Lobbying a Democratic Dilemma

In modern day politics, we often see the term lobbying. In short, lobbying is the attempt to influence political figures into pushing a certain agenda. Because of its prevalence in the political landscape, we can notice a dilemma arising. Does lobbying reflect the voice of the people, or does it reflect the voice of the upper-class bourgeoisie that wants to shape society in a way that serves their own agenda? In essence, lobbying seems to be a tool of the democratic process, but can this tool foster an environment of corruption and personal gain? Does lobbying threaten our democracy?

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is an integral part of any political system. It is the act by which an individual or a group of people attempt to influence the political decisions in the country. It is the effort of swaying votes outside of the legislative chamber. Fundamentally, lobbying can occur through sending written letters, advocating on social media, and financially pressuring decision-makers. Indirectly, lobbying can be seen as a form of changing the public opinion which registers in the long run as a change in public policies. In many ways, lobbying is considered a legitimate contribution to open government and well-informed public decision making.

The Legal Framework of Lobbying

Lobbying is internationally viewed as a legal activity. Today, at least 30 countries have enacted transparency laws surrounding it. In the US, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1950 (LDA) regulates the disclosure requirements and the penalties for violations. Within the European Union, under the Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2125 (2016) on transparency and openness, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated that the act of lobbying enhances the democratic process. We can see that each country has formed its own set of legal frameworks surrounding this topic, all of which are legalizing the act of lobbying. With a clear distinction between lobbying and bribery, the former has turned into a plausible deed in today’s society, one that reflects the people’s opinions.

To understand the power lobbying has over political life, we must take a few examples as case studies.

1) The Trump Campaign:

The US is a two-party system dominated by the Republican and Democratic parties. This system relies heavily on corporate and interest group funding, such as powerful lobbies like Big Pharma and AIPAC, making elected officials more accountable to wealthy donors and specific agendas than to the public. When talking about Donald Trump in specific, we can see the impact of lobbying on his political decisions. Trump’s biggest donors in both 2016 and 2024 have been none other than the billionaire Israeli American couple Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. In 2016, the Adelsons donated $85 million to Trump under the condition that he would move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognize the city as Israel's capital. In December 2017, he broke precedent and delivered on his promise. This groundbreaking decision made the ties between the US and Israel stronger than ever. Not to mention, Miriam Adelson believes that the West Bank is “a land for war” not “a land for peace”. This is why Trump made a proposal in January 2020, which he entitled “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of Palestinian and the Israeli People”. His proposal essentially gave Israel the green light to annex 30% of the West Bank. It left the Palestinians with 70% of the land, revoking their right to self-determination. However, Trump’s plans did not follow through because Joe Biden opposed the annexation during the time of presidential debates. Moreover, on March 25, 2019, Trump officially recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, marking a significant departure from longstanding US policy and international consensus, which had previously regarded the Golan Heights as occupied Syrian territory. Trump has succumbed to the Israeli lobby to the point that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu named a settlement after him in the occupied Golan Heights: Trump Heights. This goes to show that the power of the Adelson lobby has changed the course of American foreign policy and has broken precedent. The financial pressure the Adelsons placed on Trump in 2016 has undoubtedly changed the geography, demography, and political status of Palestine. This year, Miriam Adelson donated $100 million in hopes of completely annexing the West Bank and eradicating any trace of the State of Palestine. Does the Adelsons’ financial lobby reflect the US’s citizens? From what we see, the Americans this year chose Trump over Kamala, not because of his popularity, but as a conscious decision of boycotting the Democrat-backed genocide. Oblivious to the power lobbies hold over presidential candidates, Trump is likely to fulfill the Adelsons’ wishes once more, wishes that completely oppose the essential reason people voted for him this year.

2) The 2003 Iraq Invasion:

In 2003, George W. Bush took the critical decision of invading Iraq. To the international community, the US presented the claim that Saddam Hussein owned dangerous weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that threaten global democracy and world peace. However, prior to the invasion, it was proven that there was not any tangible evidence of such weapons. Not to mention, during the first year of war, it was confirmed that no WMDs existed, and Saddam was effectively captured. This raises the questions of why the United States invaded Iraq and why it stayed for 8 years. Oil might have been a factor, but the US lost $3 trillion in that war. The contracts its companies made out of it could not have compensated for such losses. It could not have been for oil. If we recall the timeline of events, we can see that 3 former Israeli Prime Ministers visited the US in hopes of pushing them to invade Iraq. Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, and Ehud Barak all expressed deep concern that Saddam is manufacturing nuclear weapons, and they urged for an attack on Iraq. Moreover, the Pentagon put together a unit named “Office of Special Plans” to gather intel on Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion. With a little inspection, we learn that this unit comprised of less than 10 official employees and over 100 temporary “consultants”. The unofficial employees carefully selected the information they found relevant and poorly coordinated with the Pentagon and military. The OSP formed close ties with an intelligence operation inside Israel to provide Bush with updates on Saddam. What we learn is that the Bush administration was rather pressured into invading Iraq by Israeli lobbyists such as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). This invasion displaced over 1 million Iraqis and left the country in ruins. Who pushed for the invasion? The Israel lobby. They convinced the US of an invasion to destroy any chance Iraq had at obtaining nuclear energy, which could hinder Israel’s safety in the Middle East.

3) The Affordable Care Act (ACA):

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was a crucial reform law in the United States aimed at increasing accessibility to affordable health insurance. With the passage of the ACA in 2010, healthcare in the US was revolutionized, as it introduced the individual mandate of having health insurance, reduced costs of medical treatments, expanded Medicaid, and reformed the medical insurance laws. The ACA’s passage extended healthcare coverage to over 20 million Americans. However, it faced political opposition by the conservatives in specific. That is due to the rise in premium insurance prices to compensate for the cost of ACA. Lobbying was a key aspect to the ultimate success of the ACA which cared for the low- and middle-income classes. Lobbyists such as Family USA (an NGO) and American Cancer Society were essential to the legislation of the ACA. Well over 4500 lobbyists descended to Capitol Hill to ensure that patient protection was prioritized. Specifically, they lobbied for the protection of individuals with pre-existing conditions. Lobbyists represented hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance providers, and trade associations. Hospitals demanded the Medicaid expansion in various states, which would offer low-income individuals the access to healthcare, and insurers insisted on the individual mandate. Overall, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 is applauded for providing healthcare to more people at a lower cost, not to mention that prescription medications were made more affordable. This showcases that lobbying can often have a positive impact on society.

The Power of Lobbying:

It is clear that lobbying holds a lot of power in our democratic societies. It has the ability to drive transformative change that affects millions of people. What we must also recognize is that lobbying does not necessarily always have the people’s best interest in mind. Lobbying often requires funding and financial pressure, not just social pressure as experienced in protests and social media campaigns. In an attempt at shaping society, lawmakers often succumb to the personal agenda of their financial provider, changing the course of societies. Israel, Palestine, and Iraq are great examples of that. If it were not for the intense lobbying, Jerusalem would not have been Israel’s capital, and Iraq would have never been invaded. Lobbying is the most powerful tool society holds in creating change. We saw that through the Affordable Care Act which provided Americans with quality healthcare at reasonable prices. Nevertheless, when we discuss lobbying, we must also discuss legal constraints. Without strict transparency laws, our democracy is at risk of being a figurehead in a greater lobbying scheme led by great funders and donors. Such concentration risks erode democratic principles, replacing equal representation with dictated outcomes. It is crucial now more than ever to realize effective laws that regulate lobbying so that it empowers our system, rather than undermining it.

References

Al-Arian, S. (2024, November 8). Trump did not win this election. Harris was defeated by a Gaza-inspired boycott. Middle East Eye. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/us-trump-election-gaza-effect-voting-boycott-harris

Council of Europe. (2017, March 22). Legal Regulation of Lobbying Activities in the Context of Public Decision Making https://rm.coe.int/legal-regulation-of-lobbying-activities/168073ed69

Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2024, October 29). Lobbying. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/lobbying

Hong, K., Chugh, A., & Rosen, T. (2023, November 6). Lobbying Regulation: A global phenomenon | reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lobbying-regulation-global-phenomenon-2023-11-06/

Joe Eaton, M. B. P. (2022, January 28). Lobbyists swarm capitol to influence health reform. Center for Public Integrity. https://publicintegrity.org/health/lobbyists-swarm-capitol-to-influence-health-reform/

Lakritz, T. (2024, October 29). Meet Miriam Adelson, the billionaire GOP donor who’s given $100 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/miriam-adelson-sheldon-adelson-net-worth-donald-trump-2024-10#following-her-husbands-death-in-2021-she-remains-one-of-trumps-biggest-donors-8

Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2007). The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Peterson, K., & Pfitzer, M. (2009, Winter). Lobbying for good (SSIR). Stanford Social Innovation Review: Informing and Inspiring Leaders of Social Change. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/lobbying_for_good

Roland, J. (2019, August 17). The pros and cons of Obamacare. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/consumer-healthcare-guide/pros-and-cons-obamacare#cons

Schleifer, T. (2024, June 25). The pro-israel donor with a $100 million plan to elect Trump. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/us/politics/miriam-adelson-trump-israel.html