Let's be clear, the kind of activity for which Duke Cunningham was convicted is corruption, the improper use of one's position for personal gain. He should and will be punished, as well I hope, those who paid the bribes. Corruption, graft, and bribery erode the faith in government people have a right to expect. Government service is a privilege and needs to be treated as a sacred duty to those who elect you to office. To use your office for private gain betrays not only the office, but your constituents, and the Republic as well.
But corruption is far different than influence. The latter represents the core interaction in a representative democracy, the former is illegal. Influence and the exercise of influence demonstrates the give and take, the compromise and competition of ideas in the political arena. Do some groups have more influence than others? Yes, and that is okay. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceably assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It does not say that there shall be equal speech, or even equal access, merely that access cannot be abridged by Congress.
Which brings us to the concept of special interest. A "special interest," as the pejorative meaning it is commonly given, is any interest opposing your own. Thus if you are a pro-union Democrat, a special interest is any big business group that does not welcome or outright opposes unions, say Wal-Mart. On the other side of the same coin, if you are Wal-Mart, a labor union is a special interest. So who is correct? The answer is neither and both.
Neither is right because the pejorative term "special interest" is a nullity--it has no meaning until the context of a speaker is attached. Thus a disinterested outsider has no ability to distinguish a "normal interest" from a "special interest." Indeed, in the current atmosphere, no such thing as a normal interest exists; a disinterested observer would be confused as to the defnition of "special" in the political context.
Yet, both are right in that the opposing interest is special, by definition, to that interest. Every interest, outside of the improperly constucted pejorative, is a special interest. Each interest competing in the political and policy arena is special--to those who are members of the group interest. These individuals and entities share a common political goal and thus compete against the thousands of other interests for attention in the policy arena.
The competition of ideas inseparably adheres to the representative democractic system. Each interest espouses certain ideas regarding issues important to them, yet policymakers can direct their attention to a finite number of issues. It behooves each group to expend resources, human, financial, and/or otherwise, to be included on that list of issues. It is the expenditure of resources that can be called influence
To win in the competition of ideas, most interests cannot sit on the sidelines, waiting to be championed. The number of passive interests championed in our government is extremely limited. Politics is not a spectator sport, thus people get involved in interest groups. The relative influence of a group and the amount of that influence weilded by a group is related both to the size of the interest group and the value of its ideas. Those ideas and weight compete, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, in the political arena. But make no mistake, without that contest of ideas and interests, there would be no representative democracy. Rather we would have a dead Congress--boring and largely useless.
Indeed influence, or lobbying if you will, is necessary for the functional operation of our government. Given the vast areas of knowledge and legislation to which we have given Congress, it lies beyond the ability of even the most intellectually talented of humans to comprehend and judiciously legislate on that wide variety of topics. Thus, interest groups become the source of information. For every interest A trying to influence Congress or the state legislature on one issue, comes Issue B with a competing version. Thus, by the interaction of the competing interests before the legislatures comes that imperfect beast--legislation. While imperfect, no better governmental solution exists to deal with competing faction.
Interests, and again, all interests are special, seek to inlfuence Congressional action. Weilding influence is the legal result of the desire to win in the policy area. Corrpution on the other hand seeks to take the competition out of the arena by directing funds and energy into short-circiuting the normal policy making process.
James Madison wrote in Federalist #10:
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
We cannot cure the problems of interest groups by removing them all together from the political arena. We can controll its effects and a number of rational proposals are being offered, such as requiring prior notification as to the payor of Congressional travel. But to wholesale limit "special interests" will do more harm than good. We need those interests if we are to make our government work.
Cross Posted at Watchblog
Linked at Jo's Cafe, OTB Traffic Jam
No comments:
Post a Comment