[NEW] 4C Constitution Essay Plans

To what extent has federalism been eroded as a constitutional principle

· The Model of dual federalism created in 1787 has been increasingly undermined by the expanding federal government, especially since the 1930s and the New Deal. Led to the idea of co-operative federalism, which slowly took greater power for the federal government away from the states.

· Bush expanded the federal government imposed federal demands on the states, for example the No Child Left Behind Act, which were education reforms. Education had been traditionally left to the states, which caused controversy. However, Bush also believed in starving the beast and therefore giving greater power to the states – enforcing new federalism/federalism as a constitutional principle.

· Obama has expanded the scope of the federal government, especially his healthcare reforms, known as "Obamacare". His administration have also restricted state actions, by taking legal action, as demonstrated by the United States vs Arizona in regards to Arizona's immigration laws , and was partially successful in this. -- HOWEVER, with Donald Trump elected as President, he has pledged to scrap Obamacare and has already taken several measures through Executive Orders

· New Federalism has attempted to reduce federal dominance, through an increased use of block grants, giving states more independence as it allows the states to have more discretion in spending federal money, most prominently seen under Reagan who believed that big government is not the solution, it is the problem.

· Trump is clearly seen to adopt an approach that reinforces the idea of federalism as a constitutional principle as seen through how in his inaugural speech he spoke about giving power back to the states.

Should the US constitution be reformed/Is the US constitution outdated

Yes	No
Gridlock when the constitution was first created America was populated by only 4 million people mainly agrarian society with 95% being simply farmers. They did not need the government to do much at the time, that is why the states had much rights back then. Since then the population has grown and it is much larger and no longer agrarian like it was 200 years ago, it is outdated because of the fact that it leads to gridlock in Congress and other branches of government because of the checks and balances that exist and the separation of powers. Increasing polarisation, they cannot agree with each other. 2013 government shutdown, 113th least productive Congress since do-nothing. Gridlock is caused because the various branches of government possess different powers and responsibilities and often these conflict or due to polarisation branches cannot agree with each other (as seen most prominently on Obamacare) and gridlock occurs.	Because the founding fathers intended for there to be gridlock and an increase in polarisation in order to combat tyranny. The current state of Washington reflects the utility of the constitution. Wanted a divided government so that checks and balances would be able to be effective in order to prevent tyranny of the majority. The aim of the constitution was to prevent any branch from becoming excessively powerful, and this is successfully seen through divisions which allow this to work. Currently seen through how most Republicans disagree with Trump.
Imperial presidency coined by Schlesinger. The president is way too powerful, seen through how the president has effectively exploited their power of being commander-in-chief taking away Congressional constitutional power of declaring war despite the last time Congress declaring war being in 1943. Obama in Iraq, Bush in Iraq, Johnson in Vietnam. Struggle of who directs foreign policy between Congress and the Executive, human rights groups have said; “illegality and secrecy” of Obamas time. Obama also created the IRS which loads of people were angered about as many people believed that it was founded to get rid of his enemies as it targeted many tea party members, many executive orders. Rand Paul commented on his actions as that of a “king or an emperor”, he was generally seen as trying to bypass Congress who was supposed to be his most effective check of power.	Blown out of proportion because compared to FDR or George W Bush, Obama has not executed as many as the media has stated that he has. FDR - 3721, George W Bush 291 while Obama has only done 277 executive orders. Therefore showing that he was not actually an imperial president. Foreign policy has also been blown out of proportion, Congress still has a major role as there are still Congressional committees that investigate foreign actions as seen through the Benghazi disaster. Obama had to send a letter requesting the authorisation of further force against ISIS. Obama has acted along the lines of the constitution, his IRS was investigated by the committee on ways and means and found nothing wrong.
Electoral college is an anachronism. It has only made the elections less democratic, at the time the founding fathers were afraid to a direct election, however since then American democracy has evolved and therefore no longer has need for an electoral college which only hinders democracy further as seen through 2016 when Trump won the election despite losing the popular vote by 1.3 million votes and it was also seen in 2000 when Al Gore lost the election despite winning the popular vote against Bush. The electoral college does not work as seen through how there was 7 rogue electors who did not vote according to their state votes.	The electoral college is important to the US federal identity, JFK said “we cannot abolish one component of federalism without considering the other”. Federalism is already in decline, the removal of the electoral college would only make it worse. Also, the electoral college rarely suppresses the popular will and this has only ever happened 5 times.
Federalism is enforced in the 10th amendment however it has gradually been eroded showing that the constitution is being neglected showing that the constitution needs reform. When the constitution was first drawn up the aim was to create a weak federal government and strong state governments - this gradually became known as federalism. This has been weakened through things like FDR’s New Deal or Obama taking power over healthcare away from the states through things like Obamacare or George Bush taking power over education through his No Child Left Behind policies.	However, federalism has arguably been renewed by presidents like Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, George W Bush and soon with Donald Trump who during his inauguration speech stated that “we’re giving power back to the people” and spoke about his plans to increase state power while minimising federal government’s sphere of influence. Already seen through how his first executive orders were based around the start of repealing Obamacare, therefore giving back power over health care to the States.
Imperial judiciary when the founding fathers created the constitution what they had in mind was that neither branch would become too powerful, however, the judiciary is too powerful. For an unelected body the SC exercises immense power mainly through the power of judicial review, being able to strike down the laws of states, the executive and the legislature. As an unelected body what gives them the right to have a say on the actions of elected bodies and on what is arguably local issues such as gay marriage and voting laws. They enact social change and interfere with actions that should be local issues and powers that are in the hands of the states.	Since Marbury v Madison the supreme court have been the defenders of the US constitution especially when it comes to the bill of rights, they protect it from erosion by the other branches as seen through gun rights being upheld. The bill of rights is continually upheld even when under threat by the PATRIOT act, judicial review is not as powerful as it seems to be as they have no initiating power, they need someone else to come forward with a case. They also have no enforcement power, which is down to the branches of the states not the judiciary.

How effect is the Bill of Rights

Does the US constitution effectively protect rights

Executive order - The executive order temporarily bans citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US  as well as denying the entry of syrian refugees. The executive order does not explicitly state that it is a ban on Muslims although Rudy Giuliani - Trump’s own advisor - confirmed that it is in fact a ban on muslims. This is a direct challenge to the first amendment which protects religious freedom.  During his election he called it a muslim ban.

State rights - The 10th amendment sets out state powers which traditionally includes control and power over regulating healthcare, education and welfare. These have since been challenged by new forms of federalism as the central government has grown in power historically through the New Deal and Great Society. More recently by taking away State healthcare rights through Obamacare, or Bush getting involved in education powers through his No Child Left Behind policy. So effectively the 10th amendment has been eroded through new forms of federalism.

Gun rights - have been heavily protected by the Bill of Rights, which protects these rights through the 2nd amendment which states that US citizens have the right to bear arms. This has been protected a countless number of times as seen through the District of Columbia v Heller which overturned the ban on handguns in Washington DC. Or also through how the Manchin-Toomey bill failed in its attempt to introduce background checks on the purchase of weapons.

Equal protection - The right to marriage and an abortion has arguably been protected very well by the constitution as seen through how the 14th amendment has allowed Roe v Wade to legalise abortion and Obergefell v Hodges in 2015 to legalise gay marriage. Showing how the constitution has been a strong and effective protector of such rights. HOWEVER the right to an abortion has been limited by the Stupak-Pitts amendment which barred federal funding for abortions.

NSA - the NSA has heavily challenged the 4th amendment which protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures, previous court cases have interpreted the 4th amendment as also being the right to privacy. The Snowden leak has informed us that the NSA is monitoring millions of people without their permission therefore challenging the right to privacy. In 2014 when the funding for the PATRIOT act which allows the NSA to spy was going to require renewing, Rand Paul filibustered the renewal along with several over senators although this did not work and the funding was continued as was the breaching of the right to privacy.

Torture - the CIA torture report of 2014 uncovered that the CIA was using cruel and unusual punishments on prisoners as interrogation techniques which breaches the 8th amendment which prohibits the US from issuing cruel and unusual punishments which were used by the CIA most famously through the waterboarding torture. President Trump has stated that he fully supports the use of torture to interrogate suspects.

‘The 3 branches of government have failed to protect consituttional reights in recent years’ discuss

• Marriage, they have succeeded in protecting marriage for everybody such as through Obergefell v Hodges, where many people tried to block the Obergefell  v Hodges, they tried to block it.
• the right to arms, Obama has tried to limit this through his legislation but this has never succeeded meaning that the executive has failed to protect constitutional rights because they have attempted to actually limit them by gun rights legislation. Although they have since been protected by the Supreme Court which generally strikes down attempts like through DC v Heller or Congress which voted against gun rights legislation. Manchin-Toomey bill 2013.
• Failed because of NSA and CIA PRISM spying programme which infringes on the right to privacy which was guaranteed in the Griswold v Connecticut case. This is something that has no been protected although attempts were made like by Rand Paul (US freedoms act) to limit NSA spying. Although Trump has recently limited the NSA spying. PATRIOT act renewed as a result of the US freedoms act failing.
• Abortion has been attacked, Trump plans to defund Planned Parenthood the largest abortion clinic in the USA. Stupak-Pitts amendment was also an attack aimed at limiting federal funding for abortions, which Obama promised would end.
• Affirmitive Action whcih was aimed at giving people the right to achieve better and equality which is put in the constitution as a fundamental right to equality for all. This was limited in Schuette v Coalition which allows for affirmitive action to be banned through initiatives and propositions.

[NEW] 3C Essay Plans for Pressure Groups

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.