The structure of American government invites the participation of interest groups at various stages of the policymaking process. Americans can form groups in their neighborhoods or cities and lobby the city council or their state government. They can join statewide groups or national groups and try to influence government policy through Congress or through one of the executive agencies or cabinet departments. Representatives of large corporations may seek to influence the president personally at social events or fund-raisers. When attempts to influence the government through the executive and legislative branches fail, interest groups can turn to the courts, filing suits in state and federal courts to achieve their political objectives.
The large number of "pressure points" for interest groups activity in American government helps to explain why there are so many - more than one hundred thousand - interest groups at work in our society. Another reason for the multitude of interest groups is that the right to join a group is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not only are all people guaranteed the right "peaceably to assemble," but they are also guaranteed the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This constitutional provision encourages Americans to form groups and express their opinions to the government or to their elected representatives as members of a group. The constitutional protection of groups is one reason that it would be very difficult to satisfy the occasional demand that lobbyists - persons hired to represent interest groups to the government - be eliminated.
INTEREST GROUP FUNDAMENTALS
Interest groups play a significant role in American government at all levels. One of the ways in which interest groups attempt to influence government policies is through campaign contributions to members of Congress who intend to run for reelection. It is the interplay between campaign financial assistance and legislation favorable to specific interests that has caused some observers to claim that Congress has been sold to the highest bidder. Certainly, devising a system in which campaigns can be financed without jeopardizing objectivity on the part of members of Congress is a major challenge for our nation today. In our pluralist society, however, the competition by interest groups for access to lawmakers automatically checks the extent to which any one particular group can influence Congress.
Interest Groups: A Natural Phenomenon
Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the early 1830s that "in no country of the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objectives than in America." The French traveler was amazed at the degree to which Americans formed groups to solve civic problems, establish social relationships, and speak for their economic or political interests. Perhaps James Madison, when he wrote Federalist Paper No. 10, had already judged the character of his country's citizens similarly. He supported the creation of a large republic with many states to encourage the formation of multiple interests. The multitude of interests, in Madison's view, would work to discourage the formation of an oppressive majority interest.
Poll data show that more than two-thirds of all Americans belong to at least one group or association. Although the majority of these affiliations could not be classified as "interest groups" in the political sense, American certainly understand the principle of working in groups.
Today, interest groups range from the elementary school parent-teacher association and the local "Stop the Sewer Plant Association" to the statewide association of insurance agents. They include small groups such as local environmental organizations and national groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, and the American League of Lobbyists.
Interest Groups and Social Movements
Interest groups are often spawned by mass social movements. Such movements represent demands by a large segment of the population for change in the political, economic, or social system. A social movement is often the first expression of latent discontent with the existing system. It may be the authentic voice of weaker or oppressed groups in society that do not have the means or standing to organize as interest groups. For example, the women's movement of the early 1800s suffered disapproval from most mainstream political and social leaders. Because women were unable to vote or take an active part in the political system, it was difficult for women who desired greater freedoms to organize formal groups. After the Civil War, when more women became active in professional life, organizations seeking to win women the right to vote came into being.
African Americans found themselves in an even more disadvantaged situation after the end of the Reconstruction period (1865-1877). They were unable to exercise political rights in many southern states, and their participation in any form of organization could lead to economic ruin, physical harassment, or even death. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was clearly a social movement. To be sure, several formal organizations worked to support the movement - including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Urban League - but only a social movement could generate the kinds of civil disobedience that took place in hundreds of towns and cities across the country.
Social movements may generate interest groups with specific goals that successfully recruit members by offering certain incentives. In the example of the women's movement of the 1960s, the National Organization for Women was formed in part out of a demand to end gender-segregated job advertising in newspapers.
WHY DO AMERICANS JOIN INTEREST GROUPS?
One puzzle that has fascinated political scientists is why some people join interest groups, while many others do not. Everyone has some interest that could benefit from government action. For many individuals, however, those concerns remain unorganized interests, or latent interests.
According to political theorist Mancur Olson, it simply may not be rational for individuals to join most groups. In his classic work on this topic, Olson introduced the idea of the "collective good." This concept refers to any public benefit that, if available to any member of the community, cannot be denied to any other member, whether or not he or she participated in the effort to gain the good.
Although collective benefits are usually thought of as coming from such public goods as clean air and national defense, benefits are also bestowed by the government on subsets of the public. Price subsidies to dairy farmers and loans to college students are examples. Olson used economic theory to propose that it is not rational for interested individuals to join groups that work for group benefits. In fact, it is often more rational for the individual to wait for others to procure the benefits and then share them. How many community college students, for example, join the American Association of Community Colleges, an organization that lobbies the government for increased financial aid to students? The difficulty interest groups face in recruiting members when the benefits can be obtained without joining the groups is referred to as the free rider problem.
If so little incentive exists for individuals to join together, why are there thousands of interest groups lobbying in Washington? According to the logic of collective action, if the contribution of an individual will make a difference to the effort, then it is worth it to the individual to join. Thus, smaller groups, which seek benefits for only a small proportion of the population, are more likely to enroll members who will give time and funds to the cause. Larger groups, which represent general public interests (the women's movement or the American Civil Liberties Union, for example), will find it relatively more difficult to get individuals to join. People need an incentive - material or otherwise - to participate.
Solidary Incentives
Interest groups offer solidary incentives for their members. Solidary benefits include companionship, a sense of belonging, and the pleasure of associating with others. Although the National Audubon Society was originally founded to save the snowy egret from extinction, today most members join to learn more about birds and to meet and share their pleasure with other individuals who enjoy bird-watching as a hobby. Even though the incentive might be solidary for many members, this organization nonetheless also pursues an active political agenda, working to preserve the environment and to protect endangered species. Still, most members may not play any part in working toward larger, more national goals unless the organization can convince them to take political action or unless some local environmental issue arises.
Material Incentives
For other individuals, interest groups offer direct material incentives. A case in point is AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons), which provides discounts, insurance plans, and organized travel opportunities for its members. Because of its exceptionally low dues ($16 annually) and the benefits gained through membership, AARP has become the largest - and a very powerful - interest group in the United States. AARP can claim to represent the interests of millions of senior citizens and can show that they actually have joined the group. For most seniors, the material incentives outweigh the membership costs.
Another example of such an interest group is the American Automobile Association (AAA). Most people who join this organization do so for its emergency roadside assistance and trip planning. Many members may not realize that the AAA is also a significant interest group seeking to shape laws that affect drivers.
Many other interest groups offer indirect material incentives for their members. Such groups as the American Dairy Association and the National Association of Automobile Dealers do not give discounts or "freebies" to their members, but they do offer indirect benefits and rewards by, for example, protecting the material interests of their members from government policymaking that is injurious to their industry or business.
Purposive Incentives
Interest groups also offer the opportunity for individuals to pursue political, economic, or social goals through joint action. Purposive incentives offer individuals the satisfaction of taking action when the goals of a group correspond to their beliefs or principles. The individuals who belong to a group focusing on the abortion issue or gun control, for example, do so because they feel strongly enough about the issues to support the group's work with money and time.
Some scholars have argued that many people join interest groups simply for the discounts, magazine subscriptions, and other tangible benefits and are not really interested in the political positions taken by the groups. According to William P. Browne, however, research shows that people really do care about the policy stance of an interest group. Representatives of a group seek people who share the group's views and then ask them to join. As one group leader put it, "Getting members is about scaring the hell out of people." People join the group and then feel that they are doing something about a cause that is important to them.
TYPES OF INTEREST GROUPS
Thousands of groups exist to influence government. Among the major types of interest groups are those that represent the main sectors of the economy. In addition, a number of "public-interest" organizations have been formed to represent the needs of the general citizenry. Other types of groups include "single-issue" groups, ideological groups, and groups based on race, sex, or sexual orientation. The interests of foreign governments and foreign businesses are represented in the American political arena as well.
Economic Interest Groups
More interest groups are formed to represent economic interests than any other set of interests. The variety of economic interest groups mirrors the complexity of the American economy. Major sectors that seek influence in Washington, D.C., include business, agriculture, labor unions, government workers, and professionals.
Business Interest Groups. Thousands of business groups and trade associations work to influence government policies that affect their respective industries. "Umbrella groups" represent collections of businesses or other entities. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, is an umbrella group that represents a wide variety of businesses, while the National Association of Manufacturers is an umbrella group that represents only manufacturing concerns.
Some business groups are decidedly more powerful than others. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents about 3 million member companies, can bring constituent influence to bear on every member of Congress. The National Association of Manufacturers is another powerful group. With a staff of about 150 people in Washington, D.C., the organization can mobilize dozens of well-educated, articulate lobbyists to work the corridors of Congress on issues of concern to its members.
Agricultural Interest Groups. American farmers and their employees represent less than 1 percent of the U.S. population. In spite of this, farmers' influence on legislation beneficial to their interests has been significant. Farmers have succeeded in their aims because they have very strong interest groups. They are geographically dispersed and therefore have many representatives and senators to speak for them.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, or Farm Bureau, established in 1919, represents more than 5.5 million families (a majority of whom are not actually farm families) and is usually seen as conservative. It was instrumental in getting government guarantees of "fair" prices during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Another important agricultural interest organization is the National Farmers' Union (NFU), which is considered more liberal. Single-issue farm groups have emerged. The American Dairy Association, the Peanut Growers Group, and the National Soybean Association, for example, work to support their respective farmers and associated businesses.
Agricultural interest groups have probably been more successful than any other groups in obtaining subsidies from American taxpayers. U.S. farm subsidies cost taxpayers about $16 billion a year. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported agricultural subsidy legislation, showing the success of agricultural lobbying groups. The latest legislation, passed in 2008, created the most expensive agricultural subsidy program ever. Congress began work on a new farm bill in 2012.
As expensive as U.S. agricultural supports may be, many other nations provide their farmers with even greater subsidies.
Labor Interest Groups. Interest groups representing the labor movement date back to at least 1886, when the American Federation of Labor (AFL) was formed. In 1955, the AFL joined forces with the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Today, the combined AFL-CIO is a large federation with a membership of about 10 million workers and an active political arm called the Committee on Political Education. In a sense, the AFL-CIO is a union of unions.
The AFL-CIO remained the predominant labor union organization for fifty years. The AFL-CIO experienced discord within its ranks during 2005, however, as four key unions left the federation and formed the Change to Win Coalition. Today, Change to Win has a membership of about 6 million workers. Many labor advocates fear that the split will reduce organized labor's influence, and in 2009 leaders of the two federations met to discuss the possibility of reunification.
Even before the split, the role of unions in American society had been waning, as witnessed by the decline in union membership. In the age of automation and with the rise of the service sector, blue-collar workers in basic industries (auto, steel, and the like) represent a smaller and smaller percentage of the total working population.
Because of this decline in the industrial sector of the economy, national unions are looking to nontraditional areas for their membership, including migrant farmworkers, service workers, and especially public employees - such as police officers, firefighting personnel, teachers, college professors, and even graduate assistants. Indeed, public-sector unions make up an ever-greater share of the labor movement.
Although the proportion of the workforce that belongs to a union has declined over the years, American labor unions have not given up their efforts to support sympathetic candidates for Congress or for state office. Currently, the AFL-CIO, under the leadership of coal miner Richard Trumka, has a large political budget, which it uses to help Democratic candidates nationwide. Labor offers a candidate (such as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008) a corps of volunteers in addition to campaign contributions.
Public Employee Unions. The degree of unionization in the private sector has declined over the past fifty years, but this has been partially offset by growth in the unionization of public employees. With a total membership of almost 8 million, public-sector unions are likely to continue expanding.
Both the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and the American Federation of Teachers, are members of the AFL-CIO's Public Employee Department. Over the years, public employee unions have sometimes been involved in strikes. Most of these strikes are illegal, because almost no public employees have the right to strike.
A powerful interest group lobbying on behalf of its public employees is the National Education Association (NEA), a nationwide organization of about 3.2 million teachers and others connected with education. Most NEA locals function as labor unions. The NEA lobbies intensively for increased public funding of education.
The Political Environment Faced by Labor. The success or failure of attempts to form unions depends greatly on popular attitudes. Many business-oriented conservatives have never accepted unions as legitimate institutions. In states where this position is widely held, local laws and practices can make it hard for labor to organize. For example, Georgia and North Carolina are major manufacturing states, but the percentages of union members in those two conservative states are 4.6 percent and 5 percent, respectively. States where the voting public is more sympathetic to labor, such as California and New York, have unionization rates of 19.5 percent and 26.6 percent, respectively. These rates are more typical of the world's wealthy nations than are the rates in conservative southern states.
In recent years, conservatives have take a strong stand against public employee unions, in particular teachers' unions such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In some states, mostly in the South, bargaining with public-sector unions is prohibited. In 2011, Republican governors in several mid-western states - notably including Ohio and Wisconsin - attempted to restrict or abolish the bargaining rights of public employees.
Interest Groups of Professionals. Many professional organizations exist, including the American Bar Association, the Association of General Contractors of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and others. Some professional groups, such as those representing lawyers and physicians, are more influential than others because of their ability to restrict entry into their professions. Lawyers have a unique advantage - a large number of members of Congress share their profession. In terms of funds spent on lobbying, however, one professional organization stands head and shoulders above the rest - the American Medical Association. Founded in 1847, it is affiliated with more than 1,000 local and state medical societies and has a total membership of about 216,000.
The Unorganized Poor. Some have argued that the system of interest group politics leaves out poor Americans and U.S. residents who are not citizens and cannot vote. Americans who are disadvantaged economically typically do not join interest groups. If they are members of the working poor, they may hold two or more jobs just to survive, leaving them no time to participate in interest groups. Other groups in the population - including non-English-speaking groups, resident aliens, single parents, Americans with disabilities, and younger voters - may not have the time or expertise even to find out what groups might represent them. Consequently, some scholars suggest that interest groups and lobbyists are the privilege of upper-middle-class Americans and those who belong to unions or other special groups.
R. Allen Hays examines the plight of poor Americans in his book Who Speaks for the Poor? Hays studied groups and individuals who have lobbied for public housing and other issues related to the poor and concluded that the poor depend largely on indirect representation. Most efforts on behalf of the poor come from a policy network of groups - including public housing officials, welfare workers and officials, religious groups, public-interest groups, and some liberal general-interest groups - that speak loudly and persistently for the poor. Poor Americans themselves remain outside the interest group network and have little direct voice of their own.
Environmental Groups
Environmental interest groups are not new. We have already mentioned the National Audubon Society, which was founded in 1905 to protect the snowy egret from the commercial demand for hat decorations. The patron of the Sierra Club, John Muir, worked for the creation of national parks more than a century ago. But the blossoming of national environmental groups with mass memberships did not occur until the 1970s.
Today's Environmental Groups. Since the first Earth Day, organized in 1972, many interest groups have sprung up to protect the environment in general or unique ecological niches. The groups range from the National Wildlife Federation, with a membership of more than 4 million and an emphasis on education, to the more elite Environmental Defense Fund, with a membership of 500,000 and a focus on influencing federal policy. The Nature Conservancy uses members' contributions to buy up threatened natural areas and then either gives them to state or local governments or manages them itself. Other groups include the more radical Greenpeace Society and Earth First.
Global Warming. The topic of global warming has become a major focus for environmental groups in recent years. The issue has pitted environmentalists against other interest groups to a much greater degree than in the past. Environmentalists often find themselves in opposition to economic interests representing industries that release "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere. Indeed, the reaction against environmentalism has been strong enough in such coal-oriented states as West Virginia to transform them politically. Once a Democratic bastion, West Virginia now usually supports Republicans in presidential contests.
An example of a recent controversy that lined up oil companies and construction workers against environmentalists and farmers was the dispute over the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
Public-Interest Groups
Public interest is a difficult term to define because there are many publics in our nation of more than 10 million. It is almost impossible for one particular public policy to benefit everybody, which in turn makes it practically impossible to define the public interest. Nonetheless, over the past few decades, a variety of lobbying organizations have been formed "in the public interest."
The Consumer Movement. As an organized movement, consumerism began in 1936 with the founding of the Consumers Union, which continues to publish the popular magazine Consumer Reports. The movement had antecedents dating back to the earliest years of the twentieth century, when investigative journalists known as "muckrakers" exposed exploitative working conditions and unsafe products in a variety of industries. Upton Sinclair's 1906 novel The Jungle, which revealed abuses of the workforce and unsanitary conditions in the meatpacking industry, was a classic of this genre.
Consumerism took off during the 1960s, a time of social ferment marked by the civil rights, antiwar, and feminist movements. Ralph Nader, who gained notice by exposing unsafe automobiles, was a key figure in the consumer movement. Nader was a major sponsor of a series of new organizations. These included the Public Interest Research Group (PIRGs) - campus organizations that emerged in the early 1970s and continue to provide students with platforms of civic engagement. Other new groups included the Consumer Federation of America (1968) and Public Citizen (1971).
Partly in response to the PIRG organizations and other groups, several conservative public-interest legal foundations have sprung up that are often pitted against liberal groups in court. Some of these are the Pacific Legal Foundation, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the Institute for Justice, and the Mid-Atlantic Legal Foundation.
Other Public-Interest Groups. One of the largest public-interest groups is Common Cause, founded in 1968. Its goal is to reorder national priorities toward "the public" and to make governmental institutions more responsive to the needs of the public. Anyone willing to pay dues of $40 a year ($15 for students) can become a member. Members are polled regularly to obtain information about local and national issues. Another public-interest group is the League of Women Voters, founded in 1920. Although officially nonpartisan, it has lobbied for the Equal Rights Amendment and for government reform.
Other Interest Groups
A number of interest groups focus on just one issue. Single-interest groups, being narrowly focused, may be able to call attention to their causes because they have simple, straightforward goals and because their members tend to care intensely about the issues. Thus, such groups can easily motivate their members to contact legislators or to organize demonstrations in support of their policy goals.
The abortion debate has created groups opposed to abortion (such as the National Right to Life Committee) and groups in favor of abortion rights (such as NARAL Pro-Choice America). Further examples of single-issue groups are the National Rifle Association of America, the National Right to Work Committee (an antiunion group), and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (a pro-Israel group).
Ideological Groups. Among the most important interest groups are those that unite citizens around a common ideological viewpoint. The Americans for Democratic Action, for example, was founded in 1947 as a home for liberals who were explicitly anti-Communist. On the political right, Americans for Tax Reform, organized by Grover Norquist, has been phenomenally successful in persuading almost all leading Republicans to sign a pledge promising never to vote to raise taxes. The various organizations making up the Tea Party movement are widely seen as ideological interest groups. (Some observers, however, believe that the movement is better considered as a faction of the Republican Party rather than a series of interest groups.)
Identity Groups. Still other groups represent Americans who share a common identity, such as membership in a particular race or ethnic group. The NAACP, founded in 1909 as the National Association for the advancement of Colored People, represents African Americans. The National Organization for Women (NOW) has championed women's rights since 1966.
Elderly Americans can be considered to have a common identity. AARP, as mentioned earlier, is one of the most powerful interest groups in Washington, D.C., and, according to some, the strongest lobbying group in the United States. It is certainly the nation's largest interest group, with a membership of about 40 million. AARP has accomplished much for its members over the years. It played a significant role in the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as in obtaining annual cost-of-living increases in Social Security payments. (Medicare pays for medical expenses incurred by those who are at least 65 years of age; Medicaid provides health-care supports for the poor.) In 2009 and 2010, AARP strongly supported the Democratic health-care reform bills and argued against those who feared that the legislation might harm the Medicare program.
Foreign Interest Groups
Homegrown interest groups are not the only players in the game. Washington, D.C., is also the center for lobbying by foreign governments as well as private foreign interests. The governments of the largest U.S. trading partners, such as Canada, the European Union (EU) countries, Japan, and South Korea, maintain substantial research and lobbying staffs. Even smaller nations, such as those in the Caribbean, engage lobbyists when vital legislation affecting their trade interests is considered. Frequently, those foreign interests hire former members of Congress to promote their positions on Capitol Hill.
WHAT MAKES AN INTEREST GROUP POWERFUL?
At any time, thousands of interest groups are attempting to influence state legislatures, governors, Congress, and members of the executive branch of the U.S. government. What characteristics make some of those groups more powerful than others and more likely to have influence over government policy? Generally, interest groups attain a reputation for being powerful through their membership size, financial resources, leadership, and cohesiveness.
Size and Resources
No legislator can deny the power of an interest group that includes thousands of his or her own constituents among its members. Labor unions and organizations such as AARP and the American Automobile Association are able to claim voters in every congressional district. Having a large membership - about 10 million in the case of the AFL-CIO - carries a great deal of weight with government officials. AARP now has about 40 million members and a budget of more than a billion dollars for its operations. In addition, AARP claims to represent all older Americans, who constitute close to 20 percent of the population, whether they join the organization or not.
Having a large number of members, even if the individual membership dues are relatively small, provides an organization with a strong financial base. Those funds pay for lobbyists, television advertisements, e-mailings to members, a Web site, pages on Facebook, Twitter feeds, and many other resources that help an interest group make its point to politicians. The business organization with the largest membership is probably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million businesses. The Chamber uses its members' dues to pay for staff and lobbyists, as well as a sophisticated communications network so that it can contact members in a timely way. All of the members can check the Chamber's Web site to get updates on the latest legislative proposals.
Other organizations may have fewer members but nonetheless can muster significant financial resources. The pharmaceutical lobby, which represents many of the major drug manufacturers, is one of the most powerful interest groups in Washington due to its financial resources. This interest group has more than 1,250 registered lobbyists and spent close to $30 million in the 2012 cycle for lobbying and campaign expenditures.
Leadership
Money is not the only resource that interest groups need. Strong leaders who can develop effective strategies are also important. For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has long benefited from strong leadership. AIPAC lobbies Congress and the executive branch on issues related to U.S.-Israeli relations, as well as general foreign policy in the Middle East. AIPAC has been successful in promoting the close relationship that the two nations have enjoyed, which includes foreign aid that the United States annually bestows on Israel, now down to about $3.1 billion a year, but more than $4 billion as recently as 2000. Despite its modest membership size, AIPAC has won bipartisan support for its agenda and is consistently ranked among the most influential interest groups in America.
Other interest groups, including some with few financial resources, succeed in part because they are led by individuals with charisma and access to power. Sometimes, choosing a leader with a particular image can be an effective strategy for an organization. The National Rifle Association (NRA) had more than organizing skills in mind when it elected the late Charlton Heston as its president. The strategy of using an actor identified with powerful roles as the spokesperson for the organization worked to improve its image.
Cohesiveness
Regardless of an interest group's size or the amount of funds in its coffers, the motivation of an interest group's members is a key factor in determining how powerful it is. If the members of a group hold their beliefs strongly enough to send letters to their representatives, join a march on Washington, or work together to defeat a candidate, that group is considered powerful. As described earlier, the American labor movement's success in electing Democratic candidates made the labor movement a more powerful lobby.
Although groups that oppose abortion rights have had modest success in influencing policy, they are considered powerful because their members are vocal and highly motivated. Of course, the existence of countervailing pro-choice groups limits their influence. Other measures of cohesion include the ability of a group to get its members to contact Washington quickly or to give extra funds when needed. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce excels at both of these strategies. In comparison, AARP cannot claim that it can get many of its 40 million members to contact their congressional representatives, but it does seem to have some influence on the opinions of older Americans and their views of political candidates.
INTEREST GROUP STRATEGIES
Interest groups employ a wide range of techniques and strategies to promote their policy goals. Although few groups are successful at persuading Congress and the president to endorse their programs completely, many are able to block - or at least weaken - legislation injurious to their members. The key to success for interest groups is access to government officials. To gain such access, interest groups and their representatives try to cultivate long-term relationships with legislators and government officials. The best of these relationships are based on mutual respect and cooperation. The interest group provides the official with sources of information and assistance, and the official in turn gives the group opportunities to express its views.
The techniques used by interest groups can be divided into direct and indirect techniques. With direct techniques, the interest group and its lobbyists approach officials personally to present their case. With indirect techniques, in contrast, the interest group uses the general public or individual constituents to influence the government on behalf of the interest group.
Direct Techniques
Lobbying, publicizing ratings of legislative behavior, building alliances, and providing campaign assistance are four direct techniques used by interest groups.
Lobbying Techniques. As you might have guessed, the term lobbying comes from the activities of private citizens regularly congregating in the lobbies of legislative chambers to petition legislators. In the latter part of the 1800s, railroad and industrial groups openly bribed state legislators to pass legislation beneficial to their interests, giving lobbying a well-deserved bad name. Most lobbyists today are professionals. They are either consultants to a company or interest group or members of one of the Washington, D.C., law firms that specialize in providing lobbying services. Such firms employs hundreds of former members of Congress and former government officials who are valued for their network of contacts in Washington. As Ed Rollins, a former White House aide, put it, "I've got many friends who are all through the agencies and equally important, I don't have many enemies... I tell my clients I can get your case moved to the top of the pile." Lobbyists of all types are becoming more numerous. The number of lobbyists in Washington, D.C., has more than doubled since 2000.
Lobbyists engage in an array of activities to influence legislation and government policy. These activities include the following:
Meeting privately with public officials to make known the interests of the lobbyists' clients. Although they are acting on behalf of their clients, lobbyists often furnish needed information to senators and representatives (and government agency appointees) that these officials could not easily obtain on their own. It is to the lobbyists' advantage to provide useful information so that the policymakers will rely on them in the future.
Testifying before congressional committees for or against proposed legislation.
Testifying before executive rulemaking agencies - such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Consumer Product Safety Commission - for or against proposed rules.
Assisting legislators or bureaucrats in drafting legislation or prospective regulations. Often, lobbyists furnish advice on the specific details of legislation. Especially at the state level, lobbying firms have been known to write up the complete text of a bill, which is then passed by the legislature.
Inviting legislators to social occasions, such as cocktail parties, boating expeditions, and other events, including conferences at exotic locations. Most lobbyists believe that meeting legislators in a social setting is effective.
Providing political information to legislators and other government officials. Sometimes, the lobbyists have better information than the party leadership about how other legislators are going to vote. When this is so, the political information they furnish may be a key to legislative success.
Suggesting nominations for federal appointments to the executive branch.
The Ratings Game. Many interest groups attempt to influence the overall behavior of legislators through their rating systems. Each year, these interest groups identify the legislation that they consider most important to their goals and then monitor how legislators vote on it. Legislators receive scores based on their votes. The usual scheme ranges from 0 to 100 percent. In the ratings scheme of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, for example, a rating of 100 means that a member of Congress voted with the group on every issue and is, by that measure, very liberal.
Ratings are a shorthand way of describing members' voting records for interested citizens. They can also be used to embarrass members. For example, an environmental group identifies the twelve representatives who the group believes have the worst voting records on environmental issues and labels them "the Dirty Dozen," and a watchdog group describes those representatives who took home the most "pork" for their districts or states as the biggest "pigs."
Building Alliances. Another direct technique used by interest groups is to form a coalition with other groups concerned about the same legislation. Often, these groups will set up a paper organization with an innocuous name to represent their joint concerns. In the early 1990s, for example, environmental, labor, and consumer groups formed an alliance called the Citizens Trade Campaign to oppose the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Members of such a coalition share expenses and multiply the influence of their individual groups by combining their efforts. Other advantages of forming a coalition are that it blurs the specific interests of the individual groups involved and makes it appear that larger public interests are at stake. These alliances also are efficient devices for keeping like-minded groups from duplicating one another's lobbying efforts.
Campaign Assistance. Interest groups have additional strategies to use in their attempts to influence government policies. Groups recognize that the greatest concern of legislators is to be reelected, so they focus on the legislators' campaign needs. Associations with large memberships, such as labor unions, are able to provide workers for political campaigns, including precinct workers to get out the vote, volunteers to put up posters and pass out literature, and people to staff telephone banks at campaign headquarters.
Candidates vie for the groups' endorsements in a campaign. Gaining those endorsements may be automatic, or it may require that the candidates participate in debates or interviews with the interest groups. An interest group usually publicizes its choices in its membership publication, and the candidate can use the endorsement in her or his campaign literature. Traditionally, labor unions have endorsed Democratic Party candidates. Republican candidates, however, often try to persuade union locals at least to refrain from any endorsement. Making no endorsement can then be perceived as disapproval of the Democratic Party candidate.
Citizens United v. FEC. In 2010, the United States Supreme Court shook up the campaign-finance system when it issued its opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. The Court ruled that corporations (and implicitly, unions) may spend freely to support or oppose political candidates, so long as they do not contribute directly to candidate campaigns. The new freedom to make "independent expenditures" eases decade-old limits on corporate participation in federal elections. The Court held that the independent expenditures were a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The Court's decision was criticized by President Obama and many others. Some critics argued that the Court was granting to corporations rights that should only be given to flesh-and-blood humans.
Indirect Techniques
Interest groups can also try to influence government policy by working through others, who may be constituents or the general public. Indirect techniques mask an interest group's own activities and make the effort appear to be spontaneous. Furthermore, legislators and government officials are often more impressed by contacts from constituents than from an interest group's lobbyist.
Generating Public Pressure. In some instances, interest groups try to produce a "groundswell" of public pressure to influence the government. Such efforts may include advertisements in national magazines and newspapers, mass mailings, television publicity, and demonstrations. The Internet, social media and satellite links make communication efforts even more effective. Interest groups may commission polls to find out what the public's sentiments are and then publicize the results. The intent of this activity is to convince policymakers that public opinion supports the group's position.
Some corporations and interest groups also engage in a practice that might be called climate control. With this strategy, public relations efforts are aimed at improving the public image of the industry or group and are not necessarily related to any specific political issue. Contributions by corporations and groups in support of public television programs, sponsorship of special events, and commercials extolling the virtues of corporate research are some ways of achieving climate control. For example, to improve its image in the wake of litigation against tobacco companies, Philip Morris began advertising its assistance to community agencies, including halfway houses for teen offenders and shelters for battered women. By building a reservoir of favorable public opinion, groups believe that their legislative goals will be less likely to encounter opposition from the public.
Using Constituents as Lobbyists. An interest group may also use constituents of elected officials to lobby for the group's goals. In the "shotgun" approach, the interest group tries to mobilize large numbers of constituents to write, phone, or send e-mails and tweets to their legislators or to the president. Often, the group provides postcards or form letters for constituents to fill out and mail. These efforts are effective on Capitol Hill only when the number of responses is very large, however, because legislators know that the voters did not initiate the communications on their own. Artificially manufactured grassroots activity has been aptly labeled astroturf lobbying.
A more powerful variation of this technique uses only important constituents. With this approach, known as the "rifle" technique or the "Utah plant manager theory," the interest group might, for example, ask the manager of a local plant in Utah to contact the senator from Utah. Because the constituent is seen as responsible for many jobs or other resources, the legislator is more likely to listen carefully to the constituent's concerns about legislation than to a paid lobbyist.
Unconventional Forms of Pressure. Sometimes, interest groups may employ forms of pressure that are outside the ordinary political process. These can include marches, rallies, or demonstrations. Such assemblies, as long as they are peaceful, are protected by the First Amendment. The 1963 March on Washington in support of civil rights was one of the most effective demonstrations ever organized. The women's suffrage movement of the early 1900s also employed marches and demonstrations to great effect. Also effective were the civil disobedience techniques of the African American civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.
Demonstrations, however, are not always peaceable. Violent demonstrations have a long history in America, dating back to the antitax Boston Tea Party. The Vietnam War (1965-1975) provoked a large number of demonstrations, some of which were violent. Violent demonstrations can be counterproductive - instead of putting pressure on the authorities, they may simply alienate the public. For example, historians continue to debate whether the demonstrations against the Vietnam War were effective or counterproductive.
Another unconventional form of pressure is the boycott - a refusal to buy a particular product or deal with a particular business. To be effective, boycotts must command widespread support. One example was the African American boycott of buses in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. Another was the boycott of California grapes that were picked by nonunion workers, as part of a campaign to organize Mexican American farmworkers. The first grape boycott lasted from 1965 to 1970. A series of later boycotts was less effective.
REGULATING LOBBYISTS
Congress made its first attempt to control lobbyists and lobbying activities through Title III of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, otherwise known as the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. The law actually provided for public disclosure more than for regulation, and it neglected to specify which agency would enforce its provisions. The 1946 legislation defined a lobbyist as any person or organization that received funds to be used principally to influence legislation before Congress. Such persons and organizations were supposed to "register" their clients and the purposes of their efforts and to report quarterly on their activities.
The legislation was tested in a 1954 Supreme Court case, United States v. Harriss, and was found to be constitutional. The Court agreed that the lobbying law did not violate due process, freedom of speech or of the press, or the freedom to petition. The Court narrowly construed the act, however, holding that it applied only to lobbyists who were influencing federal legislation directly.
The Results of the 1946 Act
The immediate result of the act was that a minimal number of individuals registered as lobbyists. National interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association and the American Petroleum Institute, could employ hundreds of staff members who were, of course, working on legislation but register only one or two lobbyists who were engaged principally in influencing Congress. There were no reporting requirements for lobbying in the executive branch, federal agencies, the courts, or congressional staff. Approximately seven thousand individuals and organizations registered annually as lobbyists, although most experts estimated that ten times that number were actually employed in Washington to exert influence on the government.
The Reforms of 1995
The reform-minded Congress of 1995-1996 overhauled the lobbying legislation, fundamentally changing the ground rules for those who seek to influence the federal government. The Lobbying Disclosure Act, passed in 1995, included the following provisions:
A lobbyist is defined as anyone who spends at least 20 percent of his or her time lobbying members of Congress, their staffs, or executive-branch officials.
Lobbyists must register with the clerk of the House and the secretary of the Senate within forty-five days of being hired or of making their first contacts. The registration requirement applies to organizations that spend more than $20,000 or to individuals who are paid more than $5,000 semiannually for lobbying work. These figures have since been raised to $24,500 and $6,000, respectively.
Semiannual reports must disclose the general nature of the lobbying effort, the name of the client, specific issues and bill numbers, the estimated cost of the campaign, and a list of the branches of government contacted. The names of the individuals contacted need not be reported.
Representatives of U.S.-owned subsidiaries of foreign-owned firms and lawyers who represent foreign entities also are required to register.
The requirements exempt "grassroots" lobbying efforts and those of tax-exempt organizations, such as religious groups.
Also in 1995, both the House and the Senate adopted new rules on gifts and travel expenses provided by lobbyists. The House adopted a flat ban on gifts, while the Senate established limits - senators were prohibited from accepting any gift with a value of more than $50 and from accepting gifts worth more than $100 from a single source in a given year. There are exceptions for gifts from family members and for home-state products and souvenirs, such as T-shirts and coffee mugs. Both chambers banned all-expenses-paid trips, golf outings, and other such junkets. An exception applies for "widely attended" events, however, or if the member is a primary speaker at an event. These gift rules stopped the broad practice of taking members of Congress to lunch or dinner at high-priced restaurants, but the various exemptions and exceptions have allowed much gift giving to continue.
Lobbying Scandals and the Reforms of 2007
The regulation of lobbying resurfaced as an issue in 2005 after a number of scandals. When the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, one of their initial undertakings was ethics and lobbying reform. In the first one hundred hours of the session, the House tightened its rules on gifts and on travel funded by lobbyists. The Senate followed shortly thereafter.
In September 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Under the new law, lobbyists must report quarterly, and the registration threshold is $10,000 in spending per quarter. Organizations must report coalition activities if they contribute more than $5,000 to a coalition. The House and the Senate must now post lobbying information in a searchable file on the Internet. In a significant alteration to legislative practices, "earmarked" expenditures, commonly called "pork," must now be identified and made public. This last change may not have immediately had its intended effect of reducing earmarks, however. Many legislators are actually proud of their pork and happy to tell the folks back home all about it. In 2011, the Republican majority in the House banned earmarks that benefit a particular business, but this rule tended to drive pork underground rather than eliminating it completely.
Recent Developments
During his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama claimed that there would be no former lobbyists in his administration. He later amended that statement to say that former lobbyists could not work in areas where they had recently lobbied. Upon election, Obama made a considerable show of denying lobbyists access to administration officials. Many Washington insiders considered Obama's positions absurd and predicted that he would not be able to adhere to them. The insiders were correct: Obama was soon issuing countless waivers that allowed former lobbyists to serve in official posts.
During the 2012 presidential election campaign, both Obama and Republican Mitt Romney denounced the Washington lobbying culture. Both candidates remained vague, however, as to what, if anything, they would do about lobbyists.
INTEREST GROUPS AND REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
The role played by interest groups in shaping national policy has caused many to question whether we really have a democracy at all. Most interest groups have a middle-class or upper-class bias. Members of interest groups can afford to pay the membership fees, are generally fairly well educated, and normally participate in the political process to a greater extent than the "average" American.
Furthermore, leaders of interest groups tend to constitute an "elite within an elite" in the sense that they usually are from a higher social class than other group members. The most powerful interest groups - those with the most resources and political influence - are primarily business, trade, and professional groups. In contrast, public-interest groups and civil rights groups make up only a small percentage of the interest groups lobbying Congress.
Interest Groups: Elitist or Pluralist?
The elite theory presumes that most Americans are uninterested in politics and are willing to let a small, elite group of citizens make decisions for them. Pluralist theory, in contrast, views politics as a struggle among various interest groups to gain benefits for their members. The pluralist approach views compromise among various competing interests as the essence of political decision making. In reality, neither theory fully describes American politics. If interest groups led by elite, upper-class individuals are the dominant voices in Congress, then what we see is a conflict among elite groups - which would lend as much support to the elitist theory as to the pluralist approach.
Interest Group Influence
The results of lobbying efforts - congressional bills - do not always favor the interests of the most powerful groups, however. In part, this is because not all interest groups have an equal influence on government. Each group has a different combination of resources to use in the policymaking process. While some groups are composed of members who have high social status and significant economic resources, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, other groups derive influence from their large memberships. AARP, for example, has more members than any other interest group. Its large membership allows it to wield significant power over legislators. Still other groups, such as environmentalists, have causes that can claim strong public support even from people who have no direct stake in the issue. Groups such as the National Rifle Association are well organized and have highly motivated members. This enables them to channel a stream of letters, e-mails, and tweets toward Congress with a few days' effort.
Even the most powerful interest groups do not always succeed in their demands. Whereas the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may be accepted as having a justified interest in the question of business taxes, many legislators might feel that the group should not engage in the debate over the future of Social Security. In other words, groups are seen as having a legitimate concern in the issues closest to their interests but not necessarily in broader issues. This may explain why some of the most successful groups are those that focus on the very specific issues - such as tobacco farming, funding of abortions, and handgun control - and do not get involved in larger conflicts.
Complicating the question of interest group influence is the fact that many groups' lobbyists are former colleagues, friends, or family members of current members of Congress.
DID YOU KNOW?
~At least half of all lobbyists in Washington, D.C., are women.
~The activities of interest groups at the state level have been growing faster than those in the nation's capital, with more than 47,000 registered state lobbyists in 2012.
~The names of many interest groups suggest goals opposite from the organization's true objectives - for example, the Palm Oil Truth Foundation does not seek to expose the dangers of palm oil use, but to expand the use of palm oil in food and oppose action against global warming.
~Federal lobbying expenditures in the United States exceed the gross domestic product (GDP) of fifty-nine countries.
~Lobbyists have their own lobbying organization, the American League of Lobbyists.
~Washington's lobbying industry employs more than four times as many people today as it employed in the mid-1960s.
~On average, there are now sixty lobbyists for each member of Congress.