Quid pro quo is a direct money exchange for influence, or in other words bribery. Many have the view that lobbying is not bribery. There are many reasons of why it is not so. The definition of lobbying is the transmission of information of both technical and political views. The technical information is very important proof, whereas the political information is more of blackmail. In other words, political lobbying means that if party number one passes a law that party number two disagrees with, party number two will no longer vote for party number one.
Lobbying is not bribery because the money goes to the campaign, not to the politicians pocket. The interest groups are primarily interested in the policy of the government, whereas the political parties are only interested in the personnel of government. The interest groups give money to both parties and are conflicting with one another. They are shifting coalitions meaning they are against each other. The purpose of the process is to buy access to the person in power. This is where lobbying comes in to play.
The big city political machines were very powerful and kept theyre political power for quite some time. The so-called boss was the leader of the political machine in big cities such as Boston. During this time, the immigrants wanted citizenship in the United States, but they had to be able to speak and write in English in order for them to take the test. To solve this problem, the machine created a patronage system. The patronage system said that the immigrants had to be taught English, and which ever politician was to teach them and make them citizens eligible for jobs, housing, the right to vote, and food will forever have the vote of that person. In other words, they help the immigrants become citizens and the immigrants vote for them to be the boss of the political machine. This is the system that seemed to be giving the political machine much of its political power.
After becoming citizens, the immigrants received city jobs such as police officials, firemen, sanitations jobs etc. In order for the citizen to get a job they had to meet the standards of the merit system, which said that they had to be educated and/or qualified for the job. This merit system was not instituted until later on during the time of the political machine.
The political machine was funded with American
tax money. This did not please the American taxpayers,
and it caused a small revolt. The taxpayers demanded
that the merit system be instituted, which got rid of
the patronage system.
When Jackson became President in 1828, he instituted his own patronage system. When he was elected, he fired all the bureaucrats that were already there and hired new officials who were for him. They were not given the jobs according to merit, only because they were for the President. Because he didnt base his officials on merit, he could hire or fire anyone he wanted for any type of reasons. For instance if someone did something he disliked he would fire them.
Just as in city level, the officials getting fired and replaced with ones with out any merit disliked this federal level of patronage. An action was taken and the merit system was put into play. Now, you can only hire people based on the merit system.
After the merit system was instituted, the power of the political parties went down. This caused a power vacuum, which interest groups have filled. These days, political parties are relatively weak although the press seems to make them come across as powerful. Their power went down because the merit system was put into play, and the patronage system was knocked down. Now the interest groups level of political power is up instead.
Ideological means a person or nation with consisting views based on a political philosophy. The definition of non-ideological is quite different. It means a person or nation who will hold conflicting views on parties. America itself is non-ideological. It has mixed policies and holds conflicting views in political beliefs.
In order for a Democrat to win an election, he/she must have conservative policies. As for a Republican, he/she must have liberal policies. In the past thirty years, a Democrat with conservative policies has won the elections because they are from the South. This is how they appeal to the non-ideological nation, which in this case is America. Their policies are neither strictly left nor are they strictly right. They are in some way in the middle. In the United States, we have middle of the road policies.
The third parties in America do not have a realistic chance of being elected. They rarely win, and if they do, its usually at the local level, like in the city. The third parties incentive is that they receive money if the get five percent of the votes. Theyre trying to get publicity about their policy preferences, which is more like an interest group than a party.
If the third parties cant get their personnel in office, then they are trying to get out their policy ideas. If they are successful in the presidential level, they are able to take votes anyway. Then the other two parties will pick up on the third parties policies.
The United States only has a two party system. The reason behind this is because we have single member districts. In order for a politician to win an election, he needs the help of a large organization. Because America is non-ideological, it has a two party system, whereas Europe has a multi-party system because it is ideological.
In Europe the countries have multi-party systems, which comes from proportional representation. On the ballots, you see the names of the parties not the names of the people. The votes are counted and only a percentage is taken. The percentage of votes is proportional to the number of seats that are given in the legislature. It is much harder to get things done in a proportional system of representation because it is much less efficient. It is hard to get a majority, so little groups become powerful because they combine with other parties and for a sort of coalition.
The President of the United States has many Constitutional powers and very little non-constitutional powers. The President is the commander in chief, and the chief bureaucrat. He is the one that appoints the pardon powers. He can make treaties and appoint both ambassadors and chief legislatures. The president is the chief diplomat.
As for the Presidents non-Constitutional powers, he has very few. He is the leader of his party. The President is the leader of the public opinion, which is how the public feels about the issues. A poll is taken to find out the public opinion. The President is also the chief economist because he proposes budget, but the Congress passes the budget.
