When I read Gary Becker's assertion on page 102 that "the condemnation of special interest groups is excessive," I thought immediately of Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Whitehouse (with a fitting name given his long career in politics) would likely disagree vehemently with Becker. The senator is perhaps the most vocal critic of special interest groups in Congress. He presses his Senate colleagues and other high-profile politicians to publicly disclose the names of their donors, citing concerns about "dark money." He alleges that when anonymous, private corporations spend millions on lobbying using "front groups and hidden money," they undermine the independence of the legislative branch and cement pro-corporate interests as top government priorities, no matter the negative consequences for average citizens.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee presiding over now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings, Whitehouse has made headlines in recent weeks for his accusation that "dark money" has infiltrated the Supreme Court nomination process. Becker might agree with Whitehouse on this point if the senator were to prove that "there is highly unequal access to political influence" among special interest groups targeting the judiciary with aforementioned "hidden money." If the groups that Whitehouse identified, including the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, could "secure the implementation of policies [or Court rulings] that benefit them while reducing social output," then Becker would deem Whitehouse's condemnation "more justified."
On the other hand, some accuse the senator of hypocrisy for allegedly accepting anonymous donations from "dark-money" organizations himself. In the hyperlinks, I tried to present both sides of that particular argument, and will leave the class to form their own conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment