Though they don't have any official capacity in our government, interest groups have become a significant force in the American political system. We define these any type of group who wants to affect government or policy. Think of any particular group that would have a desire to see a specific law passed, changed, or blocked -- they represent a certain viewpoint that they will work to see become government policy.
Interest groups are a significant factor in influencing government, but that doesn't mean these groups always act in a manner that benefits society as a whole. These groups weren't mentioned in the Constitution, but were seen as an inevitable part of the political system. James Madison expressed concern over these groups, which he referred to as factions (the term as Madison knew it did not have a positive connotation).
Madison, like many of the Founding Fathers, were concerned that factions would have too much influence. He wrote about the issue extensively in Federalist 10, believing that a large republic would be the best solution to controlling the dangers presented by factions. According to Madison, a large republic would mean that so many different interests would be attempting to influence government, that no one group would ever be able to dominate. Also, a republic would help to prevent the tyranny of a majority, as a small group of elected officials would be more likely to make solid decisions than the public at large.
Most interest groups form as the result of some sort of social movement. When a certain need arises, people band together to fight for the same interest. For instance, in the early 20th century, when American laborers were being subjected to dangerous working conditions, long hours, and low pay, workers formed labor unions to fight for better treatment.
Theories on Group Influence
How much influence do interest groups actually have? It's difficult to measure the influence level of a group, but three main theories exist about the level of power groups exert.
The first theory pertaining to groups is the pluralist theory. This is the idea Madison wrote about in Federalist 10, where the belief is that so many groups exist in the United States, that no one group can have too much influence.
However, many people support an idea known as the elitist theory. This concept suggests that even though there are large numbers of interest groups, that doesn't mean they will all have the same level of influence. Supporters of this theory point to the fact that some groups have very large numbers of followers and others have large amounts of financial resources.
Finally, there is the hyperpluralist theory, which states that the large number of interest groups actually hinders the political process. Because so many groups are attempting to influence the government, nothing can actually be accomplished by political leadership.
Can you answer: which theory best represents the level of influence groups have in the United States?
Different types of interest groups
Economic interest groups probably incorporates the largest number of groups. Any type of business is an interest group because they have a desire to see certain policies enacted. Most people wouldn't think of corporations as interest groups, but one would imagine that a company like AT&T would try to influence laws passed by Congress about telecommunications? Many other larger corporations attempt to influence legislation, like Apple, Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, or Wal-Mart.
Labor unions also represent a powerful type of interest group. Unions work on behalf of the employees in certain industries and often have large memberships. The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is one of the larger unions in the nation, and they represent a large number of laborers from several different occupations. The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) is another example of an influential union in our nation.
Professional associations are similar to unions, but typically associated with types of work that aren't manual labor. These include groups such as the American Medical Association (AMA), or the American Bar Association (ABA).
Another commonality among groups are single issue groups. These are dedicated to one specific purpose. Examples of these would be the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Their goal is to influence legislation at the state and national level for the legalization of marijuana. They tend not to be involved with other issues. Another solid example of a single issue group is the National Right to Life Committee, which works to see abortions banned.
Public interest groups also serve an important role in the political process. These types of groups attempt to serve the public good. Examples would be the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society.
Interest groups also represent segments of society who want to influence foreign policy, such as the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.
Traits of Interest Groups
To be successful, groups typically need to have one of two resources: money or manpower. Any group with a large amount of money will have the ability to influence government or people. Groups like the American Medical Association are made up almost entirely of doctors, thus they have more financial resources than other groups. However, the number of people who are members of the AMA are few, since there aren't that many doctors in the nation compared to other jobs.
Can you answer: if you had to choose only one, would you rather your group had money or manpower? Why?
Groups that have manpower are capable of organizing large events to help influence. For instance, teachers' unions represent an occupation that does not yield a high salary, but there are thousands of educators in the nation that provide their union with resources that a group like the AMA don't have.
The resources that a group has or doesn't have will help determine the tactics they use to attempt to influence government and policy.
Interest groups attempt to bulk up their membership through a variety of methods, and ultimately, there are a few main reasons people become part of any group.
Solidary incentives help provide citizens with a reason to join an interest group. This refers to a person's opportunity to network with important people inside of a group. If a person wants to become a well known figure on climate change and similar policies, they might consider joining the Sierra Club, a well-known environmental protection group. By joining this group, they could meet important individuals and make new contacts.
Other people join interest groups for material incentives. These incentives refer to the free items or other material benefits to being a member of the group. One of the nation's more powerful groups, the National Rifle Association (NRA), provides members with free hats, magazines, stickers, and similar items to appeal to its membership. The American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) creates incentive to join by offering discounts at various stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. Senior citizens greatly benefit from these and thus, are willing to pay an annual membership fee to be a part.
Also, some citizens seek to join an interest group for purposive or moral incentives. These types of incentives appeal to the person who joins a group because he or she genuinely cares about the cause of that group. People who feel strongly about the protection of animals may join People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
Methods for influencing policy
One of the most significant methods for groups to attempt to influence others is through the use of mass media. In particular, television is the most widely used form of media for a group to put their message out there. If you've watched television in the last five years, you've seen the tear-jerker video by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) where musician Sarah McLachlan sings the saddest song ever while showing the horrible treatment to animals. Radio and the Internet are still powerful forms for a group to get their message out.
Can you answer: what are the advantages of using the Internet as opposed to television or radio?
Groups also make use of mass mailings to gain attention for their cause. These leaflets are mailed out to citizens in a given area, seeking additional members or attempting to spur people into action.
Litigation is powerful means of changing policy in America. Litigation is any use of the court system to attempt a change in policy. This type of tactic works particularly well when a group does not have a broad level of support from the public. For instance, PETA sued Sea World in federal courts, claiming that Sea World was in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. According to PETA, the whales kept captive in Sea World were intelligent forms of life, deserving of Constitutional protections. The federal judge in charge of this case dismissed the lawsuit and frivolous, but if PETA had somehow actually won the case, then every whale in captivity in the United States would have to be freed. One of the important benefits of winning a court case is that even a group with little manpower can change a policy that affects everyone in the nation. And, even though PETA didn't have any hope of winning the case, they did receive national news coverage about the case. More people will be aware of their views based on that alone.
During litigation, an interest group may not be one of the two parties involved in the court case, but they still hope to see a certain outcome in the case that would benefit them. In this instance, a group can write what's called an amicus curiae brief and submit it to the court. This type of legal brief is a written explanation from a group to a judge, discussing why the court should decide the outcome of a case in particular way. The court considers these briefs important because sometimes a third party can bring up important points that one of the two main parties haven't considered.
A classic example of an amicus curiae brief came in the court case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) issued an amicus curiae brief to the court on behalf of the Brown family, who was seeking to allow their child into an all-white school.
When groups have a solid number of supporters, they may protest in an attempt to affect a change in government policy. Certain groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee, have organized large scale rallies and protests of policies. These protests usually do not change government policy by themselves, but can help show members of the government that a large number of people are unhappy, and it conveys the message of the group to the government and the public.
Though not a usual tactic, an interest group may also create a political party to help pursue its agenda. One notable instance of this comes in the form of the Green Party. This political party isn't one of the two major parties in the United States, but it is widely known and the most important parts of its agenda relates to environmental policy.
Interest groups also are fond of making campaign contributions to political candidates and parties. Anyone running for office is in need of money for their campaign and likely to accept money from a group. When political candidates accept money from interest groups, they are not required to made laws and policies in accordance with what that group wants. However, groups do expect to have access to a lawmaker if they have contributed to their campaign.
Campaign contributions are important, but groups are limited in what they can spend on campaigns. Also, a candidate is unlikely to accept money from an interest group unless they already support that interest. Would a lawmaker who is pro-choice accept money from the National Right to Life Committee? Of course not, because they disagree with their policy view.
Interest groups also offer to make endorsements of political candidates. Those candidates will usually include these endorsements in their political ads and commercials to demonstrate their popularity among various groups.
Because members of groups tend to be so involved and have expertise, they are often called to testify before state legislatures and Congress about policies. Typically, these experts from various groups are deemed reliable because advancing their cause isn't worth lying to Congress and hurting chances of changing government policy.
Groups have also made effective use of two types of lobbying. Groups that have a broad level of support often engage in grassroots lobbying, which has groups contacting citizens of an area, urging them to call their representative or senator with the hope of persuading that lawmaker to act in a certain way.
When groups don't have much support, but have financial resources, it's more effective for them to engage in direct lobbying. This type of lobbying transpires when a group hires an individual to go directly to members of Congress in an attempt to influence their decision making. These individuals that are hired by groups are referred to as lobbyists, and often work for large firms (similar to a law firm). Lobbyists must be registered with the federal government, and there are limitations to what they can do to influence members of government. They cannot have held a government position within the six months previous to employment, and can only spend a limited amount of money on their work (i.e. buying dinner for a member of Congress).
Campaign Contributions
Because of the power that money holds in society, campaign contributions deserve special attention when discussing interest groups. The danger of groups donating large sums of money to a political candidate cause great concern over the amount of influence that group has. Are interest groups permitted to 'buy' the votes of Congress?
Due to the legitimate concerns over groups having too much influence through their finances, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971. This law put strong limitations on campaign finance. Its provisions include:
Lawmakers hoped this legislation would limit the influence of individuals or groups attempting to unduly influence the government. However, some members of Congress were very unhappy about the limits on campaign finance. To several members of Congress, receiving large donations helped to ensure they were continually elected.
Led by Senator James Buckley (of New York), a group of conservative lawmakers challenged the FECA in courts, claiming it violated the Constitution. According to Buckley, the law had violated his First Amendment free speech rights. The argument presented was that donating and spending money on political campaigns was the equivalent to expressing your support of a politician. Thus, any limit on campaign spending constituted a limit on free speech.
The case Buckley v. Valeo (1976), hinged on whether or not the Supreme Court believed money equated to free speech. Their ruling stated that political contributions were indeed to be considered a form of political free speech, but the government had a prevailing interest in limiting campaign contributions to maintain fair elections. The Court did strike down one provision of the FECA though, stating that candidates could not be limited in what was spent on their campaign. As long as money contributions were under legal limits, they could spend as much as they saw fit.
Since the FECA was upheld by the courts, corporations and unions were particularly frustrated because they could not use their large amounts of cash on hand to spend on political activities. This meant that powerful companies such as Exxon-Mobil, who had billions of dollars, could not use that money for political purposes.
To be able to have an influence, corporations and unions started to create what are known as political action committees (PACs). These are overt political groups that are set up by the parent corporation to represent their interest. PACs can receive donations from individuals and other groups, and then spend that money on political activities.
As an example, we will look at AT&T. As a corporation, they receive money from the sale of phones, and various services that accompany phone technology. When consumers spend money on those products, they have the expectation that the money they spend will not be used for political purposes. So, AT&T sets up a distinct political action committee called AT&T PAC. The PAC receives no money from corporate funds. What the AT&T PAC can do is get individual donors to give money to the PAC and when a person donates, they know the PAC is spending that money to represent the interests of AT&T.
Usually, it's businesses and larger corporations that form PACs, but that hasn't stopped other groups from forming PACs. When PACs give money to a political campaign or candidate, they tend not to care about political ideology. Their goal is to donate money to the person willing to help advance their interests in Congress. As a result, it's not uncommon for a PAC to donate to politicians from both major political parties. These PACs often donate to incumbents (people already in office) because of the fact that they are a proven winner. Sometimes, if a PAC has the resources, they will donate to both candidates in an election to ensure that no matter who wins, they will have a friend in office.
In the late 1970s, the FECA was amended to allow for groups and individuals to spend money on a few specific political activities. These are referred to as soft money contributions. A soft money contribution can be an unlimited amount of cash donated to a political party for "party building" activities. Unfortunately, Congress did not specify what a "party building" activity was, and political parties used this loophole to justify funneling large sums of money to parties so that they could spend it as they saw fit. Also, soft money is not regulated or monitored by the FEC. This is different than what we call hard money. Any contribution from an individual or PAC directly to a campaign or candidate
Major Change to Campaign Finance
The development of soft money meant the amount of dollars spent on elections increased dramatically, prompting calls for tighter regulations on campaign spending. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) worked to create a new law known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (the law is also sometimes called the McCain-Feingold Act). This law made a few changes to the FECA (the 1971 campaign finance law).
The first and most notable effect of the law was its ban on soft money contributions to parties. The law also:
One such loophole comes in the form of independent expenditures. These can be unlimited sums of money spent on a political activity by a person or group -- as long as that person or group does not coordinate with any candidate or campaign. An example would be if you spent thousands of dollars on campaign posters and buttons promoting Senator Joe Manchin. The senator didn't ask you to do this, nor did you contact him or anyone on his campaign. It's completely independent of that person or their political campaign.
When people or groups make independent expenditures, they typically use that money to purchase what are known as issue ads. These types of ads can be run on television or radio and discuss 'issues', but they cannot contain the phrases "vote for," "vote against," "elect," or "defeat."
A person pay for an advertisement that could say something like "President Obama has ruined the coal industry. He single-handedly killed thousands of jobs. And he hates puppies! Does America need a president like that?" As long as the ad doesn't use those certain key words and phrases, it isn't considered overtly political.
Another key loophole in campaign finance comes through 527 groups. These are classified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as political groups whose "major purpose" is not to influence federal elections. These 527 groups are exempt from paying taxes, provided they follow IRS guidelines, and these groups spend millions of dollars on issue ads in nearly every federal election. A recent change in campaign finance law has decreased the number of 527 groups. These groups have dwindled in number and amount of money spent since the 2004 presidential elections (you'll understand why when you finish reading about the next court case discussed).
In 2008, a conservative group known as Citizens United created a 90 minute film called "Hillary: The Movie," which was highly critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. One of the central facts to the case is that Citizens United used corporate money from their business donors to produce the movie. According to campaign finance laws, money from corporations or unions could not be used for political activities, so the Federal Election Commission (FEC) claimed the law had been broken. Citizens United claimed that the FEC couldn't penalize them because they made a movie, not a political advertisement.
The issue was taken to the court system and eventually the case was presented before the Supreme Court. In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Court attempted to determine two key issues. First, was Hillary: The Movie a political advertisement or a movie? The Court had little debate in determining that it was indeed a political advertisement. The second question was more complex. Did the ban on direct spending for corporations and unions violate freedom of speech found in the First Amendment?
In a controversial 5-4 decision, the Court stated that corporations and unions have freedom of speech and may also make independent expenditures in the same way an individual or group could. When the Court made this decision, corporations and unions started creating what became known as Super PACs. These Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must report their donors to the Federal Election Commission, and that information is considered public record. However, these groups may not give money directly to a candidate or campaign and may not coordinate with any campaign.
Because Super PACs are free to openly advocate for the candidate of their choice (or create negative ads), the number of 527 groups has decreased significantly. Super PACs spent more than $400 million in the 2012 federal elections alone, which undoubtedly impacted voters. That amount is expected to rise in the 2016 presidential elections.
How much influence do groups actually have in affecting policy?
This is a great question to ask and the first thing to consider is this: if the federal government has a need to create laws restricting interest groups, then it stands to reason those groups were having quite a bit of influence.
It's important to realize that interest groups have the most success in changing policy when the issue is very narrow and affects a small number of people. Interest groups will have a difficult time persuading a member of Congress to change his or her mind on controversial issues such as same-sex marriage, or abortion. However, groups can work for changes to smaller types of policies. For instance, the United Dairy Farmers might be able to convince Congress to vote for tax dollars to be devoted to helping dairy farmers pay for new types of fertilizers that will benefit the entire nation.
Though interest groups have their place in society, they have a few criticisms worth mentioning. One of these is that groups have an extraordinarily high level of influence and often represent only a small segment of the population. For instance, the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) helped to prevent any changes to existing federal gun laws in the months after the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Members of Congress had created a compromise bill that would require a federal background check on any purchase of a firearm. The NRA used its resources to get key members of Congress not to support the bill, and it did not pass. Though some people were frustrated by the defeat of a change in gun regulation, the NRA did what interest groups do -- they affected policy in a way that suits their membership.
The NRA provides another interesting critique of groups, that being that they represent interests of small minorities, yet they affect policies that require everyone in the nation to follow. This hardly seems fair to many people, particularly in a nation where many issues are decided by majority or plurality rule.
Finally, the work of interest groups can cause gridlock, where the government cannot accomplish anything because the two major parties and many interest groups will not compromise.
Interest groups are a significant factor in influencing government, but that doesn't mean these groups always act in a manner that benefits society as a whole. These groups weren't mentioned in the Constitution, but were seen as an inevitable part of the political system. James Madison expressed concern over these groups, which he referred to as factions (the term as Madison knew it did not have a positive connotation).
Madison, like many of the Founding Fathers, were concerned that factions would have too much influence. He wrote about the issue extensively in Federalist 10, believing that a large republic would be the best solution to controlling the dangers presented by factions. According to Madison, a large republic would mean that so many different interests would be attempting to influence government, that no one group would ever be able to dominate. Also, a republic would help to prevent the tyranny of a majority, as a small group of elected officials would be more likely to make solid decisions than the public at large.
 |
| The pluralist theory visualized ... |
Theories on Group Influence
How much influence do interest groups actually have? It's difficult to measure the influence level of a group, but three main theories exist about the level of power groups exert.
The first theory pertaining to groups is the pluralist theory. This is the idea Madison wrote about in Federalist 10, where the belief is that so many groups exist in the United States, that no one group can have too much influence.
However, many people support an idea known as the elitist theory. This concept suggests that even though there are large numbers of interest groups, that doesn't mean they will all have the same level of influence. Supporters of this theory point to the fact that some groups have very large numbers of followers and others have large amounts of financial resources.
Finally, there is the hyperpluralist theory, which states that the large number of interest groups actually hinders the political process. Because so many groups are attempting to influence the government, nothing can actually be accomplished by political leadership.
Can you answer: which theory best represents the level of influence groups have in the United States?
Different types of interest groups
Economic interest groups probably incorporates the largest number of groups. Any type of business is an interest group because they have a desire to see certain policies enacted. Most people wouldn't think of corporations as interest groups, but one would imagine that a company like AT&T would try to influence laws passed by Congress about telecommunications? Many other larger corporations attempt to influence legislation, like Apple, Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, or Wal-Mart.
Labor unions also represent a powerful type of interest group. Unions work on behalf of the employees in certain industries and often have large memberships. The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is one of the larger unions in the nation, and they represent a large number of laborers from several different occupations. The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) is another example of an influential union in our nation.
Professional associations are similar to unions, but typically associated with types of work that aren't manual labor. These include groups such as the American Medical Association (AMA), or the American Bar Association (ABA).
 |
| Has nothing to do with alcohol ... |
Public interest groups also serve an important role in the political process. These types of groups attempt to serve the public good. Examples would be the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society.
 |
| You could say they have a high level of support ... |
Traits of Interest Groups
To be successful, groups typically need to have one of two resources: money or manpower. Any group with a large amount of money will have the ability to influence government or people. Groups like the American Medical Association are made up almost entirely of doctors, thus they have more financial resources than other groups. However, the number of people who are members of the AMA are few, since there aren't that many doctors in the nation compared to other jobs.
Can you answer: if you had to choose only one, would you rather your group had money or manpower? Why?
Groups that have manpower are capable of organizing large events to help influence. For instance, teachers' unions represent an occupation that does not yield a high salary, but there are thousands of educators in the nation that provide their union with resources that a group like the AMA don't have.
The resources that a group has or doesn't have will help determine the tactics they use to attempt to influence government and policy.
Interest groups attempt to bulk up their membership through a variety of methods, and ultimately, there are a few main reasons people become part of any group.
Solidary incentives help provide citizens with a reason to join an interest group. This refers to a person's opportunity to network with important people inside of a group. If a person wants to become a well known figure on climate change and similar policies, they might consider joining the Sierra Club, a well-known environmental protection group. By joining this group, they could meet important individuals and make new contacts.
Other people join interest groups for material incentives. These incentives refer to the free items or other material benefits to being a member of the group. One of the nation's more powerful groups, the National Rifle Association (NRA), provides members with free hats, magazines, stickers, and similar items to appeal to its membership. The American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) creates incentive to join by offering discounts at various stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. Senior citizens greatly benefit from these and thus, are willing to pay an annual membership fee to be a part.
 |
| Who doesn't want a free hat with their 2nd Amendment rights? |
Also, some citizens seek to join an interest group for purposive or moral incentives. These types of incentives appeal to the person who joins a group because he or she genuinely cares about the cause of that group. People who feel strongly about the protection of animals may join People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
Methods for influencing policy
One of the most significant methods for groups to attempt to influence others is through the use of mass media. In particular, television is the most widely used form of media for a group to put their message out there. If you've watched television in the last five years, you've seen the tear-jerker video by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) where musician Sarah McLachlan sings the saddest song ever while showing the horrible treatment to animals. Radio and the Internet are still powerful forms for a group to get their message out.
Can you answer: what are the advantages of using the Internet as opposed to television or radio?
Groups also make use of mass mailings to gain attention for their cause. These leaflets are mailed out to citizens in a given area, seeking additional members or attempting to spur people into action.
Litigation is powerful means of changing policy in America. Litigation is any use of the court system to attempt a change in policy. This type of tactic works particularly well when a group does not have a broad level of support from the public. For instance, PETA sued Sea World in federal courts, claiming that Sea World was in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. According to PETA, the whales kept captive in Sea World were intelligent forms of life, deserving of Constitutional protections. The federal judge in charge of this case dismissed the lawsuit and frivolous, but if PETA had somehow actually won the case, then every whale in captivity in the United States would have to be freed. One of the important benefits of winning a court case is that even a group with little manpower can change a policy that affects everyone in the nation. And, even though PETA didn't have any hope of winning the case, they did receive national news coverage about the case. More people will be aware of their views based on that alone.
During litigation, an interest group may not be one of the two parties involved in the court case, but they still hope to see a certain outcome in the case that would benefit them. In this instance, a group can write what's called an amicus curiae brief and submit it to the court. This type of legal brief is a written explanation from a group to a judge, discussing why the court should decide the outcome of a case in particular way. The court considers these briefs important because sometimes a third party can bring up important points that one of the two main parties haven't considered.
A classic example of an amicus curiae brief came in the court case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) issued an amicus curiae brief to the court on behalf of the Brown family, who was seeking to allow their child into an all-white school.
When groups have a solid number of supporters, they may protest in an attempt to affect a change in government policy. Certain groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee, have organized large scale rallies and protests of policies. These protests usually do not change government policy by themselves, but can help show members of the government that a large number of people are unhappy, and it conveys the message of the group to the government and the public.Though not a usual tactic, an interest group may also create a political party to help pursue its agenda. One notable instance of this comes in the form of the Green Party. This political party isn't one of the two major parties in the United States, but it is widely known and the most important parts of its agenda relates to environmental policy.
Interest groups also are fond of making campaign contributions to political candidates and parties. Anyone running for office is in need of money for their campaign and likely to accept money from a group. When political candidates accept money from interest groups, they are not required to made laws and policies in accordance with what that group wants. However, groups do expect to have access to a lawmaker if they have contributed to their campaign.
Campaign contributions are important, but groups are limited in what they can spend on campaigns. Also, a candidate is unlikely to accept money from an interest group unless they already support that interest. Would a lawmaker who is pro-choice accept money from the National Right to Life Committee? Of course not, because they disagree with their policy view.
Interest groups also offer to make endorsements of political candidates. Those candidates will usually include these endorsements in their political ads and commercials to demonstrate their popularity among various groups.
Because members of groups tend to be so involved and have expertise, they are often called to testify before state legislatures and Congress about policies. Typically, these experts from various groups are deemed reliable because advancing their cause isn't worth lying to Congress and hurting chances of changing government policy.
 |
| Yes, that's Elmo testifying in front of a subcommittee on education ... |
Groups have also made effective use of two types of lobbying. Groups that have a broad level of support often engage in grassroots lobbying, which has groups contacting citizens of an area, urging them to call their representative or senator with the hope of persuading that lawmaker to act in a certain way.
When groups don't have much support, but have financial resources, it's more effective for them to engage in direct lobbying. This type of lobbying transpires when a group hires an individual to go directly to members of Congress in an attempt to influence their decision making. These individuals that are hired by groups are referred to as lobbyists, and often work for large firms (similar to a law firm). Lobbyists must be registered with the federal government, and there are limitations to what they can do to influence members of government. They cannot have held a government position within the six months previous to employment, and can only spend a limited amount of money on their work (i.e. buying dinner for a member of Congress).
Campaign Contributions
Because of the power that money holds in society, campaign contributions deserve special attention when discussing interest groups. The danger of groups donating large sums of money to a political candidate cause great concern over the amount of influence that group has. Are interest groups permitted to 'buy' the votes of Congress?
Due to the legitimate concerns over groups having too much influence through their finances, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971. This law put strong limitations on campaign finance. Its provisions include:
- limiting the amount of money that an individual could contribute to any one campaign.
- limiting the amount of money that a group could contribute to any one campaign.
- limiting the amount of money a candidate could spend on his or her campaign, including their personal finances outside of donations.
- creation of a watchdog group, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), to monitor campaign finance.
- requiring candidates to disclose from whom they received money.
- labor unions and corporations could not directly donate dues or company earnings to a political campaign or candidate
Lawmakers hoped this legislation would limit the influence of individuals or groups attempting to unduly influence the government. However, some members of Congress were very unhappy about the limits on campaign finance. To several members of Congress, receiving large donations helped to ensure they were continually elected.
Led by Senator James Buckley (of New York), a group of conservative lawmakers challenged the FECA in courts, claiming it violated the Constitution. According to Buckley, the law had violated his First Amendment free speech rights. The argument presented was that donating and spending money on political campaigns was the equivalent to expressing your support of a politician. Thus, any limit on campaign spending constituted a limit on free speech.
The case Buckley v. Valeo (1976), hinged on whether or not the Supreme Court believed money equated to free speech. Their ruling stated that political contributions were indeed to be considered a form of political free speech, but the government had a prevailing interest in limiting campaign contributions to maintain fair elections. The Court did strike down one provision of the FECA though, stating that candidates could not be limited in what was spent on their campaign. As long as money contributions were under legal limits, they could spend as much as they saw fit.
Since the FECA was upheld by the courts, corporations and unions were particularly frustrated because they could not use their large amounts of cash on hand to spend on political activities. This meant that powerful companies such as Exxon-Mobil, who had billions of dollars, could not use that money for political purposes.
To be able to have an influence, corporations and unions started to create what are known as political action committees (PACs). These are overt political groups that are set up by the parent corporation to represent their interest. PACs can receive donations from individuals and other groups, and then spend that money on political activities.
As an example, we will look at AT&T. As a corporation, they receive money from the sale of phones, and various services that accompany phone technology. When consumers spend money on those products, they have the expectation that the money they spend will not be used for political purposes. So, AT&T sets up a distinct political action committee called AT&T PAC. The PAC receives no money from corporate funds. What the AT&T PAC can do is get individual donors to give money to the PAC and when a person donates, they know the PAC is spending that money to represent the interests of AT&T.
Usually, it's businesses and larger corporations that form PACs, but that hasn't stopped other groups from forming PACs. When PACs give money to a political campaign or candidate, they tend not to care about political ideology. Their goal is to donate money to the person willing to help advance their interests in Congress. As a result, it's not uncommon for a PAC to donate to politicians from both major political parties. These PACs often donate to incumbents (people already in office) because of the fact that they are a proven winner. Sometimes, if a PAC has the resources, they will donate to both candidates in an election to ensure that no matter who wins, they will have a friend in office.
In the late 1970s, the FECA was amended to allow for groups and individuals to spend money on a few specific political activities. These are referred to as soft money contributions. A soft money contribution can be an unlimited amount of cash donated to a political party for "party building" activities. Unfortunately, Congress did not specify what a "party building" activity was, and political parties used this loophole to justify funneling large sums of money to parties so that they could spend it as they saw fit. Also, soft money is not regulated or monitored by the FEC. This is different than what we call hard money. Any contribution from an individual or PAC directly to a campaign or candidate
Major Change to Campaign Finance
The development of soft money meant the amount of dollars spent on elections increased dramatically, prompting calls for tighter regulations on campaign spending. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) worked to create a new law known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (the law is also sometimes called the McCain-Feingold Act). This law made a few changes to the FECA (the 1971 campaign finance law).
The first and most notable effect of the law was its ban on soft money contributions to parties. The law also:
- redefined the amount of dollars an individual could donate to any one campaign
- redefined the amount of dollars a PAC could give to a campaign
- allowed for 'bundling' of individuals donations into one lump sum
- reinforced the ban on corporations and unions from directly spending on political activities.
 |
| Money raised by PACs and donated directly to candidates |
One such loophole comes in the form of independent expenditures. These can be unlimited sums of money spent on a political activity by a person or group -- as long as that person or group does not coordinate with any candidate or campaign. An example would be if you spent thousands of dollars on campaign posters and buttons promoting Senator Joe Manchin. The senator didn't ask you to do this, nor did you contact him or anyone on his campaign. It's completely independent of that person or their political campaign.
When people or groups make independent expenditures, they typically use that money to purchase what are known as issue ads. These types of ads can be run on television or radio and discuss 'issues', but they cannot contain the phrases "vote for," "vote against," "elect," or "defeat."
A person pay for an advertisement that could say something like "President Obama has ruined the coal industry. He single-handedly killed thousands of jobs. And he hates puppies! Does America need a president like that?" As long as the ad doesn't use those certain key words and phrases, it isn't considered overtly political.
Another key loophole in campaign finance comes through 527 groups. These are classified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as political groups whose "major purpose" is not to influence federal elections. These 527 groups are exempt from paying taxes, provided they follow IRS guidelines, and these groups spend millions of dollars on issue ads in nearly every federal election. A recent change in campaign finance law has decreased the number of 527 groups. These groups have dwindled in number and amount of money spent since the 2004 presidential elections (you'll understand why when you finish reading about the next court case discussed).
In 2008, a conservative group known as Citizens United created a 90 minute film called "Hillary: The Movie," which was highly critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. One of the central facts to the case is that Citizens United used corporate money from their business donors to produce the movie. According to campaign finance laws, money from corporations or unions could not be used for political activities, so the Federal Election Commission (FEC) claimed the law had been broken. Citizens United claimed that the FEC couldn't penalize them because they made a movie, not a political advertisement.
The issue was taken to the court system and eventually the case was presented before the Supreme Court. In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Court attempted to determine two key issues. First, was Hillary: The Movie a political advertisement or a movie? The Court had little debate in determining that it was indeed a political advertisement. The second question was more complex. Did the ban on direct spending for corporations and unions violate freedom of speech found in the First Amendment?
In a controversial 5-4 decision, the Court stated that corporations and unions have freedom of speech and may also make independent expenditures in the same way an individual or group could. When the Court made this decision, corporations and unions started creating what became known as Super PACs. These Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must report their donors to the Federal Election Commission, and that information is considered public record. However, these groups may not give money directly to a candidate or campaign and may not coordinate with any campaign.
Because Super PACs are free to openly advocate for the candidate of their choice (or create negative ads), the number of 527 groups has decreased significantly. Super PACs spent more than $400 million in the 2012 federal elections alone, which undoubtedly impacted voters. That amount is expected to rise in the 2016 presidential elections.
How much influence do groups actually have in affecting policy?
This is a great question to ask and the first thing to consider is this: if the federal government has a need to create laws restricting interest groups, then it stands to reason those groups were having quite a bit of influence.
It's important to realize that interest groups have the most success in changing policy when the issue is very narrow and affects a small number of people. Interest groups will have a difficult time persuading a member of Congress to change his or her mind on controversial issues such as same-sex marriage, or abortion. However, groups can work for changes to smaller types of policies. For instance, the United Dairy Farmers might be able to convince Congress to vote for tax dollars to be devoted to helping dairy farmers pay for new types of fertilizers that will benefit the entire nation.
Though interest groups have their place in society, they have a few criticisms worth mentioning. One of these is that groups have an extraordinarily high level of influence and often represent only a small segment of the population. For instance, the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) helped to prevent any changes to existing federal gun laws in the months after the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Members of Congress had created a compromise bill that would require a federal background check on any purchase of a firearm. The NRA used its resources to get key members of Congress not to support the bill, and it did not pass. Though some people were frustrated by the defeat of a change in gun regulation, the NRA did what interest groups do -- they affected policy in a way that suits their membership.
The NRA provides another interesting critique of groups, that being that they represent interests of small minorities, yet they affect policies that require everyone in the nation to follow. This hardly seems fair to many people, particularly in a nation where many issues are decided by majority or plurality rule.
Finally, the work of interest groups can cause gridlock, where the government cannot accomplish anything because the two major parties and many interest groups will not compromise.
No comments:
Post a Comment