After learning about the inefficiency of rent-seeking activities in class, I decided to see just how much money American lobbyist groups out towards an issue they are fighting for. I looked at a topic of much debate: pro-choice vs. pro-life. On a site about Abortion Policy Lobbyists, I found lobbyist groups for and against abortion spent over 1 million dollars in 2013 alone. And it's not even a major election year.
For all the money the two lobbyist groups contribute to political campaigns to get them to support their cause, the candidate will only chose to support one group. In addition, abortion rights are such a controversial issue, it will be nearly impossible for one group to get their policies (for either pro-life pro-choice) passed completely. So, is all of this money spent on lobbying rational? Is it efficient? Or is it even democratic to try to buy up support for policies?
This rent-seeking looks use resources (lobbyist money) to increase one's share of wealth (or in this case, political support) rather than creating their own. As a result, it is inefficient because it decreases net wealth (using up resources without creating anymore). In my opinion, I do not think it is ratioaln to keep spending more and more money lobbying becasue the opposing group will keep spending more also, as we saw in class. In addition, spending the most money does not guarantee your policies will pass, so the probability of the contributions making a difference are low. Lastly, I don't think lobbying is very democratic. It is scary that big lobbyists dollars can have a bigger impact on political decisions than citizens opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment