User:Nyabayo/sandbox

Big money always wins in policy making process It’s true that big money always wins in the policy-making process in the United States of America. The long processes that policy making has made it possible for those with enough resources to invest in the process for a more acceptable policy to be achieved. The principal actors in any policy-making initiative are those who support the policy and those against it. Each player uses their way so as to have their say carry the day at the end of the process. Those with money highly influence policy making processes. According to Derthick (55-67), who analyzed the policy, making process against tobacco smoking in the public, the public policy making process though initially expected to be enacted to protect the public interest, fails to do so as it’s highly influenced by those whose interest will likely be affected by the policy once enacted. Derthick asserts that those the policy to try to be against, mobilize themselves to protect the status quo to continue enjoying the benefit they currently enjoy at the expense of the public (Derthick, 56-67). When a policy is enacted, the process is supposed to involve all the stakeholders so as their interests are protected and no one is taken advantage of. The policy making process should be aligned so as all stakeholders actively participate in the process. This is contrary to the current situation in the government when a policy making process is initiated a disruptive one especially; key players in the affected industry mobilize themselves to ensure that the process is not successful. In Derthick’s book pg 31, she analyzes how key players in the tobacco industry came together to ensure that a policy of implementing total burn of public tobacco smoking is not endorsed. Despite having confirmed the harmful impact tobacco has for both the passive and active tobacco smokers, the tobacco companies was unwilling to support the policy as it may have resulted in huge losses in terms of profit. To ensure that the process fails, the companies had to use a multi-approach strategy whereby they highly invested to ensure that they were successful. Using anti-tobacco groups, tort lawyers and general attorneys the tobacco interest groups were able to ensure that no policy against their interest was successful (Derthick, 29-31) Using money whereby the lawyer is paid vast amounts of money and sponsoring anti- tobacco groups for their initiatives the tobacco companies makes the groups less likely to stand against their bosses. Going against the spirit of the constitution where the health of the public is to be highly considerate, the companies use a lot of money which they have to influence the policy making process ((Derthick 60-67).). The anti- smoking groups after being influenced are highly likely not to the companies to the task of ensuring that the public is protected from the adversity of smoking in the public. The general attorneys are used to initiate lengthy court cases that make it difficult to ensure that the policy making process is completed within the shortest time possible. The foundation of most pressure groups are based on the funding they get this groups that is vital in ensuring that only policies that are of public interest are enacted (Derthick 52-67). The basis of getting funding is being abused as the pressure groups including activists are easily influenced by those who will line their pockets well. The cigarette companies makes the pressure groups assume their side of the story which they peddle to the public to gain its support. They use the media to campaign to influence the public perception using the funds given by the cigarette and tobacco companies. Sometimes these pressure groups together with the general attorneys sometimes take compromise agreements that they push to be established as the policy for the public. According to Derthick pg 63, the Master Settlement Agreement that was settled at by the attorneys and activists with the tobacco industry players in 1997 was against the interest of the public in some significant aspects. This came with the accusation that the key groups; the attorneys and the activists were compromised to arrive at the agreement (Derthick 96). They attorneys further were settled with huge bills for their participation in negotiating the agreement at the expense of the public that they were supposed to be working for. Furthermore, the tort lawyer who helped in preparing the cases was also paid huge amounts of monies, and this amounted to them using their position to negotiate for public interests for their gains. In policy making processes, where big money defines the groups that will have the most favored position of the policy. The position of the policy stands to benefit those with big money as they will have their way succeed at the expense of the general public.

Work cited Derthick, Martha A. Up in smoke: From legislation to litigation in tobacco politics. SAGE Publications, 2011.

<