Summary: Is The United States Ruled By The People

1402 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Development of unions in america

Matthew Midgett Holland American Studies 16 November 2015 Is the United States Ruled by the People? The basic principle that the United States was founded upon is that the government derives its power from the people. The Bill of Rights, written by James Madison, protects this principle and many of the freedoms Americans enjoy today. This includes the right to free speech and press, as well as the right to petition, or lobby, the government. But is the United States still ruled by the people? In the past forty years there has been an unusual rise in lobbying, with almost every corporation, interest group, or nonprofit hiring lawyers who attempt to influence pieces of legislation in favor of the groups they represent (Drutman, “Corporate”). …show more content…

This goes against what Madison argued in Federalist 51, regarding that “appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people” (“Federalist”). While citizens get the final say on who is elected through the power of their vote, it is impossible for a candidate to win an election to federal office without spending a huge amount of money, which ordinary citizens cannot donate single handedly. For example, it took 437,000 dollars to win a seat in the Senate in 1974, but by 2006 a successful Senate campaign cost 7.92 million dollars (Kaiser). When politicians need money, lobbyists and the groups they represent are willing and capable of providing it. This rings especially true since the controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, in which the court ruled that there should be no cap on how much money a person or organization can donate to a political campaign. It was held that money is speech, and thus the donation of money to a campaign is protected under the First Amendment, and that corporations, organizations, and unions have the same rights as an individual citizen. President Obama spoke out against this decision, calling it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that …show more content…

This goes directly against what Madison hoped for the country, writing in Federalist 51, that “in the federal republic of the United States… all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society” (“Federalist”). The first problem is that non-profits, unions, and interest groups that actually do represent the varying interests of the people do not have the same amount of money, and thus power, as bigger corporations or organizations. This results in legislation that could be beneficial to the public not being passed in favor of policies that benefit the lobbying powers. These groups also donate huge sums of money to political campaigns, ensuring that the politicians they support have an easier time of being elected, and that when they take office they are indebted to those donors. Lobbying diminishes the public's role in their government, which is an essential principle that the United States was founded upon, and that James Madison wished to

Show More
Related

  • The Constitution: We The People Of The United States

    1764 Words  | 4 Pages

    “We the People of the United States” have coined this phrase from the Constitution’s preamble often enough to forget what it means. “We the People” is what our founders meant as American citizens: we who govern and we who are governed. In other words, the founding fathers gave us a democracy and the concept of checks and balances. “Of the United States” signifies that we are not just of America, but we are of the United States of America. We are one nation as a whole, but “United” requires that there be many parts. These individual parts and the power to these parts were a key element in the construction of our country. These words from one of the strongest aspects of the Constitution. It is a continual idea that applies to us as long as the

    Read More

  • Exploring the Necessity and Benefits of Government

    529 Words  | 2 Pages

    We often wonder about the importance of government. Is it necessary? Does it really benefit society? The answer is yes. Many countries have diverse forms of government such as totalitarian, monarchy, theocracy, and much more. The United States of America specifically runs a democratic type of government. A democratic government gives power to the people. Citizens over the age of eighteen are allowed to elect leaders based on their individual opinions through voting rights. The main purpose of the American government is, to protect people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as our Founding Fathers intended.

    Read More

  • Relationship between the American People and Congress

    765 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.

    Read More

  • Soft Moneys Elimination From Governmental Campaigns

    1411 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.

    Read More

  • Iron Triangle

    431 Words  | 1 Pages

    Interest groups, lobbyists, large corporations, and PACs try to influence the congressional committees' bills so they can have a say in the legislative process. When an interest group hears about a bill that is being debated on in a committee, they try to influence a members vote and they try to get a part of the bill changed. For example, a lobbyist came to me on a bill I proposed on making health care plans have no minimum requirement on benefits the company gives to its patients. He told me about how he did not get the right treatments and tests done on diseases he has and now is suffering badly from them. It was because the health plan did not have to give him anything extra. He changed my mind on the bill, and I changed the bill to setting a minimum standard on benefits given to patients.

    Read More

  • Campaign Finance Reform

    2679 Words  | 6 Pages

    Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.

    Read More

  • We, the Corporations, of the United States of America

    1571 Words  | 4 Pages

    At first glance, it seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Preamble of the Constitution, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derived from one of its oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? Originally consisting of only white male property owners, eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. Corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found its way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the battle over corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.

    Read More

  • U.s. Democracy Thriving : A Look Inside American Democracy

    2525 Words  | 6 Pages

    Adding this all up, I have concluded that the United States democracy is unhealthy, yet I still believe there is hope. If I had to give the current condition of democracy a letter grade, I would give it a C. I got this grade because even though the United States maintains many civil right and liberties, a strong number of interest groups, and diverse political parties, it just isn’t enough to carry the poor conditions of ideologies, voter turnout, education, economics, and media. Democracy is surly not thriving in America, but at this point, there is still hope.

    Read More

  • Money's Influence in Presidential Elections

    996 Words  | 2 Pages

    As a result of the court case Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett, it was decided that citizens should be encouraged to help in financing campaigns. When there is increased participation from citizens, self-governance is greatly facilitated. The goal of public financing is to push citizens to help the political candidate of their choice financially. Many reformers have suggested that there is too much money in politics. Statistically, this is proven to be wrong. In the 2008 election, there were 64% of Americans that were eligible to vote. There were only about 10% that give money to the campaigns, and not even 0.5% who are responsible for the bulk amount of money collected by the politicians (Overton, 2012).

    Read More

  • Campaign Finance Reform: The History, Present, and Future

    1805 Words  | 4 Pages

    Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

    Read More

  • government court cases

    857 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.

    Read More

  • America's Democracy

    1078 Words  | 3 Pages

    The United States of America is a republic, or representative democracy. Democracy, a word that comes to us from Greek, literally means the people rule (Romance, July 8). This broad definition leaves unanswered a few important details such as who are the people, how shall they rule, and what should they rule on (July 8). Defining the answers to those questions means defining a model for a democratic system. William E. Hudson defines four such models in his book American Democracy in Peril: the Protective, Developmental, Pluralist, and Participatory models of democracy (Hudson, 8-19). Of these models, perhaps Participatory comes closest to an ideal, pure democracy of rule by the people (16-19). In practice, however, establishing a stable ideal democracy is not entirely feasible. In a country the size of the United States, it quickly becomes unwieldy if not impossible to have direct rule by the people. To overcome this, the compromise of the representative system allows the people to choose who will rule on a regular basis. The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society.

    Read More

  • Interest Groups In James Madison's Federalist 10

    1479 Words  | 3 Pages

    Essentially, interest groups use many different tactics to accomplish their central goals but this paper will detail 2 of them. The first being lobbying, which is the act of persuading businesses as well as government leaders to help a specific organization by changing laws or creating events in favor of that group. Interest groups use this technique by hiring someone to represent them and advocate their cause to on the behalf of the entire group. These hired representatives usually have more than enough experience within the political field and are able to persuade connections within the government for help with their concerns. This method gets a lot of criticism because although lobbyist offer their input to government officials on pending laws, they only look at what is favorable for their cause. When trying to make a difference you have to not only reflect on your argument but on the side affects of that argument as

    Read More

  • How does lobbying work in government

    1295 Words  | 3 Pages

    Lobbying is an enormous business. A lobbyist is an advocate who seek outs to influence members of the government (like members of Congress) to endorse legislation that would advantage their group. The lobbying occupation is a lawful and essential part of our democratic political procedure that is not extremely well implicit by the broad population. While the majority people think of lobbyists only as paid experts, there are as well a lot of volunteer lobbyists. Anyone who appeals the government or contacts their member of Congress to say an view is functioning as a lobbyist. Lobbying is a synchronized industry and a guarded activity beneath the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that assurances rights to free assembly, speech,and petition. [Briggs, Emily Edson]

    Read More

  • The On The American Government

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    The American government prides itself on the foundational principle of democracy which allows individual voices to be heard. Afterall, the roots of power in our nation stem from the people. The Constitution was established to ensure the balance of powers among the federal government, state legislature, and the common people. Time, however, has worked against the American people in the battle towards democracy. The idea of a governing body drawing its power directly from its constituents has been undermined by the corrupt nature of modern politics where politicians act out of self-interest. While the Constitution and later amendments had every intention of securing basic liberties, certain limitations later undermined the original intentions of the founding fathers to give power back to the people by placing the larger majority of power in the hands of the state.

    Read More

More about Summary: Is The United States Ruled By The People

Open Document