The Greenback Rules? Pressure Groups and Money in US Politics
Saturday, January 11, 2014
by Jim Riley
Michael McCartney (Bradford Grammar School) examines the role of money in pressure group
politics in the US.
It is well established that American politics is awash with money, but we have to be careful in
evaluating the extent of its influence. This is especially the case in relation to pressure group
politics.
The Californian politician Jesse Unruh is responsible for one of the greatest quotes in American
politics: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” And to discuss the importance of dollars in the US
system, we would have to cast a roving eye over the whole terrain of the US system, pausing to zeroin on the federal budget, pork barrel politics, and campaign finance to name just three areas. But
here we are concerned with issues of interest group politics.
Any discussion of the topic essentially pivots around competing ideas of pluralism and elitism. If you
take the view that interest groups more successfully promote the ideas of the minority and distort
notion of government for the people then one would infer that you were going to ultimately
conclude that pressure groups were undemocratic. One of the ways this outcome is said to be
achieved is via the influence of money, and in particular the idea that the huge sums spent on
lobbying lead to desirable policy outcomes for a narrow band of individuals and groups. But to what
extent is there a causal relationship between money spent by special interests and policy outcomes?
Important research by Amy McKay published in the Political Research Quarterly suggests it may not
be as straightforward as you think.
First of all, a quick definition of terms. What exactly is lobbying, who are lobbyists, and where are
they?
“Lobbying” itself is a term which derives from the habit of British legislators (from both the
Commons and Lords) frequenting the corridors of Westminster in proximity to debates in an attempt
to influence their outcome. In a US context it is more common to refer to lobbyists as professionals
whose career is devoted to persuading politicians (most usually members of Congress, but the term
also extend to encompass members of state legislatures, and the federal bureaucracy) to effect
policy that is in tandem with the goals of their clients. Often lobbying is a full time professional
career comparable to one in law or business that attracts the best and brightest from America’s top
universities, and individuals may work for one of the many lobbying firms such as Holland and
Knight, or they may work in-house for a special interest. Lobbyists as a collective are sometimes
referred to as “K Street” given that many of the firms are located on, or close to, this corridor in
downtown Washington DC.
So does money talk?
It is true that the numbers involved from an analysis of the work of the lobbying industry are quite
staggering. Furthermore, the rate of increase in spending devoted to lobbying is to some a cause of
concern. According to opensecrets.org, the website for Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington
DC based research group $1.57 billion was spent on lobbying, but by 2012 this had more than
doubled to $3.31 billion. And in that same year the Center reckon that over 12,000 staff worked as
lobbyists. Unsurprisingly (given their base wealth) top of the big spenders are groups such as
commerce, energy, and the notorious “Big Pharma”.
McKay’s research is far bigger than any previously conducted, and measures considered included the
organisation’s income, size of membership, and whether the group had an associated PAC. McKay
stated: “The results indicate that having money alone does not make a lobbying organisation more
successful – but having more money is linked to certain lobbying tactics and traits, and some of these
are associated with greater policy success.”
One would imagine that business interests would be top of the pile given their income but they were
no more successful in achieving policy success than public interest groups (if students were looking
for an example here, the Sierra Club would be legitimate. It spent $240,000 on lobbying in 2013. By
contrast Google spent $11.46m).
So what does matter?
If a lobbyist has experience of the policy making process having served either in Congress of the
federal bureaucracy (note in some cases individuals can have both) this can be a positive contributor
to success. We could say therefore that the “revolving door” matters. It cannot, as McKay stresses,
guarantee success by itself.
What is also of importance is the ability to exploit access points in the US political system. The
vertical and horizontal separation of powers created by the Constitution; in other words, mean that
part of the game is multi-arena and multi-dimensional. This makes obvious sense. There’s no use
having a well-resourced and well established office that focuses on Congress if the real action is in
the executive arm of government and, say, state level.
Therefore money helps in securing lobbyists with a better Rolodex, and it helps fund lobbying across
the US political system. This means that money is associated with the things that bring success, but
that is not say that it can buy success since less well funded groups can have the same modus
operandi.
In conclusion, we can see that money helps but it does not secure a definite advantage. Students
have to note this subtle distinction, even if they do ultimately arrive at the conclusion that US
interest groups are damaging to democracy.
Revision Update: US Politics: Pressure Groups, Newtown and the NRA
Thursday, May 16, 2013
by Mike Simpson
Another massacre in a school and a revival of calls for gun control might have suggested that this
was the moment when the powerful gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association, might finally
have to face some sort of defeat in its attempts to prevent any restrictions to the second
amendment. It is probably too early to tell whether or not this is the case but this event does help
shed more light on:
1. The factors that can contribute to pressure group success
2. The role of pressure groups in a democracy
3. The nature of US government and politics
1.) The effectiveness of the NRA
The NRA is regarded as one of the most powerful pressure groups in the USA. This can be explained
by:
i. Membership. In terms of both its quantity and quality, the membership of the NRA is a major
factor in explaining its success. Not only is the membership large at around 4m. but the membership
is committed. It is prepared to lobby their representatives in the Congress and perhaps more
importantly to vote.
ii. Leadership. In Wayne La Pierre, the NRA has an experienced leader who is an effective advocate
of the NRA cause.
iii. Methods. It was interesting to note that the NRA did not immediately respond to the Newtown
massacre. If they had, they might have left themselves open to vehement criticism as was the case
with Gun Owners of America, another group that supported a lifting of the ban on guns in schools
so that students and teachers could protect themselves. The NRA are prepared to play the long
game. When La Pierre did respond who cited the impact of video games such as Grand Theft Auto,
Natural Born Killers and Kindergarten Killers as part of the problem and argued for armed guards in
schools as they have in airports.
The group keeps a close focus on all elections and issues candidates’ ratings which help inform
members how to vote. By the extensive use of e mail and phone calls, the NRA is one of the most
active groups not only in Washington, but at local and state level too.
The NRA will also seek to exercise influence at congressional level too in two key ways.
a. The NRA will mount a spirited attack on any proposal to renew the ban on the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons by a thorough line by line, clause by clause analysis of any proposed
legislation. [1]They will argue the legislation is poorly drafted, ambiguous and ineffective. That is to
say they will criticise any bill on technical merit as well as on the level of arguing that gun ownership
in general is not the issue.
b. They have vast resources that can be used to help support candidates who oppose gun control.
This is closely linked to the next factor discussed below. It is no wonder that the Economist stated
“The NRA’s influence on introducing legislation has been remarkable. The debate over guns is no
longer whether assault weapons should be banned, but over whether guns should be allowed in
bars, churches and colleges.”[2]
The above quote does relate to the situation before the Newtown massacre. Prior to this, the ban on
the sale of assault weapons, introduced in 1994, lapsed in in 2004 partly due to the work of the NRA
and the sympathy to the gun cause from the Bush administration. This situation has now changed
but still it is the case that the tide of legislation has been in favour of gun rights. Just before the
massacre, Michigan passed a law allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons in schools.
Congress recently voted to allow guns to be carried in national parks. Indeed the fact that President
Obama did not oppose these measures bore testimony to the power wielded by the NRA to the
extent that it looked like the president did not have the stomach for the fight which gun controls
would involve. Indeed the Brady Campaign in favour of gun controls gave President Obama an “F”
rating due to his lack of support for gun control.
iv. Money. It is difficult to escape from the role and importance of money when discussing virtually
any aspect of US government and politics. From an examining perspective, it is worth mentioning
the standard quotes of “money is the mother’s milk of US politics”(Unreh, “We have the best
Congress money can buy” (Senator Edward Kennedy) and“you have to pay to play”.
Partly due to its membership but also because of support from the gun industry, the NRA has vast
financial resources which allow it to greatly outspend its rivals. At the last election, the NRA spent
$24.3m which was 400 times more than that of the Brady Campaign’s paltry $5,816. Similarly, the
NRA spent $4.4m lobbying Congress which was 73 times the amount spent by the Brady Campaign.
One gun manufacturer, Sturm, Ruger and Co donated $1 from each gun sold in 2011 to the NRA
amounting to $1.2m in all.
v. The scale of the opposition. This idea relates to more than the money available to the other side
and the resources at their disposal. A point which is sometimes difficult for the non-American to
appreciate is that gun ownership is regarded as a basic civil right and that is an essential part of US
culture. The same might be said about the scale and importance of religion. The fact is that the USA
is different from most European countries.
The Newtown massacre has had an impact in increasing support for gun controls but this is likely to
stop a long way short of a constitutional amendment. The Times argued that “a super majority in
the Senate for gun control is all but inconceivable”[3].
Gabrielle Giffords, the Congresswoman who was shot in Arizona in 2011, when launching a new
group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, designed to raise money for politicians who back gun
control, stated that she had no intention of wanting to amend the second amendment.
These factors collectively would suggest then that once the public outcry has settled, gun reforms
are likely to stop a long way short of reform of the second amendment. The ban on the sale of
assault weapons and high capacity magazines and the introduction of background checks for guns
purchased at gun shows might be the best that will be achieved. Ironically, the massacre led to a
dramatic increase in the sale of guns and assault weapons as people anticipated there might be the
introduction of further controls. Certainly with over 250m guns in the USA, the issue is unlikely to
subside in the near future.
Undoubtedly though the cause of the NRA has suffered a setback and there are several factors which
might suggest it has lost some of its power and that it will have to accept some of the reforms
mentioned above.
· There is now a groundswell of public opinion in favour of some sort of gun control.
· The NRA could lose credibility if it refuses to accept some sort of gun control.
· It faces a Democrat president and Democrat Senate, both of whom are less in debt to the
organisation in terms of financial and voter support. Spending in the 2012 election did not seem to
yield many victories. Whilst President Obama may not have had gun control on the top of his first
term agenda, there are signs that he is prepared to take on the issue in his second.
· There are signs that the NRA is not the force it once was. The membership is mainly ageing males. It
has struggled to recruit women and the young. Whilst the number of guns owned remains high, it
seems that less people have a gun. The high figure is explained by gun owners owning more than
one gun.
[1] http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/semi-automatic-firearms-and-the“assaul.aspx
[2] The Economist, “Arms and the man”, 21.4.12.
[3] The Times leader column,“Death at Sandy Hook”, 17.12.12.
Obama Pledges Gun Control 'With Or Without Congress' In 2014 State of the Union Address
Posted: 01/28/2014 10:49 pm EST Updated: 01/28/2014 11:59 pm EST
Sabrina Siddiqui writing for The Huffington Post
WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama delivered his 2013 State of the Union address, his
impassioned plea for lawmakers to vote on anti-gun violence legislation was deemed one of the
most memorable moments of his presidency. That speech came just two months after the Sandy
Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., and at the onset of an ambitious push by
Obama's administration to advance the most sweeping reforms to gun policy in a generation.
One year later, with his gun control agenda considered dead on Capitol Hill, the president used the
same venue to pledge that he will advance measures to reduce gun violence "with or without
Congress."
"Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day," Obama said
Tuesday in his State of the Union address. "I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors,
and police officers all over this country who say 'we are not afraid,' and I intend to keep trying, with
or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie
theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook."
In contrast, last year's speech highlighted the victims of gun violence who'd been invited as guests
and ended with an emotional call to action. Last year, Obama mentioned guns seven times; this
year, the word appeared once in in speech totaling close to 7,000 words.
It was an acknowledgement on the president's part that Congress has little appetite to revisit the
issue of gun control, especially in an election year. Instead, any changes to gun policy at this point
will likely require executive action. Although Obama's presidential powers only grant him the
authority to approve modest reforms, one of the measures signed by the president earlier this
month would strengthen background checks for gun purchasers, with a particular focus on mental
health.
The White House also identified 23 executive actions last year when Obama unveiled his gun control
push in response to the Newtown shooting that were taken immediately.
Pressure Group links at
http://www.twyman-whitney.com/americancitizen/links/lobbies.htm