With all the scandals in Washington, it brings up a good question... what kind of access should special interests have with policy makers?
As much as I'd like to limit it, because I like special interest groups as much as the next guy...
... I've got a feeling the First Amendment doesn't agree with me.
Madison stated (in Federalist #10) that factions should be unrestricted, otherwise the freedoms we seek to have in this country are for nothing. He also thought that completely unrestricted interest groups would tend to balance each other out, if they were not in the majority. I disagree with his second assertion, but I do think that with our current Constitution, anything of a restriction on special interests having access would be a violation.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm <--- Check out Federalist #10!
As much as we don't like special interests, and even gross campaign spending, both are part of freedom of speech. If we decide that some speech isn't nice because we don't like negative ads and we don't like groups having access because they have money, we're tossing out the values that this country was founded on... and quite frankly... we ought to need to change the Constitution to actually put those changes in.
Eric Drzewiecki is a recent graduate from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. He has a bachelor's degree in Political Science, as well as Public Administration. He can be reached at eric_drz@hotmail.com
As much as I'd like to limit it, because I like special interest groups as much as the next guy...
... I've got a feeling the First Amendment doesn't agree with me.
Madison stated (in Federalist #10) that factions should be unrestricted, otherwise the freedoms we seek to have in this country are for nothing. He also thought that completely unrestricted interest groups would tend to balance each other out, if they were not in the majority. I disagree with his second assertion, but I do think that with our current Constitution, anything of a restriction on special interests having access would be a violation.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm <--- Check out Federalist #10!
As much as we don't like special interests, and even gross campaign spending, both are part of freedom of speech. If we decide that some speech isn't nice because we don't like negative ads and we don't like groups having access because they have money, we're tossing out the values that this country was founded on... and quite frankly... we ought to need to change the Constitution to actually put those changes in.
Eric Drzewiecki is a recent graduate from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. He has a bachelor's degree in Political Science, as well as Public Administration. He can be reached at eric_drz@hotmail.com
7 Comments:
"There is a distinction between free speach, and outright bribery and corruption of politicans."
Explain...
My issue is this... the Constitution... as is... protects this sort of speech. Bribes are pretty difficult to pick up on, and are illegal regardless of special interest access.
If the American public feels that special interests need to be slowed...(hopefully not completely blocked) ...then they should change the Constitution, to make sure that we're doing everything procedurally correct.
My hang up on the founding fathers, is that they set up the laws and the Constitution. When we interpret those laws, and that Constitution, we ought to look at what they were saying, and realize what THEY intended the law to mean. If we don't like it, then we ought to change it, but abiding by the laws and processes that were agreed sufficient.
I'm very much a proceduralist. I think that if we want to create real legitimate change on things such as gay marriage and abortion, that while I would probably disagree with the end results, changing them within the system (instead of abusing the courts) is the way to go. I don't even deny that such changes might eventually be inevitable, I just want them to be carried through by the letter of the law.
The same goes for special interests and free speech.
Well, I take issue with it all of a sudden becoming evident because of a couple Republicans. It has been part of the system for a long time now, and long lists of Democrats took the fall before this... (as well as Republicans)... without as much Media fanfare. Remember Traficant?
Abramoff paid off ALL of Washington. The media just makes it seem he was just involved with Republicans.
I think Tom DeLay should take over Abramoff's business. :)
Just like Enron donated to Gore as well. Doesn't matter. Anything to do with corruption involving wealthy people and businesses is obviously due to Republicans.
Definitely! Never would there ever be a Democrat involved! My God that is preposterous to think of!
Abramoff paid -- at least in part -- for trips by two Democratic congressmen, James Clyburn and Bennie Thompson, and two staff members to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, to the Northern Mariana Islands in the 1990s.
Post a Comment
<< Home