AP Government Question! Please Help!

Question

America's understanding of democracy is one thing. Americans' understandings of democracy are another thing entirely. For while we like to think about democracy as a value on which all Americans, regardless of political persuasion, agree, politics today is divided not just along ideological lines, but also in terms of visions of democracy. In Democracy at Crossroads: How the One Percent is Silencing our Voices, a report released by the Democracy Initiative Education Fund, voting expert Tova Wang explains how some of the efforts across the states to limit the right to organize and the right to vote while at the same time letting money continue to dominate state politics are not isolated incidents. They are part of a concerted effort and strategic agenda to challenge the idea of democracy in America. For Wang, "carefully targeted voter photo ID laws that disproportionately affect working Americans, communities of color, and young people," as well as the elimination of "restrictions on special interest campaign spending, and reduced disclosure of sources," and laws passed by state legislatures that compromise workers' ability to organize and to bargain collectively, are just a few examples of these collective efforts to undermine democratic progress.

—From Chayenne Polimédio, New America

1. Describe the core value discussed in the excerpt.
2. In the context of the excerpt, explain how the core value in part A is affected by the actions of special interest groups.
3. In the context of the scenario, explain an action Congress could take to limit the impact of special interest groups as explained in part B.

Answer 1

The core value in this excerpt, as I see it, is representativeness. The American government was designed to be a reflection of the general populace; as citizens, we often take it as an assumption that the government does actually represent the will, and the nature, of the people. In other words, we assume the government is transparent, because this is how it was designed to be, and this is how we are taught to think of our government. Special interest activities have a grave impact on representativeness by motivating members of government to act in a way that most directly falls in line with that special interest, even when it is not to the best interest of their constituents. When a member of government is swayed into a course of action by a special interest, they cease to become representative of their constituents. Even if that member is compelled by the special interest to act in a way that benefits their constituents, they do not fill the definition of being representative of their people because it was not the will of the people that dictated their actions. An action Congress could take to stifle the impact of special interests on the actions of lawmakers is imposing limits on how much a special interest group can give to a candidate's campaign, and imposing a limit on how much that special interest may donate to the member through the duration of each term in which they serve. Should Congress take such an action, however, we are likely to see legal challenges at every level, up to and including the Supreme Court, on issues of free speech. We would then be in a position where the Supreme Court must revisit its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.