In this essay I will talk about lobbying activities in countries like Canada, United States and Great Britain. Furthermore, I will discuss whether lobbying should be regulated or not. Lobbying has an effect on decision making and policies. It is directly linked to democracy and justice in politics. Lobbying brings transparency to the system. If it is not monitored, it will result in corrupt system behavior. Therefore, it should be carefully regulated. I will use some academic articles to prove my point and provide two arguments to support my position. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay What does the term lobbying mean? “The internal strategy of interest group activities is often associated with lobbying. The term lobbying derives from the practice of those seeking favors from the government or seeking to influence the passage of legislation of coming together in the lobby of the British House of Commons to make one's case to members of parliament. In other words, lobbying is an effort to persuade those involved in making and implementing public policies to adopt and implement policies or decisions favored by an individual, a company or group, particularly through direct personal contact.” It is an effort to influence legislators and those involved in the executive and administrative aspects of government. The primary target of lobbyists is regulatory agencies such as the Canadian Commission for broadcast telecommunications (CRTC), because their decisions often affect the likelihood of companies. In addition to individuals within companies and interest groups who have developed expertise in lobbying government, a variety of consulting firms focus on lobbying on behalf of a range of buyers, particularly corporations. Raj Chari, Gary Murphy, and John Hogan in Regulating Lobbyists: A Comparative Analysis of the United States, Canada, Germany, and the European Union argue that lobbying can be a central and authentic part of the democratic method across political systems as a whole . although the term has typically been associated with negative connotations, the work of lobbyists is important. These actors interact by providing input and feedback to the form of government, thus helping to develop policy outcomes. Lobby groups could embody those with economic interests (companies), professional interests (trade unions or representatives of a think tank) and civil society interests (such as environmental groups). These teams could influence political selections with various suggestions, as well as direct communications with government officials, rallies and telephone conversations. Only Canada, Germany, the United States and the European Union have regulations for lobbying activities. The first important finding is that 3 ideal forms of regulatory climate regarding lobbying rules can be conceptualized, and there is no single model in and of itself. The first is poorly regulated systems, and so the main conclusion drawn from this is that there are rules on the registration of individual lobbyists, although little detail is needed on the other side. The second important finding concerns the opinions of agents involved in lobbying, together with politicians, regulators and interest groups. Actors in highly regulated systems seem to agree more than actors in lightly regulated systems that rules make it easier to ensure accountability in government. In otherswords, the stronger the foundations, the greater the responsibility within the social group. There are numerous ways to regulate lobbying, such as the light regulation way and the heavy regulation way. Depending on the objectives, states decide which way to implement. Conor McGrath in Lobbying and the 2006 US Midterm Elections mentioned that lobbying was first used to influence legislation in 1808. He stated that lobbying will again be an issue in presidential and congressional elections. He said candidates will paint their opponents as too close to special interests. Andreas Polk, Armin Schmutzler and Adrian Muller in Lobbying and Corporate Power argued that the influence of lobbying on political processes has increased due to globalization. He argued that multinational companies have a better lobbying position than national companies and, because of this, national governments lose their discretion in setting policies. He also mentioned that lobbying can have a worse effect on welfare in a multinational company than in a national company. ARGUMENT I: Stricter lobbying regulations show more egalitarian processes of political representation. Patrick Flavin in Lobbying Regulators and Political Equality in the American states analyzes that state political decisions are consistently closer to the opinions of wealthy citizens. It uses public opinion measures from Annenberg voter surveys and state policy data to show that state policy decisions are closer to the opinion of affluent citizens. One explanation for this is that in Washington and states across the nation, industries share their views (finance, real estate status, etc.) and are well represented among professional lobbyists. Table 2 describes the income and ideological distance between opinion and politics. According to him, citizens with a higher income are better represented than citizens with a low income. Use Table 4 to demonstrate that states that have stricter lobbying regulations exhibit more egalitarian political representation processes. Table 4 represents the rules on state lobbying and equality of political representation. This table has 3 columns: OLS, standardized coefficient and robust regression. He uses five terms: number of lobbying regulations, income inequality, electoral competitiveness, % of for-profit interest groups, % of Democrats in the state legislature, and constant for the estimate. He said the analysis also reveals that there is a marked variation in the equality of political illustration across states. Taking advantage of this variation and variations in laws regulating lobbying across states, I then realized that states with more stringent lobbying laws tend to possess additional egalitarian models of political illustration. ARGUMENT II: Interest groups that attempt to outspend others in terms of indirect influence are engaging in a risky and inefficient practice of unlimited lobbying. Currently, the only limitation on lobbying activities is that lobbyists have to disclose their activities to officials, which is not enough, so we need more regulations or laws to prevent them from abusing their power. Please note: this is just an example. Get an article habit now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay Nathan Witkin in Interest Group Mediation: A Mechanism for Monitoring and Improving Congressional Lobbying Practices argued that the appearance of undue influence creates cynicism and friction on the part of potential losers because the lobbyist373-419.4008