Lobbyist and Interest Groups can be very controversial. However, Interest groups meet at a common ground. 1 The idea behind this is Pluralism, as mention on Spark Notes, which explains “Democratic politics consists of various interest groups working against each other, balancing one another out so that the common good is achieved.” In Federalist Paper number 10, (1787) James Madison famously warned of the dangers of faction, by which he meant “A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to …show more content…
More effective campaigns versus interest groups that are not as wealthy or with very limited amount to spend. To make it fair, I feel we could require that all candidates can only accept donations from registered voters within their state or city. This eliminates out of state money, corporations, unions, and all other special interest groups. There would be all fairness and no other outside conflict in the way. It would not clash in this matter because the restrictions already lie within the lobbyist and interest groups. I feel it’s indirect of an influence only because of the advantages they have. Interest groups have an indirect influence because they must either persuade elected officials to support their point of view or help elect candidates who already share their …show more content…
Since, it was back in the decade, there has been trial and error. Over the past several decades, judicial selection has become increasingly lobbied. In reference to Impact of Interest Group Testimony on Lawmaking in Congress, “Going back to the founding of the Republic, Americans have periodically had to rethink how state court judges were selected, balancing the twin ideals of judicial independence and judicial accountability.” (162). During the 20th century campaigners posited that the people should choose via the ballot box. This helped influenced law making because each of these selection systems continues today in at least some states. I think within time there were more opportunities to see which one worked. What method worked and since we are growing socially and technology, I feel candidates find ways to raise money or contribute. Within time money poured into more judicial races. 4 From 2000-2009, state supreme court candidates raised $206.9 million, more than doubling the $83.3 million raised in the prior decade. This new surge of campaign cash, from lawyers and business interests mostly, fueled an escalating barrage of costly TV attack ads. Although, during much of the 20th century, judicial races tended to be not know or interesting. The only time it was an issue within the government if it is usually involving crime. As you can see, there was much effect within law