributions may have influenced congressional voting.
Further Reading:
Continetti, Matthew. The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine. Doubleday, 2006. Drew, Elizabeth. The Corruption of American Politics: What Went Wrong and Why. Overlook Press, 2000.
Judis, John B. The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests, and the Betrayal of the Public Trust. Routledge, 2001. Nownes, Anthony. Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want (and How They Try to Get It). Cambridge University Press, 2006.
POLYGAMY
Polygamy is the state or practice of having two or more mates at the same time. Both the Bible and the Qur’an condone it, but most religions now ban the practice. In most countries, including all Western ones and some Islamic ones, polygamy is illegal, although some Muslim states (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and traditional African societies do allow it. In the United States, polygamy is associated with the Mormon church, which approved the practice until 1896, when church leaders agreed to abandon it in hopes of winning statehood for Utah. Yet some fundamentalist Mormon splinter groups in Utah, Arizona, and Texas still openly practice polygamy, and in 2006 the practice gained national attention when the FBI placed Warren Jeffs, president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, on its most wanted list for felony charges of accomplice rape. Although polygamy can involve both the union of one man with more than one woman (polygyny) and the union of one woman with more than one man (polyandry), the focus of contemporary debate is polygyny and its effects on women and children.
PROS
The law should recognize freedom of choice. If I want to marry more than one person, why should the state stop me? If my partner agrees to the addition to the family, then why should the state presume to say it knows better? We have a right to privacy and a right to noninterference in our family life.
The addition of extra parental figures does not necessar- ily undermine family units. Rather, more providers can make greater contributions to the home. Often there is love, not jealousy, between wives who are happy to have others share their work. Hierarchies exist in monoga- mous families—between husband and wife, between siblings. That they can exist in polygamous marriages is
CONS
These rights are countered by the damage polygamy does to women and families. Polygamy harms children, who are presented with confusing signals about role models and family life. It also reduces a woman’s free- dom: Women often do not have a say in whether the husband takes another wife.
A polygamous family will develop a hierarchy, with a “head wife” dominating the others. Why encourage and institutionalize the very thing that leads to the break-up of the majority of family units—namely, jealousy and sexual encounters with others? It is true that jealousy exists outside marriages and in monogamous marriages, but why set up a situation in which it is guaranteed?
Marriage is about devotion to another, the giving of one- self wholly to that person, granting love to them to the exclusion of all others. How could one have such a rela- tionship with more than one person? It is not possible to love more than one person. Polygamy, therefore, neces- sarily involves the exploitation of at least one party and the denigration of the relationship that exists between the others.
Adultery is based on a desire for someone outside the home. Adultery still occurs in polygamous societies. Indeed, polygamy encourages adultery because it dilutes the idea of fidelity to one person, substituting the legiti- macy of intercourse with many.
Legalizing polygamy would legitimize the idea of women as objects belonging to their husbands. This is exactly the thinking we want to discourage. While polygynous mar- riages are technically possible in the Muslim world, they are very rare because the requirement that all wives be treated fairly (Qur’an 4:3) is almost impossible to meet. It is not possible to love one person as much as another, impossible to give one person as much thought or time as another. The very low rate of polygyny in Islam points to the problems innate in polygamy.
Once allowed, polygamy will facilitate forced mar- riages and increase the potential for incest as men marry close relatives to keep them within the closed commu- nity structure polygamy so often creates. Indeed, where polygamy is found, a wealth of other offenses follows. Child abuse, rape, welfare fraud, and incest are all staples of the polygamous communities in the United States. Just as important, polygamy encourages the broader exploitation of women.
not a strong argument against such unions, which are capable of producing stable homes. Some marriages are good, some bad—that’s true of both monogamy and polygamy.
The idea that the individual can love only one person is false, a product of a particular time, place, and culture. Polygamy has been the norm in many societies through- out history. Polygamy is not about freedom to fornicate with anyone; it is about cementing relationships with individuals one wants to spend the rest of one’s life with, just as in monogamous marriages.
Polygamy reduces the desire for adultery by providing alternatives for sexual exploration within the family unit. This reduces the strains on family life and minimizes the likelihood of breakdown and divorce.
Of course an individual should not belong to another. But this attack displays at best a lack of understanding about the cultures of others and at worst veiled racism. We should not stop people from practicing their faiths in this country. Polygamy is acceptable within the Muslim faith. Why should not the validity of such marriages be recognized?
This is a cheap slur. Polygamy does not necessarily create other offenses. You cannot say something should be illegal because there’s a theoretical link to other illegal things. Forced marriage is an issue in some monogamous societies. We agree that society needs to decide how it wants to handle that offense, but that question is entirely separate from the issue of allowing polygamy.
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House would legalize polygamy.
This House believes monogamy is not the only way. This House believes that three isn’t a crowd.
Web Links:
1|The Debatabase Book