In this essay I will discuss lobbying activities in countries like Canada, USA and Great Britain . I will also discuss whether or not lobbying should be regulated. Lobbying has an effect on policy development and decision making. It is directly linked to democracy and justice in politics. Lobbying brings transparency to the system. If left unmonitored, it will lead to corrupt system behavior. It should therefore be regulated carefully. I will use some scientific articles to prove my point and give two arguments to support my position. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay What does the term lobbying mean? “The internal strategy of interest group activities is often associated with lobbying activity. The term lobbying originated from the practice, by those seeking government favor or seeking to influence the passage of legislation, of gathering in the lobby of the British House of Commons to make their case to MPs. In other words, lobbying is an effort to persuade people involved in the development and implementation of public policies to adopt and implement policies or decisions favored by an individual, business or a group, especially through direct personal contact. It is an effort to influence legislators and those involved in the executive and administrative aspects of government. The important target of lobbyists are regulatory bodies like the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), as their decisions often affect the likelihood of businesses. In addition to individuals among businesses and interest groups who have developed experience in lobbying government, various consulting firms focus on lobbying on behalf of a range of buyers, particularly businesses. Raj Chari, Gary Murphy and John Hogan in Regulating Lobbyists: A Comparative Analysis of the United States, Canada, Germany and the European Union argue that lobbying can be a central and authentic part of the democratic method in all political systems. Although the term is generally associated with negative connotations, the work of lobbyists is important. These actors interact by providing input and feedback to the form of government, thereby serving to develop policy outcomes. Lobbying teams could embody people with economic interests (businesses), professional interests (unions or representatives of an expert society) and civil society interests (such as environmental groups). These groups could influence policy choices through several suggestions, as well as direct communications with government officials, posters and telephone conversations. Only Canada, Germany, the United States and the European Union have regulations regarding lobbying activities. The first important conclusion is that three ideal forms of regulatory atmosphere can be conceptualized with respect to lobbying rules, which is not a unique model in itself. the main one concerns lightly regulated systems, and therefore the main conclusion drawn from this is that there are rules on the registration of individual lobbyists, but little detail is needed on the other side of this subject. The second important conclusion concerns the opinions ofagents involved in lobbying, including politicians, regulators and interest groups. Actors in highly regulated systems were more likely to agree, compared to actors in lightly regulated systems, that rules make it easier to ensure government accountability. In other words, the stronger the foundation, the more additional responsibility is fostered within the social group. There are many ways to regulate lobbying, such as the light track and the heavy track. Depending on the objectives, states decide how to implement them. Conor McGrath in Lobbying and the 2006 US Midterm Elections mentions that lobbying was first used to influence legislation in 1808. He mentioned that lobbying would again be an issue in presidential and parliamentary elections. He mentioned that candidates would present their opponents as being too close to special interests. Andreas Polk, Armin Schmutzler and Adrian Muller, on lobbying and the power of multinational corporations, mentioned that the influence of lobbying on political processes has increased due to globalization. He said multinational companies have a better lobbying position than national companies and as a result national governments lose their discretion to set their policies. He also mentioned that lobbying can have a more serious effect on the well-being of a multinational company than a national company. ARGUMENT I: Stricter lobbying regulations reveal more egalitarian processes of political representation. Patrick Flavin in his work on lobbying regulations and political equality in American states analyzes that State political decisions are systematically closer to the opinions of wealthy citizens. It uses public opinion measures from Annenberg's election surveys and state policy data to demonstrate that state policy decisions are closer to the opinions of wealthy citizens. This is partly because in Washington and in states across the country, sectors share their opinions (finance, real estate, etc.) and are well represented among professional lobbyists. In Table 2, he describes income and ideological distance between opinion and policy. In this, he notes that citizens with higher incomes are better represented than citizens with low incomes. He uses Table 4 to demonstrate that states with stricter lobbying regulations exhibit more egalitarian political representation processes. Table 4 represents state regulations on lobbying and equality of political representation. This table has 3 columns: OLS, standardized coefficient and robust regression. It uses five terms: number of lobbying regulations, income inequality, electoral competitiveness, % of for-profit interest groups, % of Democrats in state legislature, and constant for the estimate. He mentioned that the analysis also reveals that there are clear variations in gender equality. political illustration across the states. Taking advantage of this variation and variations in the laws that regulate lobbying across states, I then realized that states with stricter lobbying laws tend to possess additional egalitarian models of political illustration. ARGUMENT II: Interest groups that attempt to outspend others on indirect influence are engaging in a risky and ineffective practice due to unlimited lobbying. Currently, the only limitation373-419.4008