Introduction
Hello, novice. Evidently, during this debate, Novice and I will both probably agree that all Americans should have the right to petition the government. Where Novice and I may disagree on the topic at hand is how expanded this right should be or how we should interpret the right to petition the government as to not breed corruption within systems of government.
Lobbying is a necessary evil, but financial lobbying is not
Lobbying, by itself, is a necessary evil. Groups or other independent units need to form together to protect their own interests in a rule by many society. Financial lobbying (writing checks to government officials), however, is not one of those necessities.
Financial lobbying is inherently cohersive
Concern exists regarding the potential for payment to unduly influence participation and thus obscure risks, impair judgment, or encourage misrepresentation. As we will later find out, financial lobbying can very easily accept the demands of the lobbyists for funding (even against their own values). Evidently, this system promotes politicians to lie more often. It promotes politicians to constantly contradict themselves both in front of the press and within their policy decisions.
The constitutional right to petition the government
In the United States the right to petition is enumerated in the First Amendment to the United States constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. The right extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition."
This alone should fulfill my burden of proof for this round that the current interpretation and implementation of the right to petition has gone far beyond its original conception if we're to take the written words literally for what they say. Evidently, it could be the case that the right to petition has expanded in brevity because the current system (being able to pay for laws) is a better system and that the original conception of the constitutional right was inadequate at addressing peoples grievances.
How financial lobbying affects policy decisions
According to a 2010 study by the Daylight Foundation, which used tax data to correlate increases in lobbying with decreases in real taxes paid for corporations, many of the top corporations in the USA have utilized millions in lobbying to save billions in taxes. As calculated in this study, between 2007 and 2009, the top 8 lobbying spenders (Exxon Mobil, Verizon, GE, At&T, Altria, Amgen, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing) spent approximately $540 million in lobbying; by 2010, these companies had seen a reduction in taxes of approximately $11 billion. The potential return on investment demonstrated here is over 2000% – this is higher rate of return than most any investment other than a winning lottery ticket.
Tobacco and extraction (oil, coal and gas) companies are the largest beneficiaries from reduced regulations, mostly due to the fact that their products are toxic to consumers and bystanders. Over the years, regulations have been slowed or suppressed totally by lobbying from these industries, increasing these industries’ profits by billions; a perfect recent example of this phenomenon is that of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Due to regulatory loopholes, put in place by politicians – who received thousands from extraction lobbyists – fracking companies don’t even need to disclose what chemicals they are pumping into the ground. Despite evidence that these chemicals are toxic to humans and animals, can pollute groundwater or even render it highly flammable, and sometimes cause earthquakes, this loophole persists; there is no possible rationale for this continued lack of disclosure other than the effects of corporate lobbying swaying politicians (exploding water, higher cancer rates, and random earthquakes should sway even the most recalcitrant politician to action, barring the interference of money).
America is a soft plutocracy
You cannot have a functioning society when the governmental class that is supposed to regulate the entrepreneurial class is directly funded by the entrepreneurial class.
- The government officials cannot get elected without the financial support of the financial elite (lobbyists).
- The financial elite make the government officials dependent on their funding.
- The government officials then prioritize lobbyists more than they do their own constituents.
- The constituents then have minimal to no representation in either their government or their institutions.
Under current law, lobbyists can avoid registering by spending less than 20 percent of their time lobbying for a single client. So, if a lobbyist splits time among several clients, they are not required to register. Also, advising a company without directly lobbying members of Congress on behalf of that company allows a lobbyist to avoid registration. This enables very obvious loopholes to exist within the current interpretation of the constitutional right, it follows that a wealthy billionaire can simply get his friends and business associates to also not register but offer vast sums of money.
Evidently this then massively sways the amount of people who can partake in this form of petitioning. Leading to politicians lie to the general public promising reforms and standards to be met which in the end do not get met through them lying to simply get elected while pocketing the money, stocks and positions they will attain once they retire from their lobbyists funders.
Lobbyists and Barrack Obama
President Barack Obama came under fire for taking what appeared to be contradictory approaches to lobbyists. When Obama took office after winning the 2008 election, he imposed an informal ban on hiring recent lobbyists in his administration.
Obama said later:
"A lot of folks see the amounts of money that are being spent and the special interests that dominate and the lobbyists that always have access, and they say to themselves, maybe I don’t count."
Still, lobbyists were frequent visitors to the Obama White House. And many former lobbyists were given jobs in the Obama administration, including
Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
Defence contractors and congress corruption
A quick google search will let you know private defence contractors have some of the lowest taxes in America (due to lobbying), yet you will also find they have their fingers in many
pockets of those in congress. Indeed, it wasn't long ago that Blackrock was exposed that it bribed congress members through stocks and shares within its company, allowing it to be gifted far more defence contracts for the US.
Conclusion
- Evidently, the right to petition has become far too broad and has opened the government up to corruption so bad, it could arguably not even be considered a full representative democracy anymore but a soft plutocracy.
- It has been shown time and time again financial lobbying has lead to what could essentially be a form of coercion on politicians to take certain courses of action.
- Evidently this then massively sways the amount of people who can partake in this form of petitioning. Leading to politicians to lie to the general public promising reforms and standards to be met which in the end do not get met through them lying to simply get elected while pocketing the money, stocks and positions they will attain once they retire from all funded by their financial lobbyist overlords.
Unlinked sources:
I decided I would pass it up. I have other topics I would prefer to spend my energy on.
I'm not too busy, more so too unmotivated. I believe you deserve the win simply for putting so much effort into your argument. It would be unfair to delete it. Potentially, I'll regain some desire to debate the topic in the future, so I won't forfeit just yet.
I just learnt that your elo gains/losses scale depending on your opposition. That means if i beat Novice i should in theory get quite big gains while he gets little if he wins. What a great investment if i wished to climb. Novice is also a good debater, so it would be a great opportunity to develop at the same time too.
This seems like your cup of tea. Are you interested?