The Truth about Special Interests
Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net
“I’m special (special)
So special (special)
I got to have some of your attention, give it to me!”
- Brass in Pocket, The Pretenders
Throughout this election, both parties have talked a lot about special interest groups. Much of this talk, at least on the Democratic side, comes from the Ralph Nader-John Edwards school of populism: special interest groups are evil. Why? Because they’re greedy. The end.
In Tim Harford’s new book, The Logic of Life (which I just read and highly recommend), a different view is put forward:
This government program is a surefire winner: Take $1.9 billion away from a large group of voters, then give just over $1 billion to a much smaller group of voters, then throw away the rest. Would you vote for it? It turns out that Americans do just that, time after time.
Harford uses the example of sugar subsidies. These subsidies help the sugar industry a lot — a big farm could get $10 million a year from the deal. On the other hand, Harford estimates the total cost to every taxpayer at roughly six dollars.
The reason that this happens, Harford argues, is not that the sugar industry is comprised of evil super villains bribing politicians. It’s that you have a situation when a minority of people really care about something, and a majority of people care very little. And why should they? Six dollars isn’t enough to buy a ticket for a movie — it’s barely enough for the popcorn. The minority that benefits from sugar subsidies, on the other hand, stands to gain much more than six dollars, and is therefore motivated to lobby, vote, and contribute money to make sure they get the favorable outcome. This applies not just to the owners, but the workers too — those subsidies protect their jobs.
This is what’s so frustrating to me about all the free-trade bashing that’s gone on this year. Most free trade benefits a majority of people, while hurting a minority — a loud minority. On the Democratic side, this often times means unions and blue-collar workers.
The implications of this argument are huge. It’s not just a modern problem caused by crooked politicians but a problem intrinsic in democracy.
Is there a solution? According to Harford, the majority has to get organized and make their voices heard. There’s a problem here, too:
The total benefits of being organized are large, but the benefits for any one member of the group are pretty small. Saying “Get organized” solves nothing.
After all, it’s hard to imagine a March on Washington to save six dollars a year.
Once again, this is where Barack Obama has the potential to change this. Part of his pitch is that he’s getting more people involved in politics. His charisma isn’t insignificant at all — it gets people interested. Remember, Obama used to be a community organizer. One of the central theories of the campaign is that getting people to pay attention to government is precisely how you affect change.
It’s easy to see how people could critique this as mindless optimism. It isn’t. The reason special interest groups have power is that the majority of people aren’t paying attention; the hope is that an Obama presidency would motivate people to start. If he’s as good working from the Oval Office as he is from the campaign trail, he may just have a chance.
The danger is that Obama will simply trade one set of special interests for another. Unions will no doubt play a big role in the general election. On the other hand, his campaign has received donations from more than a million people. If Obama is elected president, and if he wants that same number contributing to his re-election, he will need to be accountable to the majority of Americans, not special interests.
–Hillel Aron
canada.com????
there is an invisible ecologic….. we are promised by our politicians that our vote is our currency…. it is their post-elected abandonment of that promise in favor of the more immediate currency of cash which makes them guilty of pandering and makes us suspicious ::::
the access of the population to politicians through voting is closer to equality than our access through lobbying with money ::::
this is not an example of a free market switch it is an example of political dishonesty
The idea of a significant benefit of free trade and by that I presume your referring to lower prices at Wal Mart ? is just not a true reflection of the end result of these Fair trade agreements . Such agreements effect us all not just a minorty Americans are hurt but all of us . The net effect NAFTA displaces American workers with workers who have little or no labor protections, no viable polticial means of improving their condition of exploitation all in the name of lower prices . Its never been about the prices its all about the profits .Unless we can achieve equilibrium our corprorations will continue to seek cheap exploitation labor in countries with unenforced environmental reulations from friendlly governments worldwide that will willingly look the other way . In this bargan of free trade ,we will reduce this nation to third world circumsance . Who is going to shop at wal mart when no one has jobs and represenative incomes ?Who will become the leaders of the next genreation if only the rich wil be able to recieve an education ?
This nation is going backwards not forwards . I hope that change is indeed in the wind as a breath of fresh air is woefully needed
nice work in texas, mr aron. will we be able to follow you to mississippi?
Obama is a joke. HE promises change. That change is a president who will not get one thing done. THe change will be no laws or bills being passed. He will get us in huge trouble with terrorist and extremists. The man has the worst foreign policy ever. YOU CANT BE DIPLOMATIC WITH TERRORISTS.WERE THEY DIPLOMATIC BEFORE HITTING THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS. also his wife who is a healthcare expert goesfrom making 100K a year to 380K after obama runs for president. As a healthcare expert she should not be making that much money. That takes away from the ppl that need money for HEALTHCARE>>>
JOHN MCCAIN 08′ only logical pick
“This is what’s so frustrating to me about all the free-trade bashing that’s gone on this year. Most free trade benefits a majority of people, while hurting a minority — a loud minority. On the Democratic side, this often times means unions and blue-collar workers.”
A loud minority?
i see it’s very easy for you to completely ignore the economic destruction neo-liberalism has on countries such as Peru, who’ve repeatedly protested free trade agreements in the making because of the devastation the workers know will occur. Or the effects of free-trade in Colombia, which have caused a huge wave of violence against unions (workers who just want rights). Colombia has the highest amount of violence towards unions, it’s absolutely terrible- one of the many ‘loud minorities’ who have their workers torn to shreds.
It’s also hypocritical of Americans to talk about ‘free trade’, when historically we’ve done the exact opposite of free-trade. We’ve had historically huge tariffs during our period of growth (before 1900). When Britain opened up their free-trade markets, they knew it was because they had no competition. Free trade only helps those who are wealthy get even wealthier.
this blog is bs.
P.S.: Barack Obama is the 4th largest recipient of black-water funds (special interests, actually).
black water has been accused of committing countless atrocities in Iraq*.
Shady support, eh?
(for references, look up the nissour square massacre in September).
Change is a given. Change is moment to moment or death occurs.
How can we lobby on an equal playing field, artlobbyist.com?
How can we owaken to the full empowerment of oneself?
How can we co-create and co-design systems on utopia, that most amazing miraculous harmonic system we all know so well, oneself….from two cells to one cell to 100 trillion cells working within a utopian system of life.
Change is given. Changing towards the heart of reality is what intelligence should be measured by.
kNaDmV sd80347yv35t8574dcu0r
6uFL1T fv629ff73asdhlvthi57fvt4