Arguments Against Special Interest Groups

There are few restrictions on how Special Interest groups can operate. Their strategies and tactics mostly deals with lobbying and litigation. In addition, others also use letter writing, Internet campaigns, and stage public demonstration to gain media coverage (Thomas). In theory, pluralism conveys that there is a balance of power between interest groups because of constant competition to have their voice heard. In contrast, an elitist perspective conveys the elite interest groups who represent businesses with common goals with their connections in offices and are highly financed own the power. It does not seem that the theories around the influence of Special Interest groups have been tested regarding the intelligence level of the masses. It seems as if “…better informed citizens diminish the perceived overall power of interest groups, the total number of lobbying registration as well as the amount of campaign contributions, other things equal” (Wegenast). Yes, I believe Special Interest groups need mass support, but it seems they go after that support if “…[the undecided and uninformed voters] can be swayed by political advertisements and politicians have heightened incentives to cater to [the] [S]pecial [I]nterests rather than satisfying median voter 's bliss point” (Wegenast).
I believe Special Interest have a detrimental role in California. …show more content…
Why does it always seem like it is protocol to use anti-black violence, like in the slavery days, than it is to set right our victimization? It sounds weird, but looking further into slavery you see that slaves had no legal protection. It does not cross our mind, but violence done to women and men were mandatory in maintaining their enslavement over African Americans. Chandra Greggory’s story proves the American law was constructed strictly for the elites and not to protect its