Pluralism v. Elitism

To what extent do pressure groups disperse power?

First, we have to look at the Elitism v. Pluralism arguments.

Pluralist perspective

• Power ought to be dispersed so no one group dominates the political arena
• As long as there are various groups with conflicting views, political dominance will not occur because they cancel each other out
• Pressure groups existence proves the existence of a pluralist democracy which is what the Founding Fathers had wanted
• As long as one group doesn’t win all the time, there will inevitably be winners and losers in a freewheeling market – pressure groups operate like a market, there are always going to be different winners and losers over time as attitudes and beliefs in society change
• Recent wins by minorities prove that a pluralist democracy does exist: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Shelby County v. Holder
• The Salisbury argument – the explosion in the number of pressure groups results in them facing competing interests and leading each other to a standstill resulting in them having far less real influence than their prominence suggests
• The Centrist supporters believe pressure groups enhance US democracy as they propose innovative policies, provide expertise, mobilise citizens who may not be aware of decisions affecting them and drive the political agenda when parties have lacked a coherent set of policies (Occupy movement). Centrist are willing to accept that pressure groups do not operate on a level playing field and that it has been necessary to regulate the competition between groups to ensure equality of opportunity (thru FECA and BCRA)

Elitist perspective

• Schattschneider argues that the wide range of opportunities can only be accessed by pressure groups with a large membership, the most effective lobbyists and best lawyers
• Less wealthy minorities tend to lack organisation, political connections and voting power to make themselves heard in the corridors of power
• US political system has an inbuilt bias to those who seem to resist change – advantage to those who benefit from the system
• Pressure groups display a damaging role in the political system and society – the groups advancing the interests of the elite, wealthiest and most influential in society, they are likely to use their position to strengthen their advantages at the expense of the rest of the population
• Advocates of the elite theory illustrate their argument using sport. Sporting minnows (small, insignificant organisations) may cause upset by defeating well-resourced groups. Over a season, the resourced group will inevitably prosper. The periodic success of political underdogs is seen as exceptional examples of the underdog winning. However, this is neither typical nor representative of the relationship between society’s dominant and marginal groups
• The majority of access points are inaccessible to groups that lack resources; The Best Congress Money Can Buy – Philip Stern demonstrates members of Congress who are heavily reliant on specific industries for campaign funds
• K Street Project – How the wealthy and well-connected shape the policy agenda to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire top positions in return to access points (revolving door syndrome occurs here)
• Iron triangle by default are elitist in nature as they exclude other pressure groups and minor ones are unlikely to have enough influence or power to form an 'iron triangle'

Here are two different essay plans/structures for this question:

Power is concentrated	Power is dispersed
Elitists Succeed. Pressure groups with the largest memberships and considerable wealth often have an advantage which leads to their reparative success.  This has been demonstrated in the changing legislation. The largest groups like the NRA and Human Rights Campaign dominate the political system.	Competing Elitist. Robert Salisbury argued that despite minority groups not succeeding the dispersion of power still exists as competition exists amongst a few of the best. No group will always succeed as they always have a worthy competitor which shows democracy in action.
Access Points. Elitists often argue that access points exist but are only available to the largest pressure groups with the most wealth. The constitution allows pluralism to flourish but for elitists to also dominate the system. Revolving doors and Iron Triangles. Fossil Fuels Lobby considered one of the most influential pressure groups in the USA as of their large membership and financial support from big energy companies.	Alternating winners and losers. Pluralists believe that pressure groups that are best suited for the legal climate can succeed. Pressure groups who actively seek change through exploiting the fullness of their potential will succeed. It’s a matter of trying.
The political system is easily manipulated. The constitution was established with the intention of groups forming who could access government. As regulations are considered an infringement on their rights there are virtually no effective regulations.	The absence of regulations allows democracy to grow. The supreme court has also repeatedly shown its support in the unregulated state of pressure groups through cases like speechnow.org.
Wedge politics. Pressure groups perpetuate divisions in society which in turn leads to unresolvable issues and in extreme cases protests. Most significantly; Abortion, Gay Marriage etc.	Pressure groups only encourage political engagement to rise which in turn connotes a dispersion of power if the public is politically active.
Political system favours no change. Pressure groups that resist a change in the operation of government are more likely to succeed which limits the ability of those who wish for political change.

OR:

Concentrate power	Disperse power
As Schattschneider argues, the several opportunities to influence policy can only be properly accessed by interest groups who have the most effective lobbyists, a large membership and the best lawyers such as the NAACP for example who have a history of having powerful lawyers. Only those with the highest membership, best lobbyists and lawyers will succeed.	However, this isn’t true. Power is indeed dispersed as seen from the fact interest groups who don’t have large membership or even the best lobbyists have made gains in the Supreme Court: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), the court enforced a ban on race/sex based discrimination on public university admissions
The Iron Triangle effectively demonstrates how power is concentrated. The iron triangle describes a cosy relationship between a pressure group, a government department and a congressional committee. This relationship guarantees policy outcomes to the benefit of all three parties involved. ‘Veterans iron triangle’ – Vietnam Veterans of American (pressure group) > Veterans’ Affair committees in the House and Senate > Department of Veterans Affairs. This is elitist because it constitutes almost it’s own sub-government in which other interest groups are left out.	There are several iron triangles which can be formed, each to it’s own pressure group in fact. Even if a pressure group does fail at getting involved in an iron triangle there are several other access points to gain power from and influence policy such as from Supreme Court cases
The K Street Project itself is an example of how power is concentrated into the hands of a small minority of wealthy elites. Revolving door syndrome occurs here. After a 1 year cool down period after leaving Congress, former Congressmen have the tendency to join lobbying firms. E.g. Charles Bass (R) left in 2013 and joined Greenberg and Taurig lobbying firm on K Street. Only wealthy pressure groups can pay for lobbyists to provide information for Congressmen and thus advance their interests. Less wealthy pressure groups can’t afford to pay for lobbyists and thus, can’t make progress.	However, there are other access points available to pressure groups if they can’t get involved in the K Street project. Also, the K Street Project will evolve as time goes on and eventually there will be different winners and losers. It won’t always be the same pressure group that wins or benefits, as society evolves along with views and beliefs, so will the different winners and losers. Pressure groups operate like a free willing market. The K Street Project is not suitable for every pressure groups, some may prefer more direct action in the form of protesting rather than lobbying
It is the most influential and wealthiest pressure groups, which can “buy Congress” as Philip Stern demonstrates in his 1988 book: The Best Congress Money Can Buy. Only the wealthiest groups can influence Congress to act, for example, 2013 was the least productive legislative year in Congress history. The poor political systems can easily be exploited by wealthy pressure groups: filibustering the Dream Act in 2010.	However, pressure groups are consistently competing with one another and for every cause is an opposing pressure group. (e.g. NARAL Pro-Choice American vs. National Right to Life). These groups compete with one another to a point where none of them have the upper hand and neither of them win, thus dispersing power between the two.
The majority of successes come from influencing the judiciary, which can only be accessed by those interest groups with good financial resources, further examples of wealth being an important factor comes from initiatives. With regards to initiatives, wealthy pressure groups can pay for signatures and thus allowing them to have their issue put on the ballot at the expense of poorer groups that have to go through a lengthy and tiring process of getting signatures.	In the end, the pressure groups themselves are living proof that the US is a pluralist society. This is what the Founding Father’s wanted. All pressure groups are treated equally with regards to federal regulations, all have to abide by FECA and BCRA. All of them provide a crucial role to democracy in that they educate the public and allow for political participation. The fragmented nature of the US system creates various access points both at federal and state level, making it very probable that a pressure group will eventually find a sympathetic response somewhere in the system.