Political Parties
Rarely does a day pass where some form of power
struggle does not occur within
our government. The importance of the role of
American government in the lives
of its constituents has continuously grown
in conjunction with a corresponding
increase in governmental economic and
social obligations. As the American state
assumes greater power and
responsibility in its actions, so must the citizens of
the United States.
With this increase in modern government participation,
private interest
groups have emerged as powerful influences in the American
political scheme,
particularly in the decision-making process. These highly
effective
organizations exist for several reasons, but especially for one
in
particular. The principal duty of such an interest group is the
preservation of
favorable circumstances that allow for that specific group to
ideally exist.
These interest groups effectively mobilize their efforts
through lobbying,
political clout, litigation and through sheer nepotism to
gain favorable public
opinion. Two such groups, the National Rifle
Association and the tobacco
industry interest parties, have been strong in
voicing their beliefs. By a
thorough study in their respective actions and
political convictions, we can
begin to see clearly the influence and role
that these groups possess in our
government. The National Rifle Association
has actively represented a strong
political opinion concerning gun control
and the implementation of related laws.
Representing virtually every gun
owner and gun manufacturer in America, the NRA
carries with it the burden of
preserving basically the second amendment right to
bear arms. Although the
Second Amendment to the Constitution states, "a well
regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," to what extent can
these gun
lobbyists argue for reductions in gun laws. Using the well known
Brady
Bill as an example, we are able to see what a formidable task these
interest
groups become with respect to the passage of legislature. A
seven-year battle.
After a long and arduous seven-year struggle, Congress
finally was able to
implement the Brady Bill as law. Approved as the "first
major gun control
legislation...since 1968," it permitted limitations to gun
purchasing in
answer "urban violence and the assassinations of Robert F.
Kennedy and the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." The passed bill called
for a five-day waiting
period upon the purchase of a hand gun. During this
five-day span, information
would be sent to the police who would, in turn,
run background checks. This was
all in hopes that convicted felons,
fugitives, drug addicts or the mentally ill,
would be prevented from
purchasing guns. Despite this historic passage of
legislation concerning gun
control, the Brady Bill is often described as a"modest measure that at best will
only make a small dent in crime." The
National Rifle Association and
other powerful gun interest groups were able to
apply great political
pressure in order to cause serious alterations from the
original bill
proposed back in the late 1980’s. The NRA argued two points in
their rebuttal
to the bill. Firstly, they emphasized the Second Amendment right
to arms.
Secondly, the National Rifle Association stressed that this particular
bill
would not be effective in the limiting the access criminals would have
to
guns. Through their efforts, particularly in influencing members of
Congress,
the gun interest groups were able to get something "acceptable"
passed.
Whether it was through campaign contributions or by pressure
exerted in the
congressperson’s constituency, the NRA and its fellow
counterparts were able
to sway legislators to filibuster during a time
immediately preceding a period
of Congressional adjournment. By influencing
congressional members in such a
way, the NRA pressured supporters of the bill
to drastically compromise,
resulting in passing a bill which was greatly
different from the one originally
proposed. In analyzing a second interest
group, the tobacco industry’s lobby
organizations, a trend similar to that
found in regards to gun control is
noticeable. Historically, the government
has called for the regulation of
various facets in the tobacco industry for
three distinct reasons: "risk to
the public health or safety, risk assumed by
consenting adults, and risk assumed
by children and adolescents." Basically,
the government’s stance is founded
upon the issue of to which extent
consumers are able to reasonably make
uncoerced decisions about smoking and
purchasing tobacco products. Furthermore,
government has repeatedly held the
constitutional power to "protect the health
and safety of children and
adolescents" through the powers of parens patriae.
From the beginning of
the twentieth century, a pattern of successful avoidance
of tobacco
regulation is prevalent. The American government began its
anti-tobacco
campaign in 1905, excluding it from the "US Pharmacopoeia."
Then, in
1964, smoking was said to cause lung cancer and other diseases in
the
Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health. After the
implementation of
this specific report, the Federal Trade Commission declared
its intentions to
mandate warning labels on cigarette packaging stating the
ills of smoking and
tobacco use. In response to the aggressiveness of the
FTC, the tobacco industry
initiated a heated lobbying strategy that would
constrain legislative
regulation. The cigarette industry’s first method of
action was to announce
that required warnings on tobacco product packaging
"could result in an end to
all cigarette advertising." This threat drew in
political support from the
advertising sector, which was currently profiting
greatly from the tobacco
industry’s use of advertising. In the end, Congress
was able to implement the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
of 1965, requiring that cigarette
packaging emulate industry concerns by
reading: "Caution: Cigarette Smoking
May be Hazardous to Your Health." In
short, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act clearly
confirmed the strength the tobacco industry possessed to
cripple and hinder
legislative endeavors. With the passing of time, government
has continued to
emphasize its policy of restricting the tobacco industry. But,
each and every
piece of proposed legislation has met a formidable challenge due
to the
tobacco industry’s continuous efforts. These challenges
include:
"challenging the FDA’s jurisdiction, threats of litigation
against the
media, lobbying and political contributions to gain influence in
Congress,
advertising campaigns with an anti-government theme, and the
manipulation of the
public comment component of the regulatory process." In
short, political
interest groups have become more and more influential in the
running of
government. As they attempt to preserve the status quo of
government legislature
in regards to their respective industries and
interests, these groups continue
to influence the way government is enacted
in our society. But under a closer
examination, a greater problem is able to
be found. To what extent are political
interest groups a necessary and/or a
viable facet of democracy? It is important
for various groups of citizens to
arduously press for their views to be heard,
but at the same time, we must
also keep in mind the means and methods that they
employ to achieve their
goals.