Review and Correction for Plaigirism
Discuss lobbying reforms, including the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and efforts under the Bush and Obama administrations. Were these reforms effective? Will they reduce the perceived corruption in lobbying activities?
Following decades of failed effort to close the most loophole of the 1946 Act, the US congress to end with stepped up to the plate at the end of 1995 and permitted the sweeping Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995. LDA represents a comprehensive reform when compared to the earlier regulatory labors, though it surely was seen as lessening short of a complete success by its biggest sponsors ((Loomis, B. A., Francia 2012). The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 replaced much of the earlier patchwork of lobbying revelation laws with a sole, uniform statute casing the activities of all professional lobbyists. It incorporated FARA, the Byrd Amendment, and the Federal Regulation of Lobbying under one law and given considerable improvements in their definition, treatment, reporting requirements and enforcement. Overcoming early objections, President Bush signed a lobbying reform bill Friday designed to curb the corrupting control of big money-special interests by needing more disclosure and less freebies (Loomis, B. A., Francia 2012).
The idea of successful ethics reform is not laws and limitations, but full disclosure. The legislation comprises minimal improvements in the area of disclosure, both for lobbying and earmarks. But there is still more to be done and I will work with the Congress to get better upon this legislation,” Bush wrote in his signing statement. Although he tried to downplay the bill’s scope, Bush’s signature provides Democrats, who guarantees to clean up Washington’s culture of corruption, a major victory. They will probably tout the achievement come election time, mainly in rough races like Ohio Democratic Rep. Zack Space’s. He ran in part on an anti-corruption platform against former Republican Rep. Bob Ney, who is serving 30 months in prison for participation in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal (Loomis, B. A., and Francia 2012).
The Post-employment restriction under federal law set by statute to last one year would be extended to two years. In addition, Obama Administration appointees who become lobbyists after leaving the government may not contact any executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration (John Hudek (2014).
The Executive Order covers other ethics reform issues, including a broad ban on the acceptance of gifts. The mechanism by which the Executive Order achieve these changes is a vow that government appointees have to sign, required them contractually and enforceable by the Department of Justice. Scholars who pay consideration to government reform measures have generally thought well of the Executive Order’s turning door provisions. Their number comprise, for instance, Richard Painter, previously in the White House Counsel’s office in the G.W. Bush Administration and now at the University of Minnesota , who cited the “outstanding progress” made with these provisions; Dennis Thompson, a expert in government ethics at Harvard University who ideas them as a “definite advance,” and our illustrious host here at American University, James Thurber, who completed that the January EO was “historic” and part of a “strong” package of ethical reforms well-known for Obama Administration appointees (Loomis, B. A., Francia 2012)
References
Loomis, B. A., Francia, P. L., & Strolovitch, D. Z. (2012). Guide to interest groups and lobbying in the United States. Washington, DC: CQ Press, Retrieved on April 22 2017 from http://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/guide-to-interest-groups-and-lobbying-in-the-united-states
John Hudek (2014), Obama Should Encourage Congressional Earmarks, Brookings Institution State of the Union 2014 Blog, Retrieved on April 19 2017 from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2014/01/27/sotu-2014-obama-should-encourage-congressional-earmarks/
Eilperin. J., (2015) “Obama promised to curb the influence of lobbyists. Has he succeeded”? Retrieved on April 23 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-promised-to-curb-the-influence-of-lobbyists-has-he-succeeded/2015/03/22/e9ec766e-ab03-11e4-abe8-e1ef60ca26de_story.html?utm_term=.5c4bef1d75df
The United States has never adopted clear policy guidelines regarding the use of force. When is military intervention overseas appropriate? Use real examples. Defend your position, including acknowledging the potential risks associated with your chosen scenario(s).
The use of military force overseas and decision making is not an easy task. One should ensure, understand that sending troops to a foreign soil is a long-term endeavor and either will be backed by the American people like the war against terrorism in modern times, or they will be mostly against it such as the war in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Likewise, the decision to use military force overseas must be substantiated by a real need for the use of force against an adversary. For the current tense between the North Korean and America, I personally don’t see military force as a solution to overcome the tension between two countries that has nuke power and can destroy each territories within a matter of minutes. From the other hand, I think that we should avoid using military force in areas of little importance to U.S. interest such as previously used in Haiti and Somalia (Hillen, 1996). Also, suppressing terror groups such as ISIS or ISIL is much easier to do when the faction is small and weak rather than allowing it to grow to a point where military intervention will cause even more casualties and be increasingly expensive for the American people.
I totally support the use of military intervention during an extreme human rights violation such as in Libya (Kissinger & Baker III, 2011). Nevertheless, the United States’ position as the police force of the world cannot be the deciding factor in the use of military force. A multi-national effort must be consorted for nearly all foreign human rights violations. There is a thin line between being the world’s policemen and a bully, regardless of how much the nation is helping.
Furthermore, our military intervention should also have clear and concise goal, which is attainable within an established timeframe and not for the unknown period of time. To have a case specific, let’s discuss the United States war in Afghanistan. The US is still fighting a war of idealistic background in Afghanistan with a primary scope to hunt for the terrorist Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Sixteen years later, we are still there and still trying to win the hearts and minds as well as playing what seems to be a game of whack-a-mole with terrorists. Although the country has been fighting these terrorist for sixteen years, there seems to be as many if not more terrorists today. Therefore, the current military operation has cost 13,800 American lives in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq (Watson Institute, 2017). Moreover, many have died from drug overdoses and suicides likely tied to Post Traumatic Stress Disorders.
To conclude: I would say that there are atrocities being committed in this world and we stand idly by doing nothing. Genocides are being committed in countries like Rwanda, Burundi, and the Congo. Sir Edmond Burke’s famous quote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”, resounds deeply within many who chose to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. If we claim to be morally sound, supporters of freedom and humanity, how can we sit by and watch as the atrocities of the world continue? As mentioned before, financially, militarily, we cannot be the world’s policeman. Attempting to do so, would ultimately end in failure and the demise of the United States. At end, I would agree with the statement by Hillen 1996 that “the United States military cannot fight a multi-front war” (Hillen, 1996) because the forces are already spread too thin and it would not be financially feasible.
References
Hillen, J. (1996, May 2). American Military Intervention: A User's Guide. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/05/bg1079nbsp-american-military-intervention-a-users-guide
Kissinger, H., & Baker III, J. (2011, April 8). Grounds for U.S. military intervention - The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/grounds-for-us-military-intervention/2011/04/07/AFDqX03C_story.html?utm_term=.7d8b2cd90440
Watson Institute. (2017, January). US & Allied Killed | Costs of War. Retrieved from http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military/killed
