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.

The Powers of Congress and Prestige

The Powers of Congress

'Concurrent powers' refer to powers which both the Senate and House possess. 'Exclusive Powers' are powers which are only available to one of the houses. All of the powers of Congress are located in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

• EXCLUSIVE HOUSE POWERS: The House can initiate bills. The House can begin the impeachment process (formally accuse) of any member of the executive and judicial branches of the federal government. It’s been used 19 times in total – most recent in 2010 on federal judge Thomas Porteous. If the Electoral College is deadlocked, the House can elect a President. But its rarely used, only been done in 1800 and 1824 before
• EXCLUSIVE SENATE POWERS: Seen as being more prestigious than the House. Senate alone has the power to confirm appointments made by the President by a simple majority. These appointments include those to the executive branch, federal judges, FBI, CIA director, etc. In 2013 after Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stepped down the Senate approved the appointment of John Kerry by 94-3. Senate ratifies treaties by a two-thirds majority (Senate thus needs to be fully informed about the treaty). In 2010 the Senate voted 71-26 to ratify the START treaty. Next, once impeached, the Senate carried out the trial to determine whether they’re guilty. Two-thirds majority required to remove someone from office. If Senate is deadlocked, they elect the Vice President
• CONCURRENT POWERS: Five in total. First, they are co-equal in the passage of legislation. Second, both must vote (2/3 majority) to override a presidential veto of a bill. None of Obama’s bills have been overridden thus far, but 3 of Bush’s have (Bush’s veto on the Water Resources Development Bill in 2007). Third, House is co-equal in the initiation of constitutional amendments – must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses before it’s ratified by states. Fourth, both Houses must vote to go to war – last time they did this was in 1941 on Japan. Iraq in 2003 does not count. Finally, both have the power (as of the 25^th amendment in 1967) to confirm the appointment of a new vice-president (last done in 1974 on Nelson Rockefeller)

Which is more prestigious?

• House members represent just a congressional district whereas Senators represent an entire state. E.g. Representative Paul Ryan represents Wisconsin’s 1^st District whereas Senator Susan Collins represents the state of Maine, this gives Senators more leverage over the House as Senators will focus on larger issues concerning the entire state whereas House Representatives will be concerned with locally based issues.
• Senators have got 6-year terms but House members only have a 2-year term > however, the House seems to have more incumbents (incumbency advantage), cancelling out the length of term advantage factor. But, it can be debated that Senators have more time to make a change while in office.  Their arguable longer term length means they get to experience more in the political world – more of the action
• The Senate is smaller (100) and so, a leadership position is easier to establish and is seen as a launching pad for presidential campaigns. The majority of past Presidents were Senators (odd few were Governors). And thus, Senate is also a recruitment pool for Vice Presidents – e.g. Joe Biden, Democrats have nominated a senator (or former) as their VP in every election since 1944 (aside from 1984) – 15/16 elections. The very fact that the Senate has produced so many U.S President's emphasises it's prestigious nature
• Senators enjoy exclusive (so do House members) but when it comes to the passage of legislation they’re both equal. 
• Both receive the same salary – in January 2012 it was $174,000. Members of the House could have received an increase of 2.8% but they were denied in 2010, 2011 and 2012
• Recently you can argue, more power has fallen into the House in the last 4 years as demonstrated by their obstructionist nature

Pressure Group Influence

How and why do pressure groups influence the  Judiciary?

These questions will be 15 markers FOUR PARAGRAPHS for 15 markers.

How	Why	Evaluation
Influencing appointments	Pressure groups often allocate a mass amount of funding on media campaigns and advisement; some pressure groups go further to scrutinising potential candidates and providing this information to senators. This is likely to be either in favour or against the appointment of a Supreme Court member. Through doing so pressure groups increase the chance of changing the political swing in the courts towards their side. Influencing the courts is important as pressure groups can make long term constitutional changes. Alliance for Justice campaigned for Elena Kagan as of mutual left wing ideologies.	This is not always successful. Power still lies within the Senate who have the final decision on appointments. Appointed members are therefore likely to reflect the senate rather than pressure groups. Clarence Thomas was opposed by the NAAPC but still succeeded.
Amicus Briefs	Pressure groups provide assistance in cases whether this is through evidence or knowledge. These aim to understand the views of people and groups beyond those directly involved in the case. Through doing so pressure groups can input their political opinion on key cases that affect their cause and shaping the political climate. American Civil Liberties on civil rights and abortion.	This is highly criticised as it may provide groups with the opportunity to have greater influence on constitutional amendments but some are argued to be poorly drafted me unreliable.
Legal Journals	Cases often request legal journals as evidence and for a greater understanding of cases. These help shape the climate of a case as they are read by both lawyers and judges. National Education Association on Stewart V. National Education Association.	The number of legal journals has not reflected their success rate. There has been an increase of over 200% but not all have been influential.
Test Cases	Pressure groups have the chance to impact the constitution at the highest standards of legal assistance. Groups often bring issues which they feel are in need of reform. With the necessary resources pressure groups can effectively determine the nature of a case. NAACP on Civil Rights and HRCF on DOMA.

How and why do pressure groups influence Congress?

How	Why	Evaluation
Electioneering and Endorsement	Pressure groups are likely to support or oppose a candidate based on the candidate’s position on then policy areas of concern. These views can then be reflected in the formulation of policies. This is achieved through funding candidate’s positive advertisements and the costs of their campaign through Super PACs. Mass spending often reflects the performance of a candidate. Prioritise USA Action over $900 million for Obama's presidential campaign which led to his success.	Presence of finance have allowed the influence of pressure groups within the political system as the founding fathers wished for and made elections more competitive as candidates have the resources available to fight an election. However, they increase the dependency and proximity of donors and have reduced the likelihood of minor party success as the fail to keep up with the rising costs.
Lobbying	Pressure groups act as a source of information on current issues to legislators. Lobbying is the most effective method as interests groups are able to express their opinions which may shape the eventual outcome of policy formulation. Within the Senate this may also involve influencing any appointments. American Association of Retired Persons has had a mass amount of influence on health care reforms. Lobbyists play a significant part in US politics as of their K-Street. The influence of business and energy lobbyist has been the reason for the Kyoto Protocol never being signed.	Lobbyists have become a significant and an encouragement of pluralism as it is an effective access point. However, other than biased information it encourage’s elitism. The largest and wealthiest pressure groups are the most significant lobbyist which means formulated policies revolve around their interests. General Electric Co. spent more than $94 Million solely on lobbying.
Publicity	Pressure groups regularly hold campaigns to educate the public on issues. This is achieved through meetings to advertisements. If enough attention is gathered these can often sway public perception and eventually trigger a policy change or possibly a reform. Through the use of the media this has become and inexpensive method widely used by modern pressure groups. National Education Association of the United States against the Dream Act and the Gang of 8 Bill.	No distinguishing of what is good or bad publicity and whether it's for the interest of the people or the wealth or its members. Publicity also encourages partisanship as it highlights the issues faced in America on both sides. This has been a major contributor to wedge politics on many issues.
Organising Grassroots Activities	These vary from campaigns to demonstration which aims to first educate the public on their issue and gain political support and aimed at the legislators and policy-makers as post has become a less notable way NAACP on the Ferguson verdict.	Some groups go further to tarnish someone's career or resort to violent protests to gain attention. This was the result of the Ferguson verdict protest (A prolonged riot).

Why do pressure groups seek to influence the Senate?

Congressional Committees

Almost half of the congressional committees spending are allocated to the Senate. This therefore makes lobbying in the senate significant as they are able to influence the decisions of committees; through doing so pressure groups can potentially influence the whole of congress.

Ratifies Treaties

The constitution gives the power for the Senate to ratify presidential treaties. Although this is a check on the president, it is also an opportunity for pressure groups to encourage the acceptance or rejection of a presidential treaty. Through influencing treaties pressure groups can indirectly impact the presidential agenda and have a long term impact on the USA’s international involvement. This has been most significant under environmental treaties like the Kyoto Protocol which the President never signed because the Lobbyist in the Senate would prevent this from being accepted.

Ratification of Presidential Nominations

This is another power held by the Senate to check the power of the President but has been used by pressure groups to influence the Presidential Agenda and even the makeup of the Supreme Court. Through campaigning on behalf or against a presidential nomination in the Senate pressure groups are able to indirectly impact the makeup of the executives department and the political swing of the Supreme Court.

Filibuster

This is a significant power held by the Senate as it does not require a majority’s support. Single Senators are able to delay the performance of the Senate to have greater influence on policy outcomes. This also allows minorities to influence large scale political change.

Which factors give pressure groups significance in the US?

Fragmented Political System

As of three branches of government pressure groups have multiple numbers of access points. Pressure groups then use their different methods of lobbying, electioneering, grassroots activities and publicity in each branch and in turn. There different ways pressure groups can influence a change in policy.

Dependency on Elections

Campaign finance reforms have limited the candidate’s abilities in elections which has increase the dependency on pressure groups that provide an alternative to the system. The existence of Super PACs has allowed elections to become more expensive and effectively more competitive. Although the democratic impact of this has been questionable, pressure groups have been able to increase their influence and the support of candidates at the expense of other group’s success.

Transparency of Government and Accessibility of Politicians

The arrangements of the political system has made it easier to scrutinise the actions of government and made it easier to lobby and develop a relationship with representatives or members of government. The existence of Iron Triangles and Revolving Door Syndrome has derived from this.

Initiatives

The existence of initiatives has reduced the need for congress to make change. Pressure groups can bypass the government and actively make change themselves. Initiatives have been most significant in recent years as the power of the executive has been increasingly challenged by a divided congress that is both uncooperative and unproductive. With the influence of pressure groups, states have been able to pass legislations that would have potentially never been passed by a Republican congress like minimum wage increases.

How do pressure groups influence at state level?

State initiatives

Pressure groups have a golden opportunity to make a difference on state level without the need of congress.

-    2014 Marijuana initiatives (Alaska, Florida, Oregon & Washington D.C) and Minimum wage increases (Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois & South Dakota)

-    Successful campaigns can swing initiative outcomes in their favour

Recall Representatives

This is an effective way for the public to ensure that representation and accountability is retained within the USA’s political system with the help of pressure groups. However, a function present but only successful with a majority influence.

Lobbying

This includes lobbying Governors and Legislatures to impact the State government legislations. Lobbying has become an increasingly significant method.