CHAPTER
EIGHT: INTEREST GROUPS
Imagine
a person with an intense devotion to a social cause. Letâs say that he or she believes strongly in animal
rights, or is distressed about the deteriorating earth environment.
Or think of someone else whose work is seriously undervalued, who works
very hard but is paid very little money. What
can any of these imagined people do to improve their situation?
One solution is to start or join a group with similar interests, with the
idea that people together can do more to bring about change than people alone.
They could organize an interest group to put pressure for change
on elected officials and policy makers on all levels of government
An
interest group is an organization of people who enter the political process to
try to achieve their shared goals. Almost from the beginning, Americans have
joined political groups, as noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1834, ãIn no
country of the world has the principle of association been more successfully
used·than in America.ä Today
about 2/3 of Americans belong to such groups.
However, Americans historically have distrusted the motives and methods
of interest groups. James Madison called interest groups and political parties
factions, and he saw federalism and separation of powers as necessary to control
their "evils." Since the number of interest groups and the people who
participate in them have increased greatly over the past half century, they
appear to be even more important today than they have been in the past.
Interest
groups, like political parties, are organizations that exist outside the
structure of government, but they interact with government in such a way that it
is impossible to separate them. Policy making is intertwined with both parties
and interest groups so that government would operate very differently without
them. In recent years two other type of outside organizations, political
action committees (PACs) and 527s, have joined parties and interest
groups as major influence on policy making in this country.
Parties and
interest groups have a great deal of common because they represent political
points of view of various people who want to influence policy making.
This similarity has led some observers to suggest that interest groups
may someday even replace parties as linkage institutions to the electorate.
However, some significant differences still exist.
PACS
AND 527S
Political
action committees (PACs) are the political arms of interest groups, legally
entitled to raise voluntary funds to contribute to favored candidates or
political parties. Like political parties, PACs focus on influencing election
results, but their interest in the candidates is narrowly based because they are
almost always affiliated with particular interest groups. The number of PACs has
mushroomed over the past 30 years, especially since the Campaign Reform Act of
1974, which limited individual contributions to campaigns. The Act did allow
PACs to exist, and most large interest groups formed them as ways to funnel
money to their favorite candidates for office. Today more than 4000 PACs
represent corporations, labor unions, and professional and trade associations,
but the biggest explosion has been in the business world, with more than half of
them representing corporations or other business interests.
527
groups, named after a section of the United States tax code, are tax-exempt
organizations created primarily to influence the nomination, election,
appointment, or defeat of candidates for public office.
Although PACs were also created under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue
Code, 527s are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission and not subject
to the same contribution limits as PACs. During
April of 2004, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) held hearings to determine
whether or not 527s should be regulated under campaign finance rules, but they
decided to delay any ruling until after the 2004 presidential election.
During that election 527s, such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Texans
for Truth, The Media Fund, America Coming Together, and Moveon.org Voter Fund,
raised large sums of money for both parties.
Are
interest groups good or bad for American politics? Different points of view can
be separated into three theories with different answers to that question.
ELITIST THEORY
Elitist
theory argues that just a few interest groups have most of the power. Although
many groups exist, most of them have no real power. The government is run by a
few big groups trying to preserve their own interests. Furthermore, an extensive
system of interlocking directorates (the same people sitting on several boards
of corporations, foundations, and universities) fortifies the control. Elitists
believe that corporate interests control a great many government decisions.
PLURALIST THEORY
Pluralist theory
claims that interest groups benefit American democracy by bringing
representation to all. According to pluralists, some of the benefits of interest
groups are:
HYPERPLURALIST THEORY
Hyperpluralist
theory says that too many groups are trying to influence the political process,
resulting in political chaos and contradiction among government policies.
Hyperpluralists
arge that the political system is out of control because the government tries to
please every interest and allows them to dictate policy in their area. Since all
interest groups try to protect their self-interest, the policies that result
from their pressure are haphazard and ill-conceived.
Interest
groups have been a part of American politics since the beginning, but their
numbers have grown incredibly in recent years. Some well-known groups, such as
the Sierra Club and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People have existed for a century. Many interest groups, however, are relatively
new, with more than half forming after World War II.
Interest
groups seems to exist for everyone. Some are broad-based, like the National
Association of Manufacturers, but others are almost unbelievably specific, such
as the American Cricket Growers Association. Many groups base their organization
on economics. More than three-fourths originated from industrial, occupational,
or professional membership. In recent years more groups have moved their
headquarters to Washington to be as close to the source of power as possible.
Today very few occupations or industries go without interest groups to represent
them in Washington.
Membership in interest groups may be classified in two ways: institutional and individual. A group's members may be composed of organizations, such as businesses or corporations, or they may be composed of individuals.
Interest
groups may be divided broadly into three general types: economic interests,
consumer and public interests, and equality and justice interests. Every
interest group does not fit easily into this classification, but many do.
ECONOMIC
INTERESTS
Economic
groups are
concerned primarily with profits, prices, and wages. Although government does
not set them directly, government can significantly effect them through
regulations, subsidies and contracts, trade policy, and tax advantages.
CONSUMER
AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
Today
over two thousand groups champion causes "in the public interest."
They differ from many other interest groups in that they seek a collective good,
benefits for everyone, not just the members of the interest groups themselves.
EQUALITY
AND JUSTICE INTERESTS
Interest
groups have championed equal rights and justice, particularly for women and
minorities. The oldest and largest of these groups is the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The NAACP has lobbied and pressed
court cases to defend equal rights in voting, employment, and housing. The most
prominent women's rights organization is the National Organization for Women
(NOW) that pushed for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the
1970s. Although the amendment did not pass, NOW still lobbies for an end to
sexual discrimination. Other organizations that support equal rights are the
National Urban League and the National Women's Political Caucus.
Interest
groups generally employ four strategies for accomplishing their goals: lobbying,
electioneering, litigation, and appealing to the public for support.
LOBBYING
To
lobby means to attempt to influence government policies. The term was
originally used in the mid-seventeen century to refer to a large room near the
English House of Commons where people could plead their cases to members of
Parliament. In early United States history, lobbyists traditionally buttonholed
members of Congress in the lobbies just outside the chambers of the House
or Senate. In the nineteenth century lobbyists were seen as vote buyers who used
money to corrupt legislators. Today lobbying is regarded less negatively, but
the old stereotypes still remain.
Lobbyists
today influence lawmakers and agency bureaucrats in many different ways than
cornering them outside their work places. Some of their activities include:
Members of Congress have learned to rely on lobbyists
for information and advice on political strategy.
How effective is lobbying? Lobbying clearly works best on people already
committed to the lobbyist's point of view, so much of it is directed at
reinforcing and strengthening support.
ELECTIONEERING
In
order to accomplish their goals, interest groups need to get and keep people in
office who support their causes. Electioneering,
then, is another important part of the work that interest groups do. Many groups
aid congressional candidates sympathetic to their interests by providing money
for their political campaigns.
Today
PACs do most of the electioneering. As
campaign costs have risen, PACs have helped pay the bills. About half of the
members of the House of Representatives get the majority of their campaign funds
from PACs. PACs overwhelmingly support incumbents, although they sometimes play
it safe by contributing to the campaigns of challengers as well. Incumbents,
however, have voting records to check and also are likely to be reelected. Most
candidates, including incumbents, readily accept PAC money.
LITIGATION
If
interest groups cannot get what they want from Congress, they may sue businesses
or the federal government for action. Environmentalist groups have used this
tactic successfully to force businesses to follow government regulations. Even
the threat of lawsuits may force businesses to change their ways.
Lawsuits
were used successfully during the 1950s by civil rights groups. Civil rights
bills were stalled in Congress, so interest groups, such as the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, turned to the courts to gain
a forum for school desegregation, equal housing, and labor market equality.
Interest
groups may influence court decisions by filing amicus curiae ("friends
of the court") briefs, which consist of written arguments submitted to the
courts in support of one side of a case or the other. In particularly
controversial cases, many briefs may be filed on both sides of the issue.
For example, in the case of Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke, which challenged affirmative action programs as reverse
discrimination, over a hundred different groups filed amicus briefings.
Groups
may also file class action lawsuits, which enable a group of similar
plaintiffs to combine their grievances into a single suit. A famous example is Brown
v. the Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, which not only represented
Linda Brown in Topeka, Kansas, but several other children similarly situated
around the country.
APPEALING
TO THE PUBLIC
Interest
groups sometimes may best influence policy making by carefully cultivating their
public image. Labor interests may want Americans to see them as hard-working men
and women, the backbone of the country. Farmers may favor an image that
represents old-fashioned values of working close to the earth in order to feed
everyone else. Groups that suffer adverse publicity, like meat and egg producers
whose products have been criticized for their high cholesterol and fat content,
often advertise to defend their products. Their goal may be not only to promote
business and sell their products, but to keep a favorable position among lobby
groups in Washington. Because these ads do not directly affect the lobbying
process, it is difficult to tell just how successful they are, but more and more
groups are turning to high-profile ad campaigns.
One well-known activity of interest groups is
ãratingä members of Congress in terms of the amount of support they give to
legislation that is favorable to their causes.
Many interest groups use these rating systems to describe membersâ
voting records to interested citizens, and other times they use them to
embarrass members. For example,
environmental groups identified the twelve representatives that were most likely
to vote against environmental bills, and named them ãthe Dirty Dozen.ä
The typical scheme ranges from 0 to 100 percent, reflecting the
percentage of times the member supports the groupâs legislative agenda.
Most
interest groups have to work hard to raise money, but individual membership
organizations have more trouble than most. In addition to dues collected from
members, groups receive money from three important sources: foundation grants,
federal grants and contracts, and direct mail.
EFFECTIVE
INTEREST GROUPS
Many
factors contribute to the success of an interest group, including its size,
intensity and financial resources.
Interest
groups are often criticized for a type of interaction with government known as
the "revolving door.ä Through
this practice, government officials - both in Congress and executive agencies
ö quit their jobs to take positions as lobbyists or consultants to businesses.
Many people fear that the "revolving door" may give private interests
unfair influence over government decisions. For example, if a government
official does a favor for a corporation because he or she is promised a job
after leaving government, then the official is not acting for the good of the
public.
How
widespread is this practice? Does it compromise the governmentâs ability to
act only for the public good? The
evidence is uncertain. There are high-profile cases, such as that of Michael
Deaver, Ronald Reagan's deputy chief of staff who was convicted of perjury after
he left his position to work in the private sector. An investigation found that he used government contacts to
help the clients of his public-relations firm. On the other hand, businesses
argue that former government officials seldom abuse their jobs while in office,
and that there is nothing wrong with seeking advice from those who have been in
government. According to this point of view, former government employees should
be able to use their expertise to gain employment in the private sector.
So,
are interest groups contributors or distracters from the democratic process? Do
they help or hinder the government in making good decisions that benefit
citizens of the country? Does our system of checks and balances work well in
keeping the influence of particular groups in proportion to that of others?
Whatever your point of view, it is clear that interest groups have had a
long-lasting influence on the American political system, and they show no signs
of weakening now or in the near future.
IMPORTANT
DEFINITIONS AND IDENTIFICATIONS:
527s
amicus curiae
class action
lawsuits
electioneering
Elitist theory
Foundation grants
Free rider problem
Hyperpluralist
theory
Individual interests
Institutional
interests
Interest groups
lobbying
Pluralist theory
Political action committees
Public interest
groups
The ãratings
gameä
Revolving door
Union shop