CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
4
Yes No
Debate Score:21
Arguments:11
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (9)
 
 No (2)

Debate Creator

blammo(186) pic



Obama is calling to end lobbyism in America, Are lobbyists bad?

Yes

Side Score: 17
VS.

No

Side Score: 4
4 points
I personally have a problem with lobbyists in this country. Lobbyism creates an unfair advantage to private industry vs the people of the country. Big industry can afford to spend big dollars on sending an obscene amount of lobbyists to Washington, influencing polititicans to their agenda. This would be all good and fair if there was an equal playing field. But, the general public cannot afford the time or the money to counter the industrial agenda. Now, I'm not quite sure that it should be banned completely (lobbyism has an important role) but it certainly needs to be re-structured. Perhaps aomeone can add some light to this topic.
Side: Yes
3 points
Perhaps you can shed some more light on what you meant by saying "lobbyism has an important role" because I was digging your argument until I read that counter-intuitive statement. What is the important role if, as you said well: "Lobbyism creates an unfair advantage to private industry vs the people of the country."
Side: Yes
2 points
Well, the role that lobbyism does play is that it is a way for issues to reach the politicians. Politicians can keep track of every little problem in their districts, especially when your talking Senators. So, this is where lobbyists come in. They bring the issues to light. The problem occurs, when a major coorperation wants to pass an unpopular or unknown agenda through Congress and can flood the senate with paid lobbyists, often providing favors for them (which is illegal but happens regardless). This is coupled with another major problem with our political system...private campaign donations. These same coorperation will often lobby politicians of whom they have made large campaign donations towards. (but thats another debate). So, when I was being counter-intuitive it was because I wanted to be thorough by stating that I have my issues with lobbying, but if it were to become illegal, we would need something in its place. A way for the issues to reach the politicians.
Side: Yes
2 points

Lobbying was a means to inform politicians that some little group somewhere in our big country was concerned about something. Today, we have many technologies that can do that. We don't need to waste time and money on lobbyists.

Side: Yes
1 point
Democracy means power to the people, not power to those who have the money.
Side: Yes
1 point

Yes! he should think about the country not only about one community or the team.

Supporting Evidence: ccie practice exam (www.actual-exams.com)
Side: yes
1 point

As the president, he has to keep an eye on the each and every activity of the country.

Supporting Evidence: mcitp practice exam (www.actual-exams.com)
Side: yes
1 point

I think this is the most important and the current issue at this time and we have to think about it.

Supporting Evidence: mcts practice exam (www.actual-exams.com)
Side: yes
3 points
Lobbyists aren't necessarily bad. There are environmental lobbyists and lobbyists for non-profits that help keep Washington aware of issues that the public wants. The problem becomes how to keep access equal. All the big groups want what's best for them in the end, but in the end, it's really up to the politicians to decide what's right. If our politicians were less easily influenced by big business, then lobbying would be fine. Maybe we just need a registry to see who got what from the different lobbyists and movements to keep the politicians more honest.
Side: No
blammo(186) Disputed
2 points
Here is a good example of lobbying techniques that is legal but un healthy for a fair playing field (and a great article about lobbyism in Washington...keep in mind this is a not so one sided article but I am using a part of the article as an example...I just dont want anyone to think I am taking it out of context):
"In addition to asking who works best and most effectively, our survey asked about what works. In many ways the basic lobbying campaign remains starchily standard: access lobbyists in Washington, grassroots lobbyists at home, publicists for free media, advertisers for paid commercials, and scholars to shape the arguments. But what this cookie-cutter sameness means is that clever variations can sometimes prove decisive. /nThe cutting edge of cleverness can be glimpsed in West Palm Beach, Fla. There, Richard Pinsky, a former campaign operative for Pat Robertson and Bob Dole, works as a political detective. His job: to locate and bring into the lobbying fold what are known in the trade as "once close tos." On assignment from lobbying firms based in Washington, Pinsky is paid to find key individuals who were once close to lawmakers who are undecided on the legislation of the moment. He then ferrets out which of these confidants are willing to make the case to Sen. X or Rep. Y. In the argot of the multi-billion-dollar influence industry, Pinsky is doing grasstops--as opposed to grassroots--lobbying, since he avoids hoi polloi and zeroes in on those few people whom lawmakers know and whose opinions they trust. /nWhen Pinsky was hired recently by the Dewey Square Group, a public relations and political consulting firm, to rally support for "fast track" legislation, he called an old ally, former Republican Gov. Bob Martinez. Martinez, in turn, discussed the issue with fellow Tampa resident and Democratic Congressman Jim Davis. Davis, an impressionable freshman, is now a firm yes on the free-trade measure. Although Davis' spokesman insists the Martinez talk didn't affect the Congressman's vote, the little chat certainly didn't hurt. Nor did any of the casual-but-premeditated contacts made on fast track by another Pinsky recruit, former Florida Secretary of Commerce Charles Dusseau; he wrote to Congresspersons and fellow Democrats Corrine Brown, Peter Deutsch, and Robert Wexler. /nThe beauty of this tactic is that the lawmakers rarely know they've been lobbied. That's why it works so well. According to the FORTUNE survey, the most effective lobbying approach is the least overt: the simple presentation of accurate information, preferably by folks back home. As a result, the grasstops approach exemplified by Pinsky is spreading rapidly. Dewey Square is just one of several firms, such as Direct Impact and Lunde & Burger, that now maintain nationwide networks of politically wired operatives who are willing to reach for their Rolodexes in between their election-year gigs to help make ends meet. Campaign professionals like Susan Swecker of Virginia, Ken Benson of Texas, and Tylynn Gordon of Montana are becoming the new breed of influence peddlers. Yet they don't need to register as lobbyists in Washington. They don't even set foot in the city they affect so deeply."
Side: Yes
1 point
Riotus,
I actually agree that lobbyists aren't necessarily bad...in fact, I offered this debate to get some other views on the subject. That being said, Between lobbyists and private campaign donations, there is a major advantage to private interest over public interest. And since most of the country cares more about what happens to Britney Spears than what happens in their local community, this divide is even sharper. The worst part is, lobbyist ARE regulated, and yet this descrepancy STILL exists. Perhaps a call for re-thinking how lobbyism functions in Washington is more imperative and not a simple banishment. Perhaps a limit on the amount of dollars spent on lobbyists or how many are representing an agenda. What do you think?
Side: No