Final Exam

http://www.helium.com/items/195251-why-lobbyists-negatively-influence-the-us-legislative-process?page=2



http://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Of-Candidates-and-Negative-by-Prof-Rodrigue-Trem-120118-844.html


http://video.foxnews.com/v/3912027/power-of-money/


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-visitor-logs-show-lobbying-going-strong/2012/05/20/gIQA2ok4dU_story.html


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-lobbyist.htm



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2DUM6jVasw


       Are Lobbyists a negative impact on todays politics?



Lobbyists are people whose job is to try to influence officials such as congressman, usually for or against a certain cause. Lobbyists are hired by interest groups or companies that want public policies to favor them and their causes (they usually have lots of money). Lobbyists typically use coaxing to try to influence public officials, but some might resort to more immoral or even illegal practices, such as subornation (wiseGeek).I beilive more often then not lobbyists are shady, not trust worthy people. I think alot in the world including politics has resorted to backhanded money deals amnd money has taken over. Lobbyists in  my opinion have a negative impact on politcs and here are 4 reasons why :  

1. Destructive to Individual rights

Lobbyists backed by corporations with a lot of money most definitely harm our individual rights because lobbyist firms are often private businesses that are paid to effect decisions. As a result, they have far superior resources, including money and time, than the average citizens have. They also, since its there job and they are being paid, have to have the qualities to get there way, smooth talker, kaniving, and alluring.Qualities that a normal citizen may not come across seeing lobbyists are not what I would say genuine. Now a private citizen may contact his/her congressman to express his views on a matter, but that phone call may mean little when drowned out by a lobbyist group filling the politician's answering machine with messages or flooding his desk with letters. In the end our rights become minute over the presistence and money lobbyists can bring to the table.

                           

2. Money’s Association with Influence

A common complaint of opponents of lobbying is that it links wealth with influence. I stand by this complaint. When it comes down to lobbying the size of its body and its resources is reliant on its funding. Hence, groups of people or corporations with more money can have a larger lobbying body endorsing their interests. The side of the issue that has more money to spend may have a greater chance at influencing politicians to vote in that side's favor. Not so being bribery (although I do think that happens) but more so treating the political figure to nicer dinners or more exclusive parties. Subsequently, decisions are not essentially made based on the number of people that would benefit, but instead may be dependent on levels of wealth involved.

•   -In 1998 alone Phillip Morris spent over $25 million lobbying against regulations and restrictions that would decrease their profits.Over the past seven years Phillip Morris has spent over $75 million on lobbying expenses allowing them keep all of these tobacco regulations extremely minimal, even though Tobacco has been one of the leading causes of death in the US for many years. (Helium)

   3. Endorses the Welfare of Corporations

Most of the time lobbyist groups are backed by large corporations. The corporations tend to have a financial importance in the results of the decisions they attempt to influence (more likely then not succeed). In doing this they spend a large portion of their proceeds to protect or increase their future income. It can be tough for individuals or nonprofit associations to compete with the financial resources and institutions of large corporations. Thus, large businesses are more likely to have their interests fulfilled than smaller groups do.

  4.  Affects Elections

Lobbyist groups can and do affect the election process and outcme. Lobbyists often use money to swing the outcomes of elections. The direct donation to a contender is restricted, lobbyist groups can use their assets (companies, interest groups, corporations) to campaign on behalf of a candidate. This not only disrupts the legislative process but discredits voters on the issue, undermining key aspect of democracy. This unpredictable theft of the legislative process is not what some may call simply exercising the right to petition government, but is in fact a form of corruption that can not be tolerated in the U.S.  They can promote the candidate in many ways-- They do this by paying for television advertisements and also sending promotional fliers through the mail.

Now Along with all the negative affects that go along with lobbyists being legal there are few pros that are supposedly positive...

Lobbying is supposed to help special-interest groups (they can be a religion, belief, and industry) so they can get their voices heard by the law-making body. Congress is hard to get in contact of or heard by, so using lobbyist who are professional at getting there voice heard and agreed with works. BUT even with that said to get the lobbyist to work for you, that interest group would have to have large sums of money. Another pro for lobbying is that you can get your beliefs across and possibly make an influence on a policy-- yet again most corporations that use lobbyist are companies that have large sums of money and are fighting against what the people want.

Star Wars

This political cartoon is clearly a negative view on the government and the people/ institutions/ titles that are beneath it. The blunt view on this cartoon is the characters from star wars are bad therefore the police, military, state; lobbyist, media and ourselves are corrupt.

1) The lobbyist otherwise known as the "Advisor", buys laws and legislature with big corporate money. They influence politicians/the state with their swindling, sneaky ways (as shown in the cartoon he is in jabba’s ear). They are charismatic crafty people that know what to say and how to say it. In other terms people with money hire the lobbyists to influence congressman (lawmakers) to do what will benefit that certain company. For instance, a concerned group of people is trying to get cigarettes outlawed (illegal) and they get a lot of support for it THIS is when lobbyists will come in a lot of money from company and change and try and get congressman to keep cigarettes legal. They look for and use loopholes so that in the end the company can still make money. The lobbyists influence the overall decision...usually works ( money makes things happen)…Subtly effecting the system.

• Lobbyist groups can affect elections. Large lobbyist groups can have significant financial means that can sway close elections. Even if the direct contribution to a candidate is limited, lobbyist groups can use their resources to campaign on behalf of a candidate.
  
                              

2) The police with "Guard” playing the blunt caricature, brutish minion of the state. There shown in this cartoon as unruly and authoritative. Otherwise known as bully, there just pawn for the state (government). They have authority to the people and is a tool of the government. The police though have less power less effect then military complex.

3) Military complex with “Boba Fett" being another blunt caricature. They are a heavy monetary investment in military. They have much faith and support from the government in military/industry. They are similar to a bounty hunter. The military furthers state economic/political agenda for the state. Such as Iraq and how we need oil. Military has more structure; they are more covert (subtle) than the police who have a smaller affect...the military is not thought as corrupt (public image different). But both the police and military are bully’s but different contexts/scales.

4) Mainstream media- is the "little rat guy" s who chained and enslaved. This shows how the state controls, dictates, and censors everything with the media. This is used for whatever the government needs; subdued topics, focus on certain issues, cover up mistakes, and much more. Completely in their (the states) control as shown in the cartoon.

5) The state otherwise known as "Jabba the Hut" is a large, power-hungry, monster! It is guided by the lower powers but rules over all of them Very greedy and has quality such as a business guy. Also called the government.

6) You is played by "Leah" who is enslaved by the system, crushed, and dehumanized. She is thee populous or everybody. The difference between the media and the populous is that the media is an institution or a concept. You is the people, the population.

Now there are similarities between all of them and differences. Differences being there different responsibilities and duties (jobs). The similarities being, everything is under the state, while each guide the state he still rules over all of them. They all contribute to his ruling.  The state controls all , all the other characters are his pawns being the players of state. They represent the system society of where we live. So individually they make sense as well being good representations of parts of government (sensible caricatures of the government) but together they make up the social system. They are and do the governments/ state agenda (goals, stuff set on doing).

Running With Romney

One of the most important choices a president has is picking a VP. (vice president)  It can either make or break their campaign. If the President dies, resigns, or is impeached and convicted, the Vice President becomes President. So the people need to know that the vice president is good enough to be a possible president. Think back to John McCain, everything was going great until he picked Sarah Palin as a VP. Not many Americans thought she had what it took in order to help run this country, and in result McCain lost the election.

As Romney begins to think about who is going to pick for a VP there are a couple of things he should consider. For starters, he should pick someone who wants to actually be the Vice President. Many possible VP's, including Condoleezza Rice, have stated that it's just not a job that they want to be doing. This is unsettleing for many reasons seeing he could be the futrue president. Secondly, I believe he should pick someone who will back his idea's up. Many people are unsure if Romney would make a good president and having an extra person with him who agree's with his beliefs and back him up would be a good idea. Finally, Romney should look at the type of people voting for Obama, and figure out what it would take to have them change there mind. Is it a certain religion, race, gender, etc?The vice president can help sway possible voters his way!

Lucky for Romney, he has many Republican choices when trying to find a VP. As Romney's best choice I believe he should pick Congressman Paul Ryan. . Paul Ryan's resume consists of congressman of Wisconsin, chairman of house of budget, former political aide, speech writer. Although Ryan is young, he holds alot of responsibility, he currently chair the house budget committee where hes played a prominent role in promoting the republican parties long term budget proposal. Ryan has also created the "Romney Ryan Budget" that shrinks medicare, prevents debt crisis and will reform tax code.Not only does the GOP love him, but so does Team Obama. Ryan and Romney campaigned together in Wisconsin and Ryan states that the job as Vice President is definitly something that he would consider. I think he would be a great pick to bring both Republican and Democrat voters together. As the worst choice for VP I think it would be former running mate Rick Santorum. When asked if he would consider it Santorum said, "I'll do whatever is necessary to help our country." The reason he would be so bad is because Romney spent so much time telling America why he is better then Santorum. Having him be a Vice President is like he's been lying to America the entire time. I also am not for Rob Portman. At 57 years old Mr.Portman is too similar to Romney. Portman is said to befairly boring as well , Mitt Romney has been said to be boring also here and there, so someone who is even more known for being boring  wouldn't interest voters. Portman is actually said to be in favor in winning, but that can negatively effect the vote. Choosing someone in favor of the party could wear away the contrast Romney is trying to drive against the binding.

Elections

Our election process is fairly swift and easy. It is efficient and works but i beilive we could make a few changes to the proccess. Closing polls at the same time, showing an identification, and making voting manditory are all important things that should be considered.

 The first change that I would make is closing polls at the same time. This is because some people are still voting when a decision has already been made on the candidate winner. For example, in 2000 news stations had said that Al Gore had won Florida, before the west side of the state had even finished voting. When the polls in Florida closed, Bush was actually the one who won. There was a major fued and recounts were put into order. This was a huge mistake that could've been avoided if all the polls would close at the same time.

The second change I would make is madatory identification check.  I think that ID should be required when voting. Right now nobody shows any identification when they go to vote. This logic does not make much sense and i think it should be required. Without identification, we could have identity theft problems where people try to vote under other people's names.
The third change i think shuld be put into place is all personal 18 years or oolder should have to vote. It should be madatory.As of right now voting is an option, you don't have to do it if you don't want to. I believe voting should be manditory for all people 18 years and older. It is understandable that some people just don't have time in their day to do it. However, making work places give their employees time to go off and vote would be beneficial to the entire country. Even if there was a way to make the election process online for those who can't find a way to get out of their house. Also, since the world is becoming all technology, I think electronic voting would be very beneficial. Voting online, or on touch screen computers at the polls would be a great improvment for the United States.
Closing polls at the same time, showing an identification, and making voting manditory are all important things that should be considered when thinking of change.

Media

1. Finding creditable sources on the internet can be very hard! The internet is a place were the unimagible is imagined. That means anything can be said, anything can be written. Nearly 50-70% of information on the internet is false. Therefore using the internet is tricky and mostlikely going to lead you in the wrong direction.
• blogs
• personal websites
• video diaries
• wiki sites
2. Because of the amount of false information on the web people are most likely going to find those, therefore, that false information will be there influence. If the bad opionions, propaganda, and ideas are influencing our younger generations; violence can come out of that. Incorrect information can cause riots, protests, and other disorderly conduct.
3. News that shouldnt be spread quickly or is supposed to be supressed can spread very quickly via internet. This can cause a pandemic throughout society if the information is something lethal.
• Information about other countries that can offend those countries

• government problems



Electoral College

Make three logical and detailed agruments to KEEP the Electoral College.  Make sure that your arguments are logical and well thought out....

1. The Electoral College protects the interests of the rural communities and smaller States. It makes sure that a candidate who has campeigned best based on the geography of the country, makes it to the highest offices in the country.
2. In every election process there is the chance of needing a recount and with the electorol college it is swift and focuseson the state BUT with the popular vote there would be douzens of hundreds  counties across the board that would need a recount.
• It avoids the possibility of a recount of the entire nation.
• 2000 presidency election- the fiasco in Florida was easily recounted because of it was only one state imagine recounting the whole countries votes!
3. Presidents have to campeign wide and far! They can not just focus on the big states with the electoral college. They need to campeign to all states because the next president would need to win the majority of the electoral college.
• everybodies vote countes
• candidates go to every corner of the battleground states and many people get the opportunity to meet and question them
• Less campaign money is required (focusing on a handful of states)