American Gov: Interest Groups and Lobbying/Media and Politics

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Get a hint
Hint

Liberal wins Wisconsin Supreme Court race in blow to Trump

Get a hint
Hint

Conservatives were unable to topple the 4-3 liberal majority in the most expensive judicial contest in US history.

Get a hint
Hint

What is an interest group?

Get a hint
Hint

An organized group seeking to influence public policy.

Card Sorting

1/51

Anonymous user
Anonymous user
encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

52 Terms

1
New cards

Liberal wins Wisconsin Supreme Court race in blow to Trump

Conservatives were unable to topple the 4-3 liberal majority in the most expensive judicial contest in US history.

2
New cards

What is an interest group?

An organized group seeking to influence public policy.

3
New cards

Remember Federalist 10?

Federalist 10 (written by James Madison) said that factions (citizens united by some common action or interest; i.e., interest groups) were inevitable in a free society.

So, what’s the problem?  

The views of one interest group might be contrary to the views of other citizens, or even to the entire community.  

Therefore, if an interest group gets power over policy, this is a problem.

4
New cards

Federalist 10 – “How do you solve a problem like an interest group?”  (sing along!)

Option 1 – Remove the causes of interest groups.  How?  By limiting their ability to exist.

But this is REJECTED because it involves restricting liberty and forcing everyone to think alike.

Option 2 – Control the effects of interest groups.  How?

  • Representative democracy will elect wise leaders who will diffuse the power of interest groups.

  • The larger the jurisdiction, the weaker the interest group influence overall.

This is what Madison favors.

5
New cards

If having lots of interest groups is inevitable, is that a good or bad thing?

GOOD – This is PLURALISM.  Diffusion of power.  More groups mean more voices, and better democracy, in the process of government.  Politics should be a competition among groups.

BAD – Not all interest groups are equal.  Some are much more powerful than others, particularly when it comes to resources, like money, time, organization, and experience.  This allows ELITES to win almost all competition among groups.

6
New cards

4 Types of Interest Groups

  • Corporations and Trade Associations  

  • Organized Labor (Unions) 

  • Professional

  • Citizen Groups

7
New cards
  • Corporations and Trade Associations  

  • Organized Labor (Unions) 

  • Professional

  • Citizen Groups

  • Corporations and Trade Associations         ex. Individual and groups of businesses e.g., Meta (Facebook), National Association of Manufacturers

   

  • Organized Labor (Unions) ex. SEIU, Teamsters, etc.

   

  • Professional ex. people in same profession)

   

  • Citizen Groups ex. Moms Demand Action, National Right to Life, etc.

8
New cards

Why would anyone join an interest group?  2 big reasons

COLLECTIVE GOODS – the benefits that come to everyone, whether you’re a member of the interest group or not.

  But if you don’t need to join to get the benefit, then why do it?

This is the COLLECTIVE ACTION PROBLEM.

Getting people to work together is hard!  It takes time and money and other resources.  

9
New cards

To understand the collective action problem, think of…

A common area in your dorm

  • Everyone has an interest in having a clean common area.  But no one has enough of an interest to clean it themselves and assumes that someone else will do it.

Group projects in class

  • Everyone has an interest in getting a good grade on the project.  But inevitably, only one or two are motivated enough to get it done.

How does this make you feel?  

What do we call the people who don’t do the work but get the benefits anyway?

10
New cards

FREE RIDER –

people who benefit when someone else does the work through an interest group

People join interest groups for the COLLECTIVE GOODS but those goods can’t be denied to others.

Ex.  I want more direct aid for college students.  There is power in numbers, so we try to organize the 490,000 college students in New Jersey.

But why should the busy college student be part of the effort?  If it works, they get the benefits anyway, right?

11
New cards

Selective benefits

If COLLECTIVE GOODS aren’t enough 

to motivate people to join an interest group, 

what else can interest groups do?

They provide SELECTIVE BENEFITS:

  • Information – talking points, backgrounders

  • Material – anything measured by money (ex. discounts, insurance, etc.)

  • Solidarity – friendship and networking

12
New cards

What does this all have to do with American government??

Remember, an interest group is an organized group seeking to influence public policy.

 

So, we needed to understand how they come about and what makes them grow.

13
New cards

How do interest groups influence public policy?

  • involvement in campaigns

  • lobbying elected officials and bureaucracy

  • shaping public opinion

14
New cards

The Dworkin Breakdown of Interest Group activities to influence public policy - CIVIE

Activity Category

  

  • Contributions Campaigns

  • Independent expenditures Campaigns

  • Volunteers and Voters Campaigns

  • Information for elected officials Lobbying

  • Educating the public Public opnion

15
New cards

What is lobbying?

Lobbying – Interest group activities aimed at persuading policymakers to support the group’s issue positions.

We lobby in our own way.  Remember 8th grade?

Asking a friend to see if another person likes you?  Asking your friend to drop your name, talk about how cool you are, etc.?

This is everyone’s first lobbyist.

16
New cards

Why do we call it “lobbying”?

That’s where they hung out.  In the lobbies of Congress and the state legislature.

FUN FACT:  The origins of “Dworkin”

17
New cards

Different kinds of lobbyists

In-house – Works for one client.

Contract – Works for multiple clients.

18
New cards

The Dworkin Breakdown of the kinds of things LOBBYISTS do – CC-SAMI

  • Coordinate CIVIE

  • Strategy

  • Argue the case

  • Monitor legislation and regulations (Be on the lookout)

  • Introductions  (“Have you met Ted?”)

19
New cards

Lobbying and Fundraising

Coordinating the first “C” in CIVIE Contributions

How does a lobbyist use fundraising to help a client?

  • Give it to the right people and get a hearing.  

  • Make your case and hope the person will be your friend.

You raise money from a lot of clients, or a lot of members.

Why do people give?  For some the answer is:

No one knows the costs of not giving.

20
New cards

Political donations from lobbyists

Donating doesn’t automatically help you, but it almost always gives you access to make your case.

And it usually helps you stop things.

The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have significant influence  to post a bill.  So do committee chairs.  

So, it should not be surprising that lobbyists give the most to the leaders.

21
New cards

Several kinds of political donors

Individuals

Interest groups

Corporations / unions

Associations

PACs (contribution limits, can coordinate)

Super-PACs (no contribution limits, cannot coordinate)

Other party organizations

Candidate committees

Municipal party committees

County party committees

State party committees

National party committees

22
New cards

2 ways to control influence
of political money

  1. (1)  Contribution limits  

Set by Federal Election Commission (FEC)

  1.   Disclosure

Any donation(s) over $200.

Let the public decide if they care.

23
New cards

How do you get around contribution limits?

THINK STRATEGICALLY.

  1. Affiliated donors give (family, board members, etc.)

  2. Give to others whose work will still help your candidate.

  3. WHEELING.  A has already maxed out to C.  

    So A gives to B, who then gives to C.

24
New cards

Remember the fundamental rule…

Money is politics is like water    pavement.  

It always finds the cracks.

25
New cards

Agenda setting

The media’s role in defining the relative importance of an issue or event by the among and prominence of coverage they devote to it.

26
New cards

Framing

How the media presents an issue influences how the public views the issue.

27
New cards

Horse-race journalism

The media’s focus on competitive aspects of a campaign, rather than on actual policy matters.

28
New cards

 

Two-step flow of information

The process by which people take their political cues from opinion leaders.

29
New cards

Roles of Media in American Political Life

Generally, Americans believe that, in American political life, the media should:

  1. INFORM THE PUBLIC about current political issues & events

  2. PROVIDE A FORUM for candidates, elected officials 

  3. ACT AS A WATCHDOG on the actions of politicians and government

30
New cards

Colonial / Revolutionary Era – 1690s – 1780s

Key Points:  

  • The press emerges as a vehicle for political dissent from England.  

       Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense (1776), sells 150,000   

            copies (2.5m pop.) 

  • The concept of “freedom of the press” emerges (John Peter Zenger)

1733 - Zenger begins printing the New York Weekly Journal, which published articles accusing William Cosby, the royal governor of New York, of corruption, abuse of power, and rigging elections.

 

1734 - Zenger arrested and charged with seditious libel.

1735 - Zenger defense is that truth should be considered a defense against libel charges. Under British law, publishing criticism of the government was considered criminal regardless of whether the criticism was true or false.  Zenger is acquitted.

31
New cards

Jacksonian Era to Civil War (1830s – 1865)

Key Point:  

  • Transition from elite-focused political coverage to mass market newspapers with broader appeal

Penny Press emerges New York Sun (1833) and similar papers sell for one cent, expanding readership to working class.

Telegraph emerges – News is more immediate.  Associated Press founded (1846).

Abolition Press emerges – Media plays role in social movements.

32
New cards

Post-Civil War to Progressive Era (1865 – 1920) 

Key Points:  

  • As country matures and becomes more powerful, so does the press.

Yellow journalism:  Sensationalism spurred by circulation wars between William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.  

Muckraking journalism:  Ida Tarbell’s exposes Standard Oil, Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” (about meat packing industry) lead to government reforms.

Growing professionalization: Journalism established rules for itself (report, don’t comment, etc.) and journalism schools established.

33
New cards

Radio Age to Television Era (1920s – 1970s)

Key Points:

  • Electronic media transformed how politicians communicated and how American consumed political information.  FDR’s “fireside chats”

 

  • Press/Govt relationship moves from cooperative to adversarial (trusting to untrusting)

World War 2 – Journalists and government cooperate for patriotic coverage.

Vietnam – Visual coverage of war contradicts official government narrative, creating “credibility gap”.  

34
New cards

Other examples of growing adversarial relationship between Press and Government

  • Sen. Joseph McCarthy & McCarthyism – 1947 to 1957.  Fear of Communism leads to HUAC. Marked by witch hunts, defamation, and baseless accusations used to suppress political dissent and impose personal scores.  Press generally supports, and then helps counter.

  • Pentagon Papers NY Times v. US (1971).  Justice Hugo Black: “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”

  • Watergate Washington Post investigation in 1972 exposes Pres. Nixon’s cover-up.  Nixon resigns in 1974.

35
New cards

Cable News Revolution (1980s – 1990s)

Key Point:

  • News becomes 24-7.  No more “news cycle”.

CNN launches in 1980.  Eventually, MSNBC and Fox News (both started in 1996) follow.

36
New cards

Consolidation & Corporate Ownership (1990s – 2000s)

Key Points:

  • New ownership rules allowed for consolidation by media conglomerates.

  • Economic pressures reshaped journalistic priorities.

  • 1996 – Telecommunications Act and subsequent FCC rulings largely  eliminate ownership caps.

  • ✓Corporate owners cut costs by, largely,. reducing local reporting and standardizing content

  • ✓New divisions at networks are no longer prestige loss-leaders.  Expectations now prioritize ratings and profit.

37
New cards

Internet Transformation (2000s – 2010s)

Key Points:

  • Traditional media business models collapse while information sources multiply exponentially.

  

  • ✓  Newspaper ad model goes away.  

  •   Rise of Aggregators:  Google News, Yahoo and others become primary news destinations WITHOUT producing original content.

  •   Citizen Journalism:  Smartphones and social media platforms enable non-professionals to document and report events.

38
New cards

Rise and Fall of The Fairness Doctrine (1949 – 1987)

Fairness Doctrine – Not a law, but FCC rule from 1949.

  

  • Coverage obligation: Broadcasters must devote reasonable time to issues of public importance.

  • Balance requirement:  When covering these issues, must provide contrasting perspectives.

  • Reply opportunity:  Individuals or groups criticized had right to respond.

1987 – FCC votes to eliminate Fairness Doctrine, arguing it no longer served public interest and potentially violated First Amendment.

39
New cards

Consequences of
No Fairness Doctrine

  1. Expanded diversity in news programming.

2.   Growth of partisan media (talk radio, then networks)

  • Media polarization (make money talking to fewer people, not more)

   

  • Partisan Media Ecosystems (different fact patterns, narratives and priorities for conservative and liberal audiences, as they consume entirely different news sources).

40
New cards

Legacy Media Adaptation /
Local News Crisis (2010s – Present)

Key Points:

  • Weakened local press reduces citizen knowledge of and engagement with local and state government.

  • Core journalistic institutions survive with transformed business models and narrower reach.

    

  News Deserts – Over 2,500 local newspapers closed since 2005.  Full-time statehouse reporters declined by 35% between 2003 and 2022.

  Reduced government oversight.  Spending and corruption increasing.

  Digital models help WSJ, NYT, WP stay alive.

  Non-profits do investigatory journalism (ex. ProPublica)

41
New cards

How Media Shapes Political News & Information

Agenda setting – If this is what the press is covering, then this is what we should be talking about.

When policy issues are not on media’s agenda, they generally receive little attention from politicians.

42
New cards

How Media Shapes Political News & Information

Framing – How the media presents an issue influences how the public views the issue.

43
New cards

How Media Shapes Political News & Information

Horse-race journalism – The media’s focus on competitive aspects of a campaign, rather than on actual policy matters.

44
New cards

How Media Shapes Political News & Information

Two-step flow of information - The process by which people take their political cues from opinion leaders.

  1. 1.  Step One: Information flows from mass media to opinion leaders.

  2. 2.  Step Two: These opinion leaders interpret, filter, and disseminate this information to their social circles, often adding their own perspectives.

The theory challenged the assumption that mass media had direct, powerful effects on passive audiences. 

45
New cards

AP says white house is defying court order to restore its access

The wire service on Wednesday accused the White House of continuing to bar its reporters from the press pool despite a judge’s order that called the restriction a violation of the First Amendment.

46
New cards

White House eliminates permanent spot for news services in press pool

The associated press, which castigated the decision, urged a federal judge Wednesday to enforce his ruling overturning the White House’s ban on the organization

47
New cards

How should we define a social media platform?

One  federal court said an online messaging board was a “passive distributor of content”

Another federal court said an online messaging board was a “publisher” because their automatic screening program constituted “editorial control.”

Well… which is it?

It matters because there is a different liability depending on how you see an online platform.

48
New cards

Is an online platform a “publisher” or a “distributor”?

Publisher (like newspapers, books, magazines, advertisements)

Why is it a publisher?  They have editorial control over what goes into the content.

If so, then there is STRICT LIABILITY for posting of illegal content and defamatory statements.

Distributor (like newsstands, bookstores, libraries, retailers)

Why is it a distributor?  They have NO editorial control over content.

If so, then there is NO LIABILITY, unless, in rare circumstances, if proven they have knowledge of illegal content. 

49
New cards

One more possible definition…

Essential public good (like public roads, telecommunication companies)

  

Why?  Online platforms are a “common carrier” and must allow everyone to access it equally.

 

If so, there is NO LIABILITY at all.

50
New cards

To settle the debate, Congress included Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996)

Section 230(c)(1):  

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

51
New cards

Challenged in front of US Supreme Court
Twitter v. Taamneh (2023)

Nohemi Gonzalez, a US citizen, and others killed by terrorist attach in Paris, France, in 2015.  ISIS claimed responsibility.

Families sued Google, Twitter, and Facebook, citing the Anti-Terrorist Act, saying the platforms were liable for aiding and abetting terrorism by failing to take action to prevent terrorists from using its services.

USSC ruled that Twitter was NOT liable because Taamneh et al did not satisfy all 3 requirements of the Anti-Terrorist Act:

Yes, ISIS committed this act

Yes, Twitter knew that ISIS was using its platform

No, Twitter did not “knowingly and substantially assist the principal violation.”

52
New cards

Challenged in front of US Supreme Court
Google v. Gonzalez (2023)

Same set of facts as Twitter v. Taamneh.

This time, went after the online platforms because they used computer algorithms to suggest content to users based on their viewing history.

US Supreme Court dismissed claims by citing Section 230, and their previous decision in Twitter v. Taamneh.