Knowt
Note
Studied by 64 peopleNoteStudied by 3374 peopleNoteStudied by 97 peopleNoteStudied by 13 peopleNoteStudied by 16 peopleNoteStudied by 20 people
impact of interest groups
types of groups
Policy groups
Professional groups
Single-interest groups
resources and tactics
Membership
Money
Expertise
Networking
Lobbying
Direct action and demonstrations
Legal methods
Electioneering
Akin Grump Strauss: Professional lobbyist
Annual turnover - $1bn
Employs – 69 lobbyists and 1000+ lawyers
Revolving door staff – 79%
Clients include – AT&T, Exxon Mobil, Healthcare Leadership Council, American Airlines, Japanese Government
Employs 3 former members of Congress, a former advisor to Bill Clinton and many former advisers to members of Congress.
question: “Do interest groups improve the level of democracy in the United States?”
key arguments:
representation
checks on politicians
democratic participation
representation
improve | don’t improve |
IG’s promote pluralist democracy effective at representing smaller groups that may be overlooked/ deliberately marginalised by politicians can add great deal of democratic value bc of limited representation through FPTP + only 2 candidates.
| Instead of providing pluralist representation, wealthy and well-connected groups concentrate power on a small section of society. Corporations have high financial resources that they use to hire professional lobbyists or make major donations to parties’ or politicians’ campaigns at election time. Interest groups may not have negative impact but do nothing positive either.
|
checks on government
improve | don’t improve |
effective at identifying and challenging government corruption or self-interest. Interest groups can also help to ensure that politicians and parties carry out the policies they promised at election time.
| checks interest groups place on politicians might undermine democracy by preventing them from carrying out policy promises. US political and constitutional system already creates high levels of checks.
|
participation
improve | don’t improve |
Interest groups enhance democracy by allowing people to become actively involved in the political process. Interest groups can add a great deal of democratic value given the low levels of participation in elections. Many people can gain their political influence as a result of participating via pressure groups rather than voting. | Interest group participation sometimes involves violence or other law-breaking activities. This challenges laws that have been passed through the representative democratic process. Violent or illegal activity can be a major threat because it can restrict the individual rights of others. Interest groups can undermine essential freedoms and undermine the US’s liberal democratic status.
|
Do interest groups have a high level of influence over the three main branches of government?
Can interest groups successfully use the variety of access points to gain influence?
Can interest groups successfully exploit the high number and frequency of elections?
Does the high level of rights protection ensure that interest groups are highly influential
access points
yes | no |
separation of powers and high levels of checks and balances between the main branches means that interest groups have four powerful institutions to choose from when trying to achieve their policy goals. It is common to have divided governments, in which more than one party controls the federal institutions at the same time, which means they can turn to more sympathetic branches. Party leaders in Congress have limited influence over congressional politicians leaving scope for interest groups.
| Some interest groups may have limited access or influence during periods when one party dominates federal institutions and there is a lack of ideological compatibility. A consensus between the two parties that control the Federal Government may not be in line with the aims of an interest group leaving them powerless in the long term. Especially if you accept both Democrats and Republicans support wealthy, corporate interests. |
number and frequency of elections
yes | no |
Interest groups can exploit the high number and frequency of elections – for example by using publicity to campaign for or against a candidate. US elections are massively expensive, with candidates relying on funding from interest groups.
| In any election there are winners and losers. Interest groups may fail to get their favoured candidates elected. There is no guarantee that winning candidates will propose laws that are favourable to a donor. Once in office, politicians are subject to a number of competing pressures, including public opinion.
|
rights protection
yes | no |
USA has high levels of rights protection guaranteed by entrenched Bill of Rights and a sovereign constitution. Other interest groups have their main policy goals enshrined in the US Constitution. Groups such as NRA (2nd amendment) and NAACP (14th amendment) can use the Supreme Court to secure their aims.
| As with any court case there are winners and losers with interest groups on one side of the debate destined to fail to achieve policy success. In recent years a conservative majority on the court has arguably failed to provide sufficient rights protections. This has meant significant losses for groups such as the ACLU.
|
should interest groups exist?
arguments for interest groups
Provide legislators and bureaucrats with useful information and act as a sounding board for legislators at the policy formulation stage in the legislative process.
They bring some kind of order to the policy debate, aggregating views and channelling the wishes of the clients and members whom they seek to represent.
They broaden the opportunities for participation in a democracy.
They can increase levels of accountability both for Congress and for the executive branch.
They increase opportunities for representation between elections as well as offering opportunities for minority views to be represented that would be lost in ‘big tent political parties.
They enhance the two fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Arguments against pressure groups
Revolving-door syndrome.
A high proportion of professional lobbyists are former members of Congress or former congressional staff members – the door is revolving because they walk out of the political door and into the lobbyist one.
Former public officials cannot take up a job as a lobbyist within one year of leaving public office – but once the year is up it’s fine.
Critics argue this is an abuse of a public service because people then exploit their knowledge of and contacts within Congress or the executive to further the interests of their pressure group.
The iron-triangle
Describes a strong relationship between pressure groups and congressional committees; and pressure groups and the relevant government department/agency on the other.
A ‘cosy triangle’ guarantees policy outcomes that will benefit all three parties involved.
It is linked to the revolving door syndrome – and raises the question of whether pressure group activities are compatible with a pluralist society.
Inequality of groups
Some PGs have unequal resources to the other competing side – for example the NRA and gun control.
Special interests v. the public interest
Putting the interests of a small group before the interests of society as a whole.
PGs representing various ethnic groups are a good example (i.e. NAACP, American Jewish Congress, Indian American Center for Public Awareness etc.) – it’s seen as adding to an ‘atomisation’ of society.
PGs accentuate ‘me’ rather than ‘we’ – fighting their own special interest rather than the public interest.
This can lead to group stereotyping – saying that all blacks or all Jews or all Latinos or whoever, all think the same way and want the same outcome.
Buying political influence
‘America has the finest Congress that money can buy’ – Edward Kennedy.
Elizabeth Drew (1996) claimed that lobbyists acting on behalf of business corporations wrote legislation for members of Congress.
Using direct action
Can be deemed inappropriate – and raised whenever pressure groups use what most consider unacceptable levels of violence to pursue their political agenda.
Violence such as shootings, bombings and murders – conducted around abortion clinics by ‘pro-life’ groups hit the headlines in the 1990s.
impact of interest groups
types of groups
Policy groups
Professional groups
Single-interest groups
resources and tactics
Membership
Money
Expertise
Networking
Lobbying
Direct action and demonstrations
Legal methods
Electioneering
Akin Grump Strauss: Professional lobbyist
Annual turnover - $1bn
Employs – 69 lobbyists and 1000+ lawyers
Revolving door staff – 79%
Clients include – AT&T, Exxon Mobil, Healthcare Leadership Council, American Airlines, Japanese Government
Employs 3 former members of Congress, a former advisor to Bill Clinton and many former advisers to members of Congress.
question: “Do interest groups improve the level of democracy in the United States?”
key arguments:
representation
checks on politicians
democratic participation
representation
improve | don’t improve |
IG’s promote pluralist democracy effective at representing smaller groups that may be overlooked/ deliberately marginalised by politicians can add great deal of democratic value bc of limited representation through FPTP + only 2 candidates.
| Instead of providing pluralist representation, wealthy and well-connected groups concentrate power on a small section of society. Corporations have high financial resources that they use to hire professional lobbyists or make major donations to parties’ or politicians’ campaigns at election time. Interest groups may not have negative impact but do nothing positive either.
|
checks on government
improve | don’t improve |
effective at identifying and challenging government corruption or self-interest. Interest groups can also help to ensure that politicians and parties carry out the policies they promised at election time.
| checks interest groups place on politicians might undermine democracy by preventing them from carrying out policy promises. US political and constitutional system already creates high levels of checks.
|
participation
improve | don’t improve |
Interest groups enhance democracy by allowing people to become actively involved in the political process. Interest groups can add a great deal of democratic value given the low levels of participation in elections. Many people can gain their political influence as a result of participating via pressure groups rather than voting. | Interest group participation sometimes involves violence or other law-breaking activities. This challenges laws that have been passed through the representative democratic process. Violent or illegal activity can be a major threat because it can restrict the individual rights of others. Interest groups can undermine essential freedoms and undermine the US’s liberal democratic status.
|
Do interest groups have a high level of influence over the three main branches of government?
Can interest groups successfully use the variety of access points to gain influence?
Can interest groups successfully exploit the high number and frequency of elections?
Does the high level of rights protection ensure that interest groups are highly influential
access points
yes | no |
separation of powers and high levels of checks and balances between the main branches means that interest groups have four powerful institutions to choose from when trying to achieve their policy goals. It is common to have divided governments, in which more than one party controls the federal institutions at the same time, which means they can turn to more sympathetic branches. Party leaders in Congress have limited influence over congressional politicians leaving scope for interest groups.
| Some interest groups may have limited access or influence during periods when one party dominates federal institutions and there is a lack of ideological compatibility. A consensus between the two parties that control the Federal Government may not be in line with the aims of an interest group leaving them powerless in the long term. Especially if you accept both Democrats and Republicans support wealthy, corporate interests. |
number and frequency of elections
yes | no |
Interest groups can exploit the high number and frequency of elections – for example by using publicity to campaign for or against a candidate. US elections are massively expensive, with candidates relying on funding from interest groups.
| In any election there are winners and losers. Interest groups may fail to get their favoured candidates elected. There is no guarantee that winning candidates will propose laws that are favourable to a donor. Once in office, politicians are subject to a number of competing pressures, including public opinion.
|
rights protection
yes | no |
USA has high levels of rights protection guaranteed by entrenched Bill of Rights and a sovereign constitution. Other interest groups have their main policy goals enshrined in the US Constitution. Groups such as NRA (2nd amendment) and NAACP (14th amendment) can use the Supreme Court to secure their aims.
| As with any court case there are winners and losers with interest groups on one side of the debate destined to fail to achieve policy success. In recent years a conservative majority on the court has arguably failed to provide sufficient rights protections. This has meant significant losses for groups such as the ACLU.
|
should interest groups exist?
arguments for interest groups
Provide legislators and bureaucrats with useful information and act as a sounding board for legislators at the policy formulation stage in the legislative process.
They bring some kind of order to the policy debate, aggregating views and channelling the wishes of the clients and members whom they seek to represent.
They broaden the opportunities for participation in a democracy.
They can increase levels of accountability both for Congress and for the executive branch.
They increase opportunities for representation between elections as well as offering opportunities for minority views to be represented that would be lost in ‘big tent political parties.
They enhance the two fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Arguments against pressure groups
Revolving-door syndrome.
A high proportion of professional lobbyists are former members of Congress or former congressional staff members – the door is revolving because they walk out of the political door and into the lobbyist one.
Former public officials cannot take up a job as a lobbyist within one year of leaving public office – but once the year is up it’s fine.
Critics argue this is an abuse of a public service because people then exploit their knowledge of and contacts within Congress or the executive to further the interests of their pressure group.
The iron-triangle
Describes a strong relationship between pressure groups and congressional committees; and pressure groups and the relevant government department/agency on the other.
A ‘cosy triangle’ guarantees policy outcomes that will benefit all three parties involved.
It is linked to the revolving door syndrome – and raises the question of whether pressure group activities are compatible with a pluralist society.
Inequality of groups
Some PGs have unequal resources to the other competing side – for example the NRA and gun control.
Special interests v. the public interest
Putting the interests of a small group before the interests of society as a whole.
PGs representing various ethnic groups are a good example (i.e. NAACP, American Jewish Congress, Indian American Center for Public Awareness etc.) – it’s seen as adding to an ‘atomisation’ of society.
PGs accentuate ‘me’ rather than ‘we’ – fighting their own special interest rather than the public interest.
This can lead to group stereotyping – saying that all blacks or all Jews or all Latinos or whoever, all think the same way and want the same outcome.
Buying political influence
‘America has the finest Congress that money can buy’ – Edward Kennedy.
Elizabeth Drew (1996) claimed that lobbyists acting on behalf of business corporations wrote legislation for members of Congress.
Using direct action
Can be deemed inappropriate – and raised whenever pressure groups use what most consider unacceptable levels of violence to pursue their political agenda.
Violence such as shootings, bombings and murders – conducted around abortion clinics by ‘pro-life’ groups hit the headlines in the 1990s.
NoteStudied by 64 peopleNoteStudied by 3374 peopleNoteStudied by 97 peopleNoteStudied by 13 peopleNoteStudied by 16 peopleNoteStudied by 20 people