INFLUENCING PUBLIC POLICIES
Textbook images of U.S. government gloss over the
impact of organizations in shaping local, state, national
public policies through lobbying on issues important to
their members’ & constituents’ interests.
Political sociologists and political scientists study the
institutionalized political structures and processes, which may help
to answer some questions about Congress’ 9/11 response:
Why does Republican House’s economic stimulus bill return $21
billion in corporate minimum taxes (paid since 1986!) to General
Electric, IBM, General Motors & others?
Why does Democratic Senate’s bill propose personal tax rebates,
extended unemployment benefits, health-care for out-of-work
taxpayers?
Why a $10 million provision for bison-ranchers like Ted Turner but
no subsidy for depleted food pantries?
Power Structure Theories I
Three broad perspectives on U.S. national power structures
depict differential political domination by business organizations.
Marxist ruling class theory: A unified upper class uses
its economic power to dominate the political system
• Close social network ties create cohesive ideology (laissez
faire market capitalism) and solidary political action
• Ruling class leaders decide what issues reach the public
policy agenda via control of mass media, research institutes,
elections
• Ruling class always wins on every major issue where its
interests are at stake
QUEX: What evidence that
Rockefeller/Morgan-controlled banks and
conservative think tanks make the nation’s
major policy decisions – war, peace, domestic
Power Structure Theories II
Elite theories: National power is concentrated in peak
corporate, bureaucratic, nonprofit, educational & military
organizations & controlled by power elite leaders (C.W. Mills)
• Primary task of an organizational elite is to advance their
particular organization’s interests
• Unified interests & actions are always problematic (e.g.,
industry conflicts over foreign trade; insurers vs the insured)
• Interlocking directorate is a major mechanism for elite
communication and coordination, via multi-board directors
• Integration also by career moves of leaders across org’l sectors
• Business & ideological PACs synchronize campaign finances
QUEX: Do career paths of top business &
government leaders such as George Bush,
Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Bob Rubin reveal a
Power Structure Theories III
Pluralist theories: Power is fragmented among many
socioeconomic groups; temporary competing coalitions
pursue diverse issues
• U.S. constitutional checks-and-balances divides power
among many institutions, blocking domination by one group
• Career candidates & interest groups trade public policies
for campaign contributions & election votes
• Competition for re-election compels politicians to appeal to
centrist voter coalitions, not to policy extremists
• Coalitions of organized interest groups mobilize group
resources & pressure (lobby) officials to make policy
decisions favorable to their members & constituents
QUEX: Does this idealistic pluralist image
disguise the behind-scenes manipulation by
real ruling class/elites?
Political Organizations
Are organized interest groups substantially different from
SMOs?
Conventional view that social movements represent outside challengers
trying to get their views heard inside the polity; e.g., feminist, anti-war, gaylesbian, civil rights. SMOs may resort to illegitimate tactics such as street
protests & violence.
Interest groups are legitimate insiders that pressure officials using
conventional political tactics, such as letters & meetings.
Alternative views deny any meaningful distinctions
Political orgs (Knoke) or interest orgs (Burstein) deploy the
entire range of tactics to try influencing the political system
Dual democratic functions of political orgs
1. Aggregate & represent some citizens’ policy
preferences to elected & appointed public officials
2. Provide channel for officials to communicate about
benefits to their electoral constituencies
Proliferating Political Orgs
Population ecology analysis of trade association founding &
deaths rates reveals growth dynamics during 20th century
Since 1960s, Washington
and state capitals saw
rapidly rising numbers of
business, professional,
labor, ethnic-racial,
women’s, environmental,
governmental, & other
political interest orgs.
Peak business ass’ns –
NAM, BRT, Chamber of
Commerce – reacted to
increasing federal gov’t
intervention into the
workplace & economy.
PAC Man Eats Washington
Political organizations learned how to play the complex power
game created by an election money-lobbying relationship.
• Enormous campaign costs for politicians in TV era
• Post-Watergate campaign financing “reforms” limited fatcat contributors, increasing the importance of political
groups able to “bundle” individual donations
• Lotsa loopholes (“soft money”) = cynical public opinion
• Appearance of “legalized bribery” in exchange of campaign
$ for legislative favors; impact on falling voter turnout?
• Futile election-reform campaigns in 2000 (McCain; Nader)
Political Action Committee (PAC) independent groups or
affiliates of corporations, trade assns, and unions that solicit
campaign contributions from members and donate to party and
candidate campaigns
Ideology or Access?
PACs allocations to candidates follow two basic strategies :
Replacement strategy: fund supporters to defeat your opponents
Access strategy: give to those in power so they’ll listen to you
Divergent strategies after Republicans took control of House in 1996:
Lobbying Tactics
Political orgs deploy a range of lobbying tactics to influence
elected & appointed officials. In rough descending frequency:
•Testimony at legislative or agency hearings
•Direct contacts with legislators or other officials
•Informal contacts with legislators or other officials
•Presenting research results
•Coalitions with other groups; planning strategy with government officials
•Mass media: talking to journalists; paid advertising
•Policy formation: drafting legislation, regulations; shaping policy implementation;
serving on advisory commissions; agenda-setting
•Constituent influence: letter-writing or telegram campaigns; working with influential
citizens; alerting legislators to district effects
•Litigation: filing lawsuits or amici curiae (friend of the court) briefs
•Elections: campaign contributions; campaign work; candidate endorsements
•Protests or demonstrations
•Other tactics: monitoring; influencing appointments; doing personal favors for officials
Lobbying Strategy
Lobbying is NOT political bribery nor overt quid pro quo
dealing. Influence requires making the most persuasive case:
Lobbyists give friendly policy makers the information,
substantive analyses, & politically accurate arguments about
why they should support the org’s preferred solutions, instead
of their opponents’ clearly inferior & indefensible proposals.
Successful political orgs mobilize their resources to
achieve three strategic goals (Browne 1998).
Winning attention – “outside game” keeping the publicity
spotlight on the org’s issue agenda, through the mass media &
in legislative and regulatory arenas
Making contact – “inside game” of schmoozing & building
close network ties to officials, lobbyists, and other brokers
Reinforcement – “lobbyists keep coming back, showing their
issues are still alive, reinforcing both their access and previously
discussed policy matters”
Policy Domain Communication Networks
National policy domains – orgs and institutions
engaged in efforts to create/change specific policy
proposals to solve substantive problems
EX: health, energy, labor, agriculture, defense
Central orgs in a domain have numerous
communication ties, facilitating collaboration
& policy information exchanges with potential
partners and with their opponents (political
intelligence gathering)
Fig 9.6 (next slide) shows 1988 core labor policy domain
orgs at short communication distances even though many
took opposing sides in labor policy fights (AFL-CIO vs
NAM, BRT, Chamber of Commerce)
Figure 9.6. Labor Policy Communication Network
+1.5
NLRB
HD
SD
SR
ACLU
NEA
UAW
ABC
AARP
CHAM
NAM
0.0
BRT
DOL
HR
AFL-CIO
TEAM
OSHA
ASCM
NGA
WHO
-1.5
-1.5
0.0
+1.5
Lobbying Coalitions
When its interests are at stake in a Congressional bill or
regulatory ruling, a political org can lobby alone or in
coalition
Most political orgs work in coalitions; a division of labor
Coalitions are short-lived affairs for specific narrow goals
EX: impose or lift restrictions on Persian rug imports
Partners in next coalition change with the specific issues
“Politics makes strange bedfellows” EX: Civil liberties
Orgs that lobby together succeed more often than soloists
Broad cleavages emerge within some policy domains
EX: Business vs Unions in labor policy domain (next slide)
Pro-Family Leave #1
AARP, WE
AFT, ACT, ASCM,
UE, NUL, NACP,
NCSC, WLDF
ACLU, AJC
TEAM, ANA
Fig 9.7 Lobbying Coalitions
on 3 Labor Policy Bills
NOW, NWPC,
NWLC, WEAL
AFL-CIO, UAW, USW,
NEA, CWA, IAM, ILG,
SEIU, UMW, IUOE
Pro-Family Leave #2
FCWU, LULAC
OCAW
Pro-Minimum Wage
IAFF, ALA, MAN
Pro-Risk Board
Anti-Risk Board
NIOSH
AEA, GM, EEAC
Anti-Family Leave
Ford,
NAHB,
NTMA,
PIA
CHAM, NAM BRT,
AFBF, ATA, ABC,
NFIB, NSBU
ASFP
Anti-Minimum Wage
White House,
Dept. of Labor,
Dept. of Justice
Council of Econ Advrs
ACLI,
AMC,
AGC,
HIAA,
NAII
House
Republicans
Anti-Risk Board
Anti-Family Leave
Anti- Minimum Wage
Who Wins?
We know much less about the systematic influence of
political orgs on the outcomes of public policy fights.
• No single political organization or enduring coalition prevails on
every issue & event of importance to it; incrementalism prevails
What implications for Ruling Class, Elite, & Pluralist models?
• Biggest PAC contributors & campaign workers may enjoy greater
access, easier victories on uncontested policy & pork proposals
But why Big Tobacco’s setbacks? Union failure to block NAFTA?
• Roll-call analyses of Congressional votes find small lobbying effects
relative to other factors
• Lobbying impacts greatest in particular policy events, depending on
strength of opposition’s resources & political arguments
• Elected officials also pay attention to unorganized voter opinions
• Shockingly, some even hold ideological principles & hobby-horses!
EXERCISE: The Lobbying Game
Players are lobbyists for political organizations that have:
(1) Interests in passing and defeating legislative bills
(2) Resources either dedicated to a specific bill or tradable
with coalition partners (logrolling) & then used to support
a bill of interest
Lobbyists’ only goal is to win: Acquire enough resources by forming a
coalition (trading resources) to pass or defeat the bills of interest
Rules:
(a) Bill’s outcome determined by a majority of PRO vs ANTI resources
(b) Nontradable resources must be applied as designated (PRO/ ANTI)
(c) Tradable resources must be exchanged before they can be used on a bill
(orgs CANNOT use their own tradable resources)
(d) Acquired resources can be applied to either the PRO or ANTI position
HINT: Try to trade resources with partners who share your
interests; or at least not with orgs opposed to all your bills
Structure of the Lobbying Game
LEGISLATIVE BILLS & ORG INTERESTS
Three legislative bills
Six org’l interest profiles
ORG
TARIFF BILL
TAX CUT
BILL
POLLUTION
BILL
A
PRO
Neutral
ANTI
B
ANTI
PRO
Neutral
C
Neutral
ANTI
PRO
Potential partners vary in
extent of opposition
D
PRO
ANTI
Neutral
Lobbyists must schmooze
to discover which resource
trades (coalitions) will best
improve their preferred bill
outcomes
E
ANTI
Neutral
PRO
F
Neutral
PRO
ANTI
Every org has a PRO, ANTI,
& Neutral interest
All orgs have identical
nontradable resources
Some orgs have more
tradable resources than
others
Shorter Writing #12:
Here are two contrasting views of lobbying:
- Lobbying is the essence of grass-roots democracy.
Competing political organizations present their best
cases to elected & appointed decision makers. Then
officials seek compromises and make policy decisions
that are most beneficial to the entire society.
- Lobbying just is another mechanism used by powerful
organization elites and the ruling upper class to get
their way consistently on important public decisions.
Social groups have inherently unequal resources,
access, and political influence over public officials.
Which perspective do you believe most accurately
depicts the 21st century United States political system?
Based on what evidence?