First, in a pluralist country there are a greater number of interest groups, low entry costs, and many more entry points than in a corporate society. In the United States, for example, a bill can be blocked before it even reaches the committee meeting agenda. Subsequently, before reaching the president, it must be approved by both houses of congress. The president also has veto power over the bill. Therefore there are many entry points through which the public can convince their representatives to vote against the proposed policy. That, when interest groups are losing, they try to expand the scope of the conflict to gain public attention so they can win. While in a corporate company. There are few entry points through which the public can try to influence political outcomes. At the same time the state works with the “peak” interest group through collaborations. Therefore, policy proposals, even controversial ones, would be supported by powerful business associations. Therefore, it would be difficult for the public to influence policy proposals. Consequently, it seems that a controversial policy proposal has a much greater chance of being politicized by public debate in a pluralist context