yes:

no

interest groups promote pluralist democracy

instead of providing pluralist representation, wealthy n well-connected groups concentrate power on a small section of society

interest groups are effective at representing smaller groups that may be overlooked or even deliberately marginalised by politicians

corps 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 can add a great deal of democratic value bc of the limited representation through FPTP n only 2 candidates

• 2023: the ACLU used their legal expertise to file a lawsuit on behalf of Zooey Zephyr against the state legislature of Montana. claimed against her first amendment rights

• LGBTQ+ groups n others eg ACLUE are trying to ensure that the interests of trans individuals are promoted. in 2022, human rights campaign said that more than 250 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced through state legislatures

interest groups may not have a negative impact but do nothing positive either

• Biden’s Build Back Better bill failed in Senate in 2021 coz of Senator Joe Manchin. Manchin received $400k in donations from the oil n gas industry during just the negotiation period. it would have provided universal pre-kindergarten places expanded healthcare access, supplying generous tax incentives for green energy n regulating global warming

yes

no

interest groups are effective at identifying n challenging govt corruption or self-interest

the checks interest groups place on politicians might undermine democracy by preventing them from carrying out policy promises

interest groups can also help to ensure that politicians n parties carry out the policies they promised at election time

• in 2020: the League of Conservation Voters used their Dirty Dozen list to campaign against politicians who have the worst environmental voting records. 6/12 were defeated

the us political n constitutional system already creates high levels of check

• after sandy hook in 2012, obama unable to pass new guns laws cos of targeting of marginal n moderate Democrats by NRA. opinion polls showed high levels of support for further regulation » many Dems in Senate refused to support these, fearing NRA activism

yes:

no:

interest groups enhance democracy by allowing ppl to become actively involved in the political process

interest group participation sometimes involves violence/other law-breaking activities. this challenges laws that have been passed through the representative democratic process

interest groups can add a great deal of democratic value given the low levels of participation in elections. many ppl can gain their political influence as a result of participating via pressure groups over voting

violent/illegal activity can be a major threat as it can restrict individual rights. interest groups can undermine essential freedoms n undermine the us’s liberal democratic status » environmental groups eg extinction rebellion have organised disruptive processes

yes:

no:

the separation of powers n high levels of checks n balances between the main branches means that interest groups have 4 powerful institutions to choose from when trying to achieve their policy goals

some interest groups may have limited access or influence during period when one party dominates federal institutions and there is a lack of ideological compatibility

it is common to have divided govts, in which more than one party controls the federal institutions at the same time, which means they can turn to more sympathetic branches

a consensus between the 2 parties that control the fed govt may not be in line with the aims of an interest group leaving them powerless in the long term. especially if you accept both dems n repubs support wealthy, corp interests

yes:

no:

interest groups can exploit the high number n frequency of elections eg: using publicity to campaign for or against a candidate

in any election, there are winners n losers. interest groups may fail to get their favoured candidates elected

us elections are massively expensive w candidates relying on funding from interest groups

• in 2020 future forward usa raised n spent nearly $100m supporting biden n attacking trump. it’s created n funded by silicon valley billionaires » biden has had to deal w this developing industry in relation to regulations or maintaining competitiveness w china

there’s no guarantee that winning candidates will propose laws that are favourable to a donor. once in office, politicians are subject to a no of competing pressures, inc public opinion

• in 2020, sheldon adelson donated over $218m to repub candidates only to see the dems win » essentially achieved nothing from his huge outlay

yes:

no:

the usa has high levels of rights protection guaranteed by an entrenched Bill of RIghts n a sovereign constit

as w any court case there are winners n losers with interest groups on one side of the debate destined to fail to achieve policy success

other interest groups have their main policy goals enshrined in us constit. groups eg NRA (2nd amendment) n NAACP (14th amendment can use the SC to secure their aims

• 2020: naacp v trump, trump successfully forced to reintroduce liberal immigration laws created by obama presidency. allowed children who arrived in the US as illegal immigrants to have the right to remain

in recent years, conservative majority on the SC has arguably failed to provide sufficient rights protections = significant losses for groups such as the ACLU

• 2022: dobbs v jackson overturned roe v wade, removing the constitutional right of abortion. during the case, 73 women’s rights groups inc national women’s law centre + others such as ACLUE, wrote amicus briefs for SC, arguing that abortion should continue to be constitutionally protected

yes:

no:

provide legislators n bureaucrats w useful info n act as sounding board for legislators at policy formulation stage in legislative process

revolving-door syndrome

• high proportion of pro lobbyists are former congressional staff members » door is revolving as they walk out of political door and into lobbyist one

• former public official cannot take up a job as a lobbyist within 1 year of leaving public office

• critics argue this is an abuse of a public service as ppl then exploit their knowledge of n contacts within Congress/executive, to further the interests of their pressure group

they bring order to the policy debate, aggregating views n channelling the wishes of the clients n members when they week to represent

iron triangle

• describes a strong relationship between pressure groups n congressional committees then pressure groups n relevant govt departments/agencies on the other

• ‘cosy triangle’ guarantees policy outcomes benefitting all 3 parties/groups involved

• linked revolving door syndrome, raises question of whether pressure group activities are compatible with pluralist society

they broaden the opportunities for participation in a democracy

inequality of groups

• some pressure groups have unequal resources to the other competing side eg NRA n gun control

they can increase levels of accountability both for Congress n for the exec branch

special interests vs public interest

• putting interests of small group before interests of society as a whole

• pressure groups repping various ethnic groups are a good example (ie NAACP, american jewish congress, indian american centre for public awareness, etc) > seen as adding to societal atomisation

• can lead to stereotyping

they increase opportunities for representation between elections as well as offering opportunities for minority views to be repped, that would be lost in ‘big tent’ political parties

buying political influence

• ‘america has the finest Congress than money can buy’ - edward kennedy

• elizabeth drew (1996) » claimed that lobbyists acting on behalf of biz corps wrote legislation for Congress members

they enhance the 2 fundamental rights of freedom of speech n freedom of association

using direct action

• can be deemed inappropriate, raised whenever pressure groups use what most consider unacceptable levels of violence for political agendas

• violence eg shootings, bombings, murders, around abortion clinics, by “pro-life” groups in 90s