Chapter 10 Summary: Interest Groups
The Role of Interest Groups
While the United States consistently has lower voter turnout than other democracies, it
has much higher participation in civic groups and associations. Such civic participation
has been a central characteristic of the United States since Alexis de Tocqueville first
praised it in the 1830s when he visited from France. The name for voluntary civic
associations that participate in the policymaking process is interest groups. One view of
interest groups is that they are examples of the factions that James Madison warned
against in Federalist 10, but another view is that interest groups are crucial linkage
institutions that operate in a constructive, pluralistic manner to reflect the people’s
preferences within the political system.
Organizing to promote political interests is an essential part of democratic selfgovernment. The right to organize groups is protected by the Constitution, which
guarantees people the right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.” The freedom to organize is as fundamental to democratic selfgovernment as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Interest refers to a policy
goal; a group is a combination of people. An interest group is an organization of people
with similar policy goals who enter the political process to try to achieve those goals.
Interest groups seek to influence all branches of government. A policy battle lost in
Congress may be pursued within bureaucratic implementation (executive branch) or the
judicial process.
Interest groups differ from political parties in that they do not nominate and run
candidates for public office. They support candidates sympathetic to their policy views,
but they do not seek to influence the policymaking process by winning elections. Another
difference between interest groups and political parties is that interest groups are usually
policy specialists, whereas parties are policy generalists. There are currently over 25,000
interest groups in the United States and they use both technology and money to
effectively promote their views and influence elected officials.
The debate over whether lobbying and interest groups in general create problems for
government requires an examination of three important theories. Pluralism argues that
interest group activity brings representation to all; groups compete and counterbalance
one another in the political marketplace. In contrast, elitism argues that a few groups
(primarily the wealthy) have most of the power. Finally, hyperpluralism asserts that too
many groups are getting too much of what they want, resulting in government policy that
is often contradictory and lacking in direction. In using these theories to evaluate the
Madisonian system, a pluralist interpretation would suggest that Madison’s system has
worked as intended. An elitist interpretation, however, would argue that the wealthy have
captured the system and can subvert the public interest in favor of their private interest. A
hyperpluralist interpretation would argue that the system has too many competing groups
with too much power.
The Success of Interest Groups
Among the factors that affect the success of an interest group are the size of the group, its
intensity, and its financial resources. While greater intensity and more financial resources
work to a group’s advantage, surprisingly, smaller groups are more likely to achieve their
goals than larger groups. The size of a group is determined by its potential members in
relation to its actual members. An environmental protection group’s potential members
include all of society, while an oil industry group’s potential members include individuals
who work in that industry. According to potential members, the oil industry group is
smaller and will most likely be able to get a much higher percentage of potential
members to become actual members, increasing the group’s organization and
effectiveness. While the environmental protection group’s actual members work to
provide a collective good, something of value (clean air) that cannot be withheld from
anyone, including the potential members who do not join the group, they will most likely
be less successful than the oil industry group. The reason is the free-rider problem.
Again, everyone will benefit from the collective good if they are an actual member or
potential member, and many potential members will rationally decide to allow other
people to achieve the goal for them. The bigger the potential group, the more serious the
free-rider problem.
The organizing advantage of small groups helps explain why consumer groups have a
harder time organizing for political action than do businesses. Consumer groups may
seek to achieve public interest goals, but the policy benefits will be spread out over the
entire society. In contrast, the lobbying costs and benefits for business are concentrated.
If the policy benefit is small for each individual (benefits everyone) then the incentive to
participate will be smaller, whereas the incentive to participate in securing benefits that
will go largely to those participating in the lobbying effort is much higher. Thus, the
power of business in the American political system is due to more than just money, as
proponents of elite theory would have us believe. In addition to their considerable
financial strength, multinational corporations have an easier time organizing themselves
for political action than larger potential groups, such as consumer advocates.
One way that a large potential group may be mobilized is through an issue that people
feel intensely about. Intensity is a psychological advantage that can be enjoyed by small
and large groups. Intensity is usually directed at opposition to a policy change rather than
support for change, in practice this serves to preserve the status quo. An interest group
characterized by high levels of intensity is often a single-issue group, a group that has a
narrow interest, dislikes compromise, and single-mindedly pursues its goal. One of the
major indictments of the American interest group system is that it is biased toward the
wealthy. However, it is important to emphasize that on some of the most important
issues, the wealthiest interest groups do not always win. Studies have shown a relatively
weak correlation between big money and lobbying success. One reason is that lobbying is
very competitive; with all sides on an issue mobilized to lobby for their position. A
proponent of hyperpluralism would point to this as evidence that too many interest
groups have too much influence to be very effective as an individual group. A proponent
of pluralist theory would point out that the competitiveness of lobbying often leads to
coalitions that include less powerful interest groups, as well.
The Tactics of Interest Groups
Interest groups use four basic strategies to achieve their policy goals: lobbying,
electioneering, litigation, and appealing to the public.
Lobbyists are political persuaders who represent organized groups. Lobbyists are often
former legislators themselves. There are two basic types of lobbyists. The first type is a
regular, paid employee of a corporation, union, or association. The second type is
available for hire on a temporary basis. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
established criteria for determining whether an organization should register its employees
as lobbyists. Thus, the number of lobbyists and how much they were paid is public
information. Although lobbyists are primarily out to influence members of Congress, it is
important to remember that they can be of help to them as well. Lobbyists are an
important source of specialized expertise and information, they can help politicians with
political strategy for getting legislation passed, and they can help formulate campaign
strategy for reelection. A lobbyist’s success depends on their ability to deploy
information strategically on behalf of their clients. In other words, a lobbyist is often not
changing anyone’s mind but rather simply helping political allies. Lobbying works best
on people already committed to the lobbyist’s policy position. Thus, like campaigning,
lobbying is directed toward primarily activating and reinforcing supporters.
Getting the right people into office and keeping them there is also a key strategy of
interest groups. Electioneering, aiding candidates financially and getting group members
to support them, is an important strategy in achieving policy goals. A means for interest
groups to participate in electioneering is provided by political action committees
(PACs). The number of PACs has increased dramatically since 1974 when they were
created as a result of campaign finance reform. PACs raise money from individuals and
then distribute it in the form of contributions to candidates. PACs must register with the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) and report both their donations and contributions.
During a primary election, a PAC can donate up to $5,000 per candidate, and then donate
the same amount in the general election. Candidates need PACs because high-tech
campaigning is expensive. A symbiotic relationship emerges between the PACs and the
candidates: Candidates need money, which they insist can be used without comprising
their independence and integrity; PACs want access to officeholders, which they insist
can be gained without buying votes. Many incumbents enjoy significant fundraising
advantages by taking contributions from PACs. Critics of the PAC system worry that all
this money leads to PAC control over the agenda once the incumbents are reelected.
Defenders of the PAC system point out that it further increases participation in the
political process. If James Madison was right in thinking that the key to controlling the
power of interest groups (factions) is to expand their sphere of participation, then PACs
certainly do this.
If lobbying and electioneering fail to achieve policy goals through Congress, then interest
groups may try to use the courts to advance their cause. One tactic to make the views of
interest groups heard by the judiciary is the filing of amicus curiae briefs (“friend of the
court” briefs), written arguments submitted to the courts in support of one side of a case.
A more direct judicial strategy employed by interest groups is the filing of class action
lawsuits, which enable a group of people in a similar situation to combine their common
grievances into a single suit. Because public opinion ultimately makes its way to
policymakers, interest groups carefully cultivate their public image and use public
opinion to their advantage when they can. Interest groups often use the mass media to
influence the public’s views on an important policy debate.
The Variety of Interest Groups
Interest groups are omnipresent in the American political system and political scientists
loosely categorize interest groups into four distinct types: economic issues,
environmental concerns, equality issues, and consumer/public interest.
Economic interest groups are concerned about quotas and tariffs (fees imposed on
imports), the soundness of the dollar, taxing and spending, and labor relations. Unions
are the main interest groups representing labor. The aim of American union
organizations is to press for policies to ensure better working conditions and higher
wages. In response to the free-rider problem, unions have fought to establish and
maintain the union shop, which requires employees of a business that has a union
contract to join the union and pay dues. In contrast, business groups have supported
right-to-work laws, which outlaw union membership as a condition of employment. In
1947, the American labor movement suffered a big defeat when Congress passed the
Taft-Hartley Act, permitting states to adopt right-to-work laws. The American labor
movement, led by the AFL-CIO, reached its peak in 1956 when 33 percent of the
workforce belonged to a union. Currently, only 12 percent of the workforce belongs to
unions. As labor union membership has declined in traditional blue-collar industries, the
labor union movement has expanded in the public sector. As unions have declined in the
private sector, business PACs have increased more dramatically than any other category
of PACs over the last three decades. Many people assume that business PAC
contributions are always tilted in favor of the Republican Party and its tax-cutting and
deregulatory agenda. While it is true that business PACs such as the Chamber of
Commerce are more likely to favor the Republicans, Democrats receive more business
PAC contributions when they are in the majority. In other words, a business PAC tends to
give money to those in power in order to gain access to the policymakers.
Some environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Audubon Society have been
around since the 19th century, but many others trace their origins to the first Earth Day in
1970. Environmental groups have promoted policies to control pollution and to combat
global warming, wilderness protection, and species preservation. The United States has a
high percentage of membership to environmental interest groups, including the World
Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, and
Greenpeace.
Two sets of interest groups, representing minorities and women, have made equal rights
their main policy goal. The oldest and largest of these groups is the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). It argued and won the monumental
Brown v. Board of Education case that declared segregated schools unconstitutional.
Civil rights groups continue to push for equality today through affirmative action
programs to ensure that minority groups are guaranteed equal educational and
employment opportunities. The National Organization for Women (NOW) lobbies to
end discrimination against women in a variety of social spheres.
Public interest and consumer advocacy groups seek a collective good that will benefit
society as a whole rather than the members of the group. The benefit that public interest
lobbies seek may be for the public as consumers, for the public more broadly defined, or
for some sector of the public. In 1973, Congress responded to consumer advocacy groups
by creating the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is authorized to regulate
all consumer products and to ban products that are dangerous.
Interest Groups and Democracy
James Madison argued that a free society must allow for the representation of all groups
that seek to influence political decision making, yet groups are usually more concerned
with their own self-interest than with the needs of society as a whole; for democracy to
work well, it is important that specific groups not be allowed to assume a dominant
position. Madison’s solution was to create a wide-open system in which many groups
would be able to participate. In a wide-open system groups with opposing interests would
counterbalance one another. Proponents of pluralist theory assume that a rough
approximation of the public interest emerges from this competition. However, if business
PACs and multinational corporations effectively compete with consumer advocacy and
public interest lobbies, how can the result be in the public interest? Some scholars
conclude that the general increase in lobbying activity has actually resulted in less clout
overall for individual interest groups – and better democracy. In other words, business
PACs may attempt to undermine the public interest, but will not entirely succeed. Elitist
theory argues that the ability of any powerful group to subvert what is in the public
interest is itself corruption, while hyperpluralist theory would blame our inability to solve
problems or promote the public interest on the proliferation of too many interest groups.