Pressure group 15 markers

Explain the factors that give pressure groups a significant role in US politics

Supreme Court rulings in the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org cases paved the way for the formation of Super PACs, meaning that overall, campaign finance has ultimately failed. Super PACs allow for an unlimited flow of money to candidates and its no wonder why the 2014 midterms has gone down in U.S history as being the most expensive, raising a total of around $3.7 billion. Alternatives to Super PACs are 501 (c)4’s and 501 (c)6’s which also allow for an unlimited flow of money but also, unlike Super PACs, keep the identities of the donors a secret. The failure of campaign finance reform has been exploited by pressure groups for them to effectively ‘buy’ Congress as Philip Stern illustrates in ‘The Best Congress Money Can Buy’ and allowed them to buy influence.

In recent years Congress has become increasingly polarised with the 113^th Congress now known as being the most polarised and this means that the story of the last few years has been one of continuous gridlock as seen from the shutdown in 2013. As a result, parties are failing to function and Congress has become dysfunctional, further reinforcing the argument that the ‘party is over’, as a result interest groups have had to step in and get involved in the decision making process which has been helped by their he membership and funds. Earlier this year we saw AIPAC becoming increasingly active after the nuclear talks between Iran, America and a range of other countries resumed. AIPAC also held a conference in the wake of these talks in which key figures from the Obama administration such as Susan Rice were present.

Civil liberties and rights is a hot topic in US politics, leading to wedge politics which pressure groups get involved in a lot through their massive campaigns and finance. For instance, during the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell several pressure groups in support of gay marriage lobbied for its repeal, such as the Human Rights Campaign Foundation which, along with other interest groups, spent over one million on lobbying in 2010. In the aftermath of the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York and Freddie Gray in Baltimore the Black Lives Matter campaign was revived. So, wedge politics leads to pressure groups playing a significant role.

Finally, the fragmented nature of the US political system provides pressure groups with a number of access points to play a significant role in US politics. Most notable of the access points is probably through lobbying. Interest groups employ professional lobbyists to get across their views to lawmakers in Congress and the persistent use of lobbying has created a ‘culture of corruption’ in Washington as lobbyists are allowed to sit on over 1,000 federal advisory boards, which play a role in formulating policy, therefore giving pressure groups a say on policy. With regards to lobbying, the revolving door syndrome can occur whereby a former member of Congress leaves Congress and immediately joins a lobbying firm, using their expertise and contacts from within Congress they work in the interests of pressure groups. Charles Bass, for instance, left Congress in 2013 and is currently employed at a lobbying firm, Greenberg and Taurig, located on K Street. Other access points come at state level in the form of initiatives and propositions.

How and why do pressure groups seek to influence the judiciary?

During the judicial appointment process pressure group activity will always go up. For instance, when Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by President Obama in 2009 pressure groups sought to influence her confirmation by taking to internet advertising. Liberal pressure groups were in full support of her, saying her background and experience will be beneficial to the court while conservative pressure groups used the slogan “America deserves better” and made claims that she was an inexperienced judge. They seek to influence the judiciary in this case because if they can successfully influence a judicial appointment the pressure group has long-term gains as judges are granted life tenure and are therefore have a long time to enact change. A liberal pressure group will want to influence the appointment of a liberal because a liberal justice is more likely to rule left-wing during supreme court cases, which benefits the liberal pressure group.

Pressure groups influence the judiciary through the submission of amicus briefs (literally meaning ‘friends of the court’). This is done to provide the Supreme Court with information arguing for a specific cause as it helps judges to understand the views of people and groups beyond those directly involved in the Supreme Court. It enables the interest group to have their say and thus, allows for the Supreme Court to understand how a specific court ruling will affect peoples lives. During the on-going Obergefell v. Hodges case on gay marriage, Equality Federation submitted brief amici curiae to the Supreme Court this year, Protect Marriage, a conservative interest group, also submitted recent amici curiae to the court, probably arguing that gay marriage is not a constitutional right.

Moreover, pressure groups are able to bring test cases forward to the Supreme Court and therefore influence interpretations of the US constitution as the Supreme Court is granted the power of judicial review. For instance, the conservative group, Citizens United brought forward a case against the Federal Elections Commission which led to the landmark ruling that it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment to cap the amount of funds someone is able to donate. Pressure groups seek to influence the Supreme Court through test cases because the court has the power of judicial review to interpret the constitution, which interest groups can fight a case which leads to a new interpretation or striking down a law.

Finally, interest groups often try to cause as much hysteria in the media as possible during an on-going Supreme Court case. During a court ruling there is bound to be interest groups demonstrating or protesting outside the Supreme Court in Washington, and similar to amicus briefs, this also allows for the court to gain an idea of the different opinions on the court cases and how it will affect people. Interest groups turn to campaigning and influencing the Supreme Court to make major decisions on policy because Congress n recent years has proved ineffective in doing their job.

How and why do pressure groups seek to influence the Senate?

The Senate has the power to confirm all appointments made by the President to some key roles in the Executive Office of the President, Cabinet departments, the federal bureaucracy and Supreme Court and pressure groups will often seek to influence these appointments. Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 2009 witnessed a lot of attention from pressure groups, liberal ones arguing that she was a fair and experienced judge who’s background will be beneficial to the court while conservative groups fought back saying “America deserves better”. If a pressure group successfully influences the Senate to confirm appointments to the Supreme Court, for example, the pressure group makes long term gains given the fact judges have life tenure and therefore, a long time to enact change which can benefit a particular pressure group.

The most obvious power of the Senate is to pass legislation. Interest groups will always want to influence the passage of laws, which benefit their own interests. For instance, in 2010 when Congress were debating the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, liberal pressure groups stepped in and there was a surge in lobbying with groups like American Civil Liberties Union spending over one million on lobbying for the laws repeal. In this situation liberal pressure groups such as ACLU sought to influence the Senate because the repeal would benefit the interest group by expanding gay rights (being able to serve openly in the US military).

Another power of the Senate is to block or veto legislation, similar idea to the above argument, interest groups would want to influence the Senate to block or veto legislation which goes against their views. For instance, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, a bipartisan bill appeared in Congress, the Manchin-Toomey bill which sought to introduce tougher controls on gun and tougher background checks, thereby limiting the second amendment. As expected, conservative groups like the National Rifle Association were immediately on the scene, lobbying, launching demonstrations and turning to grassroots activism to influence the Senate to block the legislation – which it did eventually.

As an exclusive power, the Senate can ratify treaties by a 2/3 majority. This is an important power, which is important for pressure groups that focus on America’s foreign relations, such as AIPAC. The START Treaty negotiations in 2009 was a treaty between the US and Russia whereby both sides agreed to reduce its nuclear warheads to 1,550 and was eventually signed in 2010. During it’s negotiations there was a surge in activity from interest groups, especially Jewish ones like AIPAC. It was believed at the time that signing the treaty would discourage Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions and therefore many Jewish pressure groups got involved, lobbying for the Senate to ratify it. Anti Defamation League (ADL) sent letters to Senators expressing concern for the failure of the treaties ratification and he American Council for World Jewry endorsed Obama’s call for ratification (important note: AIPAC did not get involved).

TO BE UPDATED WITH MORE ANSWERS...