Are interest groups elitist or pluralist
"Power is concentrated in a select few pressure groups." Discuss.
This question can be worded in a million ways.
Pluralist Argument
|
Elitist argument
|
Supplement
for electoral systems. Rousseau
said
that a country is only “free during the election of members of Parliament” –
basically what he meant was that in between election time democracy does not
exist or flourish, thus pressure groups are supposed to step in and fill the
void. Elections only take place every few years, during which the elected
representatives may lose touch with their constituents and fall short of
their electoral promises – when this happens pressure groups can step in and
force the government to interact with civil society, bring up issues that
they may have ignored and get them to engage in it. So, pressure groups
ensure that democracy continues to flourish in between election time by
encouraging the government to actively engage in issues concerning various
groups in civil society.
EXAMPLE: Black Lives Matter + Planned
Parenthood.
|
Schattsschneider. This political theorist argues that it is the
pressure groups with the most wealth that get to influence government, the
smaller less wealthy pressure groups are unable to have influence because the
cannot afford things such as hosting mass campaigns, hiring professional
lobbyists from K Street. Therefore, power in society is only concentrated in
a small minority of elitist wealthy pressure groups. Philip Stern in
his book ‘The Best Congress Money Can Buy’ illustrates how wealthy pressure
groups effectively buy Congress and sway them.
EXAMPLE: For instance,
|
Allow
for transparency. Transparency is crucial to a democracy
because it ensures that there is openness of government doings and people are
aware that the government is not abusing them. Pressure groups allow for
transparency through a number of ways, they have played key roles in recent
years in exposing government agencies and congressional representatives, this
is important so that constituents for instance are aware of what their
representatives are up to and are working in accordance to their electoral
pledges.
EXAMPLE: League of Conservation Voters for 20
years they have published their list of the ‘Dirty Dozen’ congressional
representatives who have poor records on the environment and by this they
seek to expose them and hope to get them out of office in the next election.
Amnesty International played somewhat of a role in the CIA torture report,
helping the Senate Intelligence Committee, which exposed the CIA’s inhumane
treatment of terror suspects.
|
Social immobility/gridlock. The pressure groups may be blocking all bills and
slowing down or blocking desirable changes, thereby contributing to social
immobilization. This may even lead to the prevention of the government from
functioning properly as was seen in the government shutdown of 2013, which
was primarily caused by Ted Cruz but supported, by a small amount of pressure
group (Heritage Action and Tea Party Patriots). This shows that one or two
pressure groups can bring an entire government to a standstill suggesting
that power is actually not evenly distributed if one pressure group has the
ability to influence a 16-day government shutdown. This was something that
was opposed by the Democrats and even a vast majority of Republican pressure
groups yet it still managed to happen.
|
Protect
minority interests.
In democracy there is a general tyranny of the majority over votes, meaning
that the minority is usually ignored. Pressure groups occasionally adopt the
view of the minority groups that are ignored, effectively giving them a voice
and some influence over politics. Everyone has a voice in politics because of
this.
EXAMPLE: North Dakota Access Pipeline, threat to
minority Native Americans who live there. They have the support of
environmental groups, their situation has gained recognition across the
country even politicians like Bernie Sanders have turned up at the site to
show support.
|
Iron Triangles. These exist in US politics, they are simply
relationships between three different political actors, a pressure group, a
congressional committee and a bureaucratic department or agency. In an iron
triangle each side works together but as long as its interests are protected,
it is through iron triangles that policy is formulated. They’re called ‘iron’
for a reason because they’re impenetrable, other pressure groups with the
same exact interests will not be able to get involved in this special
relationship, thus leaving less influential pressure groups out of the
political scene and out of influence.
|
Salisbury
Argument. States
that there has been an explosion in the amount of interest groups since the
50s and that they face each other over competing interests and that there is
a constant shift in political power between the interest groups. One interest
group is not always the most influential and it changes over time. This is
generally seen through the NRA who occasionally have high points in gun
control protection but are occasionally lose. This means that everyone gets a
fair share of influence and there is general equality on the level of
influence held by the groups.
EXAMPLE: This is most evidently seen in Planned
Parenthood vs National Right to Life. Explains why abortion remains a state
issue and why there are still limits on it. Thus limiting advances made by
planned parenthood in the field of abortion.
|
Elitism in the structure of an interest group. Many pressure groups themselves may not
be representative of their members. Their officers are not usually elected.
Few groups have procedures for consulting their members. As a result the
members may not share the views expressed by group officials. This means that
within the interest group itself, few unelected people without consultation
of the membership make the decisions. This would suggest that the pressure
groups are elitist in its very own structure and the way they work.
|
Why is the US Political environment such a favourable environment for Pressure Groups? (or Explain the factors that give pressure groups such a significant role in US politics)
- Fragmented US political system → this means that the US political system has a wide range of access points available for pressure groups to exploit. For example, pressure groups can go ahead at national level and seek influence via the Supreme Court, Congress (e.g. AIPAC deployed lobbyists to a plethora of Congress politicians to push for action in Syria between 2013-14, and is still happening today). Pressure groups lacking resources to compete at national level → go for state level (state courts, legislatures, mayors, governors, etc)
- Weak Parties → US political parties are weak and unproductive, they are also bitterly divided → 2013 least productive legislative year, 2013 government shutdown, the GOP is divided especially on Trump: following Trump’s election a small number of GOP Senators have pledged to oppose Trump at all costs, such as Lindsay Graham (oppose him on the Mexican border), Ted Cruz (on Trump’s appointments), John McCain, Marco Rubio, etc. → people have become disillusioned with Washington Politics = they turn to pressure groups to put forward their interests + people potentially not interested in all politics of US and are only interested in 1 issue which pressure groups provide them with
- Campaign Finance Reform failure → US political parties, candidates at whatever level – national or state, heavily rely on pressure groups for their financing at election time. Elections in America are incredibly expensive, over $594 million raised by Super PACs during the 2016 presidential election. Money gives the impression that pressure groups are effectively buying their influence, Philip Stern even wrote a book about it entitled “The Best Money Congress Can Buy”
- Diverse Population → The US is one of the most diverse countries in the world, there are a range of different ethnic groups, cultures, etc across the country, for instance the Latino population stands now at 55 million and given how diverse the country is Congress arguably fails at representing this diverse country because there are over 440 white Congress people out of 535. So, therefore different pressure groups exist to protect and represent different ethnic groups: National Council of La Raza representing the Latinos.
Why has the impact of professional lobbyists on policy-making in the USA been controversial?
- The revolving door syndrome → Many congressmen enter the field of lobbying once they are no longer in office due to the fact that during their terms they have gained a lot of connections and experience. This is controversial because it leads to these incredibly experienced people becoming lobbyists and advancing pressure group power and influence, which further advances the view that PG’s dominate US politics instead of the elected US parties. → John Boehner employed by the third largest lobbying firm – Squire Patton Boggs, as the former House Speak he has A LOT of experience and connections, which pressure groups are going to use to their advantage no doubt.
- Promotion of an elitist society → Because lobbyists are incredibly expensive, this means that it is an exclusive method of influence that is only available to the few incredibly wealthy pressure groups. This would be a form of elitism as it is giving greater power and influence to the few who could actually afford it. → In total 3.2 billion was spent on lobbying in 2015 alone. The US Chamber of Commerce has spent the most money on lobbying so far in 2016 by spending a total of 79.5 million on lobbying alone. Many pressure groups do not have a budget anywhere near the size of this.
- May lead to corruption → The desire to become incredibly influential as a lobbyist may lead to using corrupt methods to actually progress their views or gives the view that they are corrupt. → it was widely suggested that corruption was at play when Mitch McConnell received 530,000 in donations from lobbying firms.
- Creates image of a bought Congress → the public image and knowledge of the works of lobbyists would reinforce the view of ‘the best Congress money can buy’. Jake Abramoff scandal. Philip J Stern
- Lobbying reform has failed → 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act meant that all lobbying information had to be disclosed and Congress people had to wait a year before becoming lobbyists - but this law is evaded regularly. Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Of the 352 people who left Congress alive since the law took effect in January 2008, 47% have joined the influence industry.
Why have the activities of Pressure Groups been criticised?
- Gridlock → Pressure groups are often blamed for gridlock in Congress, which leads to an unproductive legislature or creates an image of a ‘broken branch’. Congress can be viewed as this environment whereby, as a consequence of mass lobbying and excessive campaign money flowing through candidates, a load of pressure group interests are floating about and competing for influence, each pressure group has its own interest and they influence their own candidates in Congress and this leads to much disagreement among Congress. Example: 2013 government shutdown, although the work of the Tea Party, was also arguably influenced by mass protests, demonstrations, campaigns, etc launched by pressure groups opposing Obamacare such as Heritage Action USA
- Lobbying → lobbying is controversial because of the fact that it is incredibly expensive and is therefore only available to a few pressure groups that actually have the wealth to hire lobbyists from K Street. This has been criticised as a very elitist method of influence used by pressure groups. It also further reinforces the view of ‘the best Congress money can buy’ and many see politicians as corrupt because lobbyists are influencing Congress instead of the electorate. This gives a view of influence going to the highest bidder. The US Chamber of Commerce has spent the most money on lobbying so far in 2016 by spending a total of 79.5 million on lobbying alone. Many pressure groups do not have a budget anywhere near the size of this. It was widely suggested that corruption was at play when Mitch McConnell received 530,000 in donations from lobbying firms.
- Campaign Finance → Many pressure groups occasionally use underhanded methods like the abuse of tax codes like the 501s or 527s, which allow organizations to donate unregulated/untaxed money to politicians and parties. Additionally, many pressure groups use SuperPACs and occasionally have their own SuperPAC, which allows them to give unlimited donations to the party of politician of their choice. This gives the view of the pressure groups buying the support or allegiance of government officials. The National Right to Life have managed to pay $339,504 when the usual limit would be around 2,000 to individuals and 40,000 to parties. Abusing the system. Excessive flow of money from PG’s to Congress = image of corruption or politicians being bought, politicians being more attentive to the interests of pressure groups than their representatives – illustrated by Stern in Best Money Congress Can Buy
- Iron triangles → These are simply relationships between three different political actors, a pressure group, a congressional committee and a bureaucratic department or agency. In an iron triangle each side works together but as long as its interests are protected, it is through iron triangles that policy is formulated. They’re called ‘iron’ for a reason because they’re impenetrable, other pressure groups with the same exact interests will not be able to get involved in this special relationship, thus leaving less influential pressure groups out of the political scene and out of influence. It is considered as an unfair advantage and negates from the argument proposed by Robert Salisbury. The iron triangle would suggest that pressure groups wont be in a constant power struggle if they have opposing views to either the of the three branches of the Iron Triangle and that as long as they are all benefiting each other – nothing will change. Suggesting that pressure groups are undemocratic because of their elitist nature.
‘Membership size is the crucial factor in determining pressure group success.’ Discuss.
Membership size is a crucial factor in determining pressure group success. Members of the house are more likely to keep large pressure groups happy to gain their votes, as they have to constantly campaign. The NRA is a gun right’s group that are arguably one of the most powerful interest group in Washington. This large membership often turns into success because again politicians will pander to them in order to gain voters. This is evident by the fact that the NRA endorsed some 222 candidates in the 2014 midterms. Although it can be argued that political parties do have some final say in the legislative process. Despite AIPAC having a lot of influence in both parties, this was not enough to sway the Democrats away from pushing through the Iran Deal. AIPAC and J Street (a Jewish interest group) desperately lobbied Democrats in order to try and get them to override the Iran nuclear deal that Obama made with Iran. They failed and the deal went through. Thus showing that political parties do have some final say in legislative process. To conclude membership size does play a large factor but does not guarantee success
Membership size is the crucial factor in determining PG success because it leads to larger donations to politicians, which influences policy. More members = larger donations = greater influence on government. NRA (5 million members) spending $6m on pro-Trump ads for favourable gun policy; $360k to Trump, Planned Parenthood gave $500k to Clinton for pro-choice legislation. However, Large donations do not always lead to influence in policy, as politicians may not be elected. National Right to Life Donations:
Ben Carson = $25k
Ted Cruz = $20k
Despite these donations from PGs, these candidates were not elected, so cannot decide government policy, only slightly influence it. Nonetheless, Ted Cruz retains his job in the Senate - he can influence policy by supporting the causes of PGs who supported him (NRA, Gun Owners of America, AIPAC) because of their continued support
Membership size is crucial as it enables wide public opinion and support. Large support means they represent large amounts of the public so PGs demands carry more weight behind them. AARP which have over 37 million members with revenues around 2 million - therefore views and demands will be much more adhered to by the government, compared to smaller groups.
Senators in Arkansas and New York face up to 71 % loss of elderly voters, which AARP can help with. However, Some groups may have success without large membership through the use of insider status and Supreme Court decision. Insider groups are widely used and referred to by government as they have high amounts of knowledge in a specific field. Whilst Supreme Court is an access point for pressure groups and court cases may sway opinion to help the group e.g. gay rights being advanced by Lawrence v Texas and the recent ruling justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
Membership size is crucial in determining pressure group success as the larger the membership, the higher the chance of members having access to lobbyists. Access to lobbyists= more access points= more success in putting views across.
Elizabeth Warren in 2016 NCLR Annual Conference in Orlando, Elizabeth Warren’s presence= higher chance of individuals being able to lobby at this event. Her views on ‘the wall’ were very clear as she stated the policy to be ‘stupid’. NCLR is the largest Latino pressure group in US. The huge support for NCLR catches the attention of such politicians like Warren, hence her attendance of the event.
Assess the role of Pressure Groups in elections campaigns
- Registering voters/getting the vote out - ‘Rock the Vote’ has prompted millions to vote, ‘led largely by Millennials as the most diverse and tolerant generation in our history. An estimated 50% of young people cast more than 20% of all votes in the 2016 Presidential Election’ from their website. Pressure groups are ensuring that the voices of the people are being heard. Ensuring that the president has as much legitimacy as possible through the electorate with FPTP. Helping to increase political participation and thus trying to enhance democracy - with individuals that do not usually vote such as young people
- Educate the electorate (E) Publishing voter records: ‘dirty dozen’ list by League Conservation Voters, LCV. Leads to electorate making more informed decisions. (P) But, the education may be skewed biased so the public will support what they want them to. Lead to lack of peer review. + talk about how important political education is to a country as big as America where many people don’t already turn out to vote, it is important for a population to be politically active
- Endorsing Candidates (E) Planned Parenthood endorsing Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election by investing $30million. Fossil fuel barons invested more than 100 million dollars into GOP super pacs
- The endorsement leads to the polarisation and division of a nation as per campaign finance reform, they are published publicly and if a certain company or group is clearly seen as supporting a specific candidate, this may lead to internal divisions or generally among their supporters. Wealthier pressure groups wield greatest influence as candidates may rely on these donations meaning they are elitist. PG’S can donate up to $5000 per candidate NRA donating to 90% of GOP members in congress, however this means nothing as SuperPACs mean that donations are unlimited. Elitism.
- Fund super PACs to attack ideological opponents US chamber of commerce (not an agency of the US government)- PRO GOP Super PAC who attacked democratic candidates for largely supporting Obama’s policies essentially weakening the supporters. PGs cannot endorse candidates actively but can attack rivals without limit or accounting for attacks. They can weaken support for the opposing candidates without being limited therefore the opposition seems weak gaining more support for their party, however this can generally be seen as corruption and reinforces the idea of the ‘best Congress money can buy’To what extent is influencing the Congress the most successsful PG tactic
- Yes because Congress is the legislature they pass legislation that could or could not benefit pressure groups. They would often send lobbyists to congressmen such as how AIPAC lobbied all of Congress to attend a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu at a convention to support Israeli rights and get funding for them. Because of Congress having the power of the purse, it is the only route to actually take in acquiring this.
- There are so many stages in the creation of legislation in Congress for a piece of legislation to fail for example a pressure group could lobby committee members who could completely change it or the leader of that committee who could simply pigeonhole the bill. Only 5% of bills are successful.
- Elections are becoming very expensive, there is a dependence on pressur groups to finance their campaigns. Financial help leads to buying congress in a sense like how Philip J Stern stated ‘The Best Congress Money Could Buy”.
- Congress doesn’t get shit done because of the increased polarisation. Least producitve legislative year was 2013, there was a government shut down in 2013 and the 115th Congress was the least productive congress ever. The current Congress is also not particularly producitve.
- Since Congress is so dysfunctional it is better that they do it to the executive who sets the agenda at the bully pulpit, if they can convince the executive to support them their agenda will be the official agendao f congress which usually reflects that of the president. Also have a more direct influence over foreing policy.
