In the United States, money has constantly played a noteworthy part with regards to governmental issues. Which prompts numerous special interest groups of individuals utilizing their wealth to impact voters and even put pressure on elected officials to guarantee that the legislature would give them the advantages they needed. These interest groups have been involved in lawmaking by pushing the administration to make policies that are pro-business and decrease in regulations. Furthermore, these interest groups have spent a tremendous amount of money on lobbying efforts. All things considered, it could lead to government corruption since businesses and corporations contribute to the government much more than any other source. In a peer review …show more content…
Additionally, the writers of both articles did not particularly clarify whether interest groups could be a decent or awful thing for the economy. Another likeness of the two articles is that they both educated the readers about the pressure that policymakers could confront when they do not make interest groups feel satisfied. Therefore, the general population ought to comprehend that a few policies were made not on the grounds that the policymakers needed to do it, but rather it is on account of they were pressured to do it by the interest groups. The distinctions I saw between the two articles are the "Designing Foreign Policy" article was more centered around sanction policies and how interest groups could profit by the association with the objective nation at the cost of others. From the article "Veto Players and Interest Groups in Lawmaking", Vigor was for the most part centered around educating the readers that interest groups could once in a while have a more essential part than veto players and if the interest groups are power enough, then they could overwhelm the veto players