 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume 4
Fall 2005
Polemical Hacks, Bastardized Gonzo,
and the Death Of Democracy - Page 3
By Eric Kaufmann
Yet the political process has unseen and surprising strengths in lobbyists and negative campaigning. In the NES study mentioned previously, researchers also found that about 80% of all those surveyed thought that "Washington was run to benefit just 'a few special interests looking out for themselves'" (Bennett 47), a clear indication that citizens think politicians are beholden to lobbyists paid by interest groups, and out of touch with their constituents. The reality, however, is that lobbyists and interest groups play a positive role in the political process because of the way in which their relationships with legislators are structured. First of all, due to their expertise and access to private information, lobbyists are useful to legislators in areas where first-hand experience and knowledge are unobtainable. Former Senator Charles Percy stated that lobbyists "[perform] extremely useful functions in the national interest. They can be tapped for expert information on problems, they can analyze the impact of proposed legislation in their areas of concern" (Ainsworth 44).
Lobbyists are useful even when they are actively misrepresenting themselves. Contrary to what one might think, this is beneficial to the political process, as legislators are well aware that lobbyists have an incentive to overstate their support. Ainsworth cites an example whereby Coca-Cola and Hershey funded lobbying for the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages in order to claim that the effort had the backing of 12,000 manufacturers, despite the fact that the two major companies covertly sponsored the entire campaign. Knowing situations like this occur, legislators then demand a higher quality of evidence that the issues put forward by lobbyists are of electoral salience. And lobbyists realize that the degree to which they have access and influence in the future depends on their reputation for honesty. A lobbyist who provides a legislator with misleading information, and thus angers constituents or endangers the lawmaker's reelection, is not going to be trusted on future issues. Thus, interaction between legislators and lobbyists becomes structured so that the electoral salience of an issue is indicated by the actions the lobbyist takes. Actions that require high costs and demonstrate integrity cement credibility with legislators. Examples of these actions include: flying high-ranking executives to legislative offices to spend their valuable time speaking with legislators, orchestrating extensive mail campaigns that generate large responses from group members, providing legislators with research that is time consuming and costly to produce, and attending committee hearings to show interest and concern with the outcome (Ainsworth 52). Legislators are thus able to access the expertise of lobbyists and gauge the electoral support behind an issue, while simultaneously regulating the influence such interests have in the political process. It is important to note that while not all citizens are represented by interest groups, the voting population ultimately decides on whether or not the legislator continues in office, and thus has an effect on what interest groups are deemed acceptable to collaborate with. Regardless of the amount of funding or connections an interest group has, a legislator cannot ignore the effects that working with particular groups will have on constituents.
Like lobbying, campaigning, specifically negative campaigning, is regarded as detrimental to democracy, and also has an impact on politicians' careers, which depend heavily on the portrayal of themselves and opponents during the election season. Here a distinction must be made between types of campaigning. Positive campaigning is the type of appeal linked to a "clean" campaign, emphasizing the candidate's own strengths. Its opposite is the negative campaign, which seeks to point out flaws and failings of the opposition. Positive and negative campaigning can be assumed to have the same degree of fact and integrity, differing only in perspective. Most individuals prefer candidates to speak of their own qualifications instead of pointing out the flaws in their opponent.