Under the rubric of the governmental system of the United States of America, political and social constraints are, in theory, supposed to exist between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government. In practice, it is often the case that one branch or another is more powerful. This may be caused by a variety of reasons, and the perception from the public is that special interest groups, the media, and other extraneous factors combine in a variety of ways to influence political decisions. There is a relatively vague area in which influence peddling becomes lobbying. Lobbying is rather restrictive, yet it is often difficult to substantially prove that lobbying has occurred, and the various social engagements in which political activities are discussed are one of the most difficult areas of governmental life to police (Cowan, 1989).
Similarly, although many in government realize that influence peddling is a serious problem, they are rife to find a cogent solution to the problem. One of the ways of addressing such situations is to legislate certain "ethical" standards, and force members of the government into compliance (Glazer, 1989). This, of course, is only viable while the person under scrutiny is actually in office. However, one of the most lucrative areas of employment for governmental officials and staffers after their term of office or appointment has expired is to become a lobbyist, political consultant, or political advisor. These people usually attach themselves to the network that they established during the time in Washington, yet are not always able to ensure the kind of support that they previously enjoyed (Hook, 1988).
This paper will be concerned with the role of public opinion, the media, and special interest groups within the spectrum of American politics. Of course, with such a broad base of material upon which to draw, we must confine ourselves to some of the more visible and major ...