In Chapters 8 in American Government and Politics. How might interest groups be both harmful AND helpful to our system of government? In other words, I would like you to study the advantages and disad

American Government and Politics

Chapter 8

Interest Groups

OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, you should be able to: • Define what interest groups are. • Explain different ways by which they take form and sustain themselves. • Compare economic and policy groups, and discuss their role in deliberative democracy. • Identify ways in which interest groups try to influence public policy. • Analyze potential tensions between citizenship and interest group politics.

Many political figures use the term special interest as a slur. “People want Washington to work on behalf of the American people, not on behalf of folks in Washington and special interests,” said President Obama early in the 2012 campaign.1 “My team is the American people, not the insiders in Washington,” said Mitt Romney, “and I’ll fight for the people of America, not special interests.”2 For any policy or issue, a special interest consists of those who stand to gain or lose more than others. Everybody may dislike special interests, but everybody belongs to them, because any policy has different effects on different people. Child-care tax credits benefit parents. To make up the forgone tax revenue, the government sets higher rates, which childless people must pay. In this case, parents and nonparents both constitute “special interests.” Similarly, students gain from government aid to higher education, but nonstudents must help pay for them. Even policies that seem to affect everyone equally often have unequal impacts. Everybody breathes, so everyone has the same stake in federal clean air laws, right? Think again. In smoggy areas, the law requires expensive special gasoline, so commuters bear more cost than people who walk or bike to work. Coal-fired power plants pay more to curb pollution than hydroelectric plants, so people who use coal-generated electricity pay higher utility bills. People sometimes speak of interest groups interchangeably with special interests, but these terms do not have quite the same meaning. Interest groups are organizations that try to influence public policy. Not every potential special interest has such a body. One can think of people who share a common concern but lack organization. Conversely, there are interest groups whose members have little tangible stake in the group’s issues. Students for a Free Tibet wants the U.S. government to support Tibetan independence from China, even though many of its members may never have set foot in that land, and few will ever do so.3 Rather than material wants, such groups act on the basis of altruism or idealism. Critics of “special interests” may argue that interest groups undercut ideal citizenship and deliberation—and, indeed, Madison believed that they may do just that. He defined a faction as a group whose passions or interests are “adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”4 Nearly every interest group, some say, has goals or methods that disadvantage others. In 2008, Students for a Free Tibet staged protests against the torch relay for the Beijing Olympics, causing serious public relations problems for the United States Olympic Committee. Many Americans worry that political debate is often a mismatch, in which the power of rich interest groups can drown out the voices of the poor. In the classic words of one scholar: “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.”5 Critics point to farm price supports, arguing that they enrich large agricultural corporations at the expense of consumers. Another view is that citizenship and deliberation can benefit from the activities of interest groups. Tocqueville said that political associations teach citizens “to advance in methodical agreement toward a common aim.”6 According to this view, by working for narrower aims, people learn how to advance loftier ones. Interest groups also pour vast sums into educational and charitable activities. Indeed, your classroom may have been the gift of a corporate CEO. Even if the goal of such giving is to win good publicity or curry political favor, say defenders of interest groups, the ultimate effect is to serve the public interest. Special interest—an unfavorable way to characterize those who stand to gain or lose more from a public policy. Interest group—an organization that seeks to influence public policy. Faction—James Madison’s term for a group that pursues interests harmful to those of another group or to the good of the country. In contemporary usage, it often refers to any interest group. Near the White House, Students for a Free Tibet and other groups protest the visit of Chinese president Hu Jintao, January 2011. REUTERS/Larry Downing 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 236 11/7/12 11:15 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 237 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 237 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services Interest groups also hold that they advance deliberative democracy by educating citizens and public officials about policy issues. They dismiss the stereotype of the cigarchomping, arm-twisting lobbyist as a myth, contending that most of their effort goes into data and arguments. The Edison Electric Institute, an organization of electric companies, issues detailed studies of energy and environmental issues.7 Defenders and critics can agree that interest groups have become more numerous and diverse. Between 1980 and 2010, the number of national nonprofit associations grew from 14,726 to 23,983.8 This chapter will look at the role of interest groups in American politics. We will discuss their origins and development, types of interest groups, and the methods they use to influence policy; and finally, we evaluate the impact of interest groups on the political process and consider the need for reform. A good way to begin is by explaining how they spread. CREATING AND SUSTAINING INTEREST GROUPS MAJOR ISSUE • Why do interest groups form? When Tocqueville was writing in the 1830s, it was hard to form associations covering large areas. People had trouble uniting, he said, “for all being very small and lost in the crowd, they do not see one another at all and do not know where to find one another.”9 The press supplied one answer to the communication problem, but news could travel no faster than a horse or steamboat. Soon, however, the telegraph enabled far-flung interests to communicate instantaneously. The spread of railroads and hotels made it possible to hold meetings for people from all over the country.10 During the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, advances in communication and transportation further reduced the barriers. Organizational work that once took months of letter writing and weeks of wagon travel now requires a few minutes at the computer keyboard. Lincoln and Special Interests MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION Conservative and antitax groups sometimes suggest that Abraham Lincoln would have taken their side. They quote a passage that includes the following: “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.” Lincoln never used those words. They came from William Boetcker, a minister who was born eight years after Lincoln died and who led an antistrike interest group called “The Citizens’ Industrial Alliance.” Boetcker never attributed the lines to Lincoln, but apparently some of his listeners did.11 Conversely, liberal groups sometimes claim Lincoln as a fellow foe of corporate lobbies. They cite this passage: “Corporations have been enthroned. An era of corruption will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.” Journalist Joe Conason cited it in It Can Happen Here (2007) as did former vice president Al Gore in The Assault on Reason (2007).12 In 2010, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) quoted Lincoln as uttering the passage “100 years ago,” by which time Lincoln had been dead for 45 years.13 In 2011 and 2012, members of the “Occupy” movement used it to attack big business.14 This quotation is also bogus. Apparently, members of the Populist movement concocted it in the late 1800s, and it has been in circulation ever since, with speakers and writers passing it to one another without checking its authenticity. Lincoln’s personal secretary and biographer, John Nicolay, called it a “bald, unblushing forgery.”15 Indeed, the statement would have been inconsistent with Lincoln’s pre-presidential career. Lincoln represented railroad companies in court. He also lobbied the U.S. House on behalf of canal developers and the Illinois Legislature on behalf of medical professionals.16 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 237 11/7/12 11:15 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 238 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 238 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services Government has grown alongside the interest group community, both as result and cause. During the country’s early decades, the federal bureaucracy was small. National interest group activity was light, with few issues to talk about and few officials to talk to, but some groups began to press for new agencies to represent their interests. In 1862, the United States Agricultural Society and other groups persuaded Congress to establish the Department of Agriculture (which gained Cabinet status 27 years later). Contrary to myth (see the Myths and Misinformation feature), Lincoln was not an automatic foe of special interests, and he signed the measure. In the years since then, group pressure has also made way for the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Education, and Veterans Affairs. The public sector has created new interests. Some groups represent members who gain direct benefits from government such as veterans and Social Security recipients. Some groups represent members who carry out government programs, such as public school teachers. Still others supply goods and services that government policy requires, such as diversity consultants (see the photo) and defense contractors. Each now has its own interest groups. Before 1890, most Americans worked in farming,17 but this situation changed as the new century drew near. The growth of organized labor followed the development of industries. Law, medicine, and other fields evolved into distinct professions, each with its own distinct interests. With more lines of business came more associations.18 Continuing into the twenty-first century, this trend toward diversification has created economic interests, many stemming from new technologies. E-commerce was once science fiction; now it is a set of industries, each with its own issues. Meanwhile, waves of immigration have increased the nation’s demographic diversity. Although English remains the nation’s common tongue, millions speak another language at home. Linguistic and social variety has meant additional interests and their related organizations. For instance, the National Council of La Raza (the Race) is an important Hispanic group. Sometimes, new interest groups arise from changes in beliefs. Pollution had befouled the nation long before the 1960s, but it took books such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring—which inspired widespread public concerns with pesticides and pollution of the environment and led to the 1972 ban of the insecticide DDT—to make it an urgent political issue. This new perspective fed the growth in existing environmental groups and helped give birth to others. Meanwhile, other writers and activists persuaded Americans to spurn workplace discrimination against women. The 1966 founding of the National Organization for Women (NOW) was one result of this new attitude, and more groups followed. Although technology has smashed many of the hurdles, one difficulty persists, which scholars call the free-rider problem. Membership in a group takes time (for attending meetings or even reading publications) and money (for dues and contributions). If a group seeks something that will help members and nonmembers alike, such as clean air, members might wonder why they should bother to join, thinking it may pay just to skip the hassle of membership and reap the rewards anyway. One solution is to establish a rule that makes people join. Labor unions try to insert such a requirement in their employment contracts. Another is to provide selective incentives that only members may enjoy, such as exclusive access to publications.19 On its Web page, the Texas Organization of Nurse Executives (TONE) lists several incentives for joining and concludes that membership “is a smart investment in your career.”20 Free-rider problem—the difficulty that exists when an organization seeks a good or policy change but cannot confine the benefits to its own members. If people can reap the benefits without bearing the costs of membership, they lack incentives to join. Selective incentive—a good or service that only members of an organization may enjoy. A selective incentive is one remedy to the freerider problem. Free-rider problem The american association for affirmative action is a trade association for diversity consultants and other professionals who run affirmative action programs. Courtesy of the American Association for Affirmative Action 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 238 11/7/12 11:15 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 239 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 239 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services ECONOMIC GROUPS MAJOR ISSUE • What are some types of economic groups, and what role do they play in policy deliberation? Economic groups, including businesses, trade associations, and labor unions, pursue their own material welfare by seeking the following benefits: • Direct monetary benefit, including jobs, contracts, purchases, subsidies, or tax breaks • Restraints on competition that hamper rivals • Relief from regulation, in the form of less red tape and fewer government requirements Economic groups often equate the people’s well-being with their own, or, as one auto executive put it in 1952: “What was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”21 Business Firms One political scientist has written of “the privileged position of business.” Because a market economy rises or falls with private enterprise, he wrote, public officials tend to defer to the needs of business.22 According to a common impression, a few billionaires rule the government. The actual picture is more complex. Far from being a narrow elite, the business sector represents a large part of the public, and its breadth is a source of power. The United States is home to more than 7 million business establishments.23 Their combined payrolls of 120 million jobs account for most working Americans. Of course, not all employees identify their own interests with those of their employers, and the relationship can be tense. In the end, though, workers usually gain when their companies prosper and always suffer when they fail. If a firm’s existence is at stake, employees may join with management to seek government help. In the 1980s, the United Auto Workers (UAW) supported federal loan guarantees that helped save the Chrysler Corporation. In 1994, some 16,000 tobacco workers marched on Washington to protest an increase in tobacco taxes. “I’m marching for my livelihood,” said one. “I’ve got to have that job.”24 Stock ownership widened in the late twentieth century, then declined with the economic turmoil that started in 2008. Still, about half of American households now own stock, either directly or through individual retirement accounts, company pension funds, or mutual funds (see Figure 8-1). Because the value of their investment varies with the fortunes of companies with which they have holdings, shareholders sometimes take the corporate side in political disputes. During the federal government’s antitrust action against Microsoft, the company’s 3 million shareholders supplied it with a base of support. But widespread stock and bond ownership also means that executive misconduct or mismanagement may have harmed millions of Americans. The economic upheaval of recent years has caused many to take a harsher view of big business and the financial community. In 2011, 47% of Americans said that Wall Street hurts the U.S. economy more than it helps, while 38% said that it helps more than hurts.25 Economic group—an interest group, such as a union or business, that explicitly pursues its own material welfare. 1999 2000 Percentage of Americans Investing in Stock, April of Each Year, 1999–2011 2002 numbers are from June 28-30 polling % investing in stocks was also at the 54% low in May 2000. Do you, personally, or jointly with a spouse, have any money invested in the stock market right now—either in an individual stock, a stock mutual fund, or in a self-directed 401(k) or IRA? 40 70 50 60 58% 62% 62% 67% 60% 61% 61% 62% 65% 62% 57% 56% 54% 20 30 10 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2009 2011 FIGURE 8-1 Since 1999, Gallup has asked: “Do you, personally or jointly with a spouse, have any money invested in the stock market right now—either in an individual stock, a stock mutual fund, or in a self-directed 401-K or Ira?” SourCe: Dennis Jacobe, “In u.S., 54% Have Stock Market Investments, Lowest Since 1999,” Gallup poll, april 20, 2011, http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-marketinvestments-lowest-1999.aspx 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 239 11/7/12 11:15 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 240 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 240 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services Although business has a reputation for preferring smaller government, firms often profit from the growth of government. Throughout the Cold War (1945–1991), heavy industry made billions from defense spending, which led to President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous warning against “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”26 Even after the Cold War, the ties remained close. A 2009 study by the Cato Institute, a free-market research organization, estimated that the government annually spends at least $90 billion on “corporate welfare,” including direct cash payments to businesses (e.g., subsidies to farmers and grants to automobile companies) and indirect benefits such as loans, research, and marketing support.27 The connection between business and government became dramatically deeper in 2008, when Congress approved $700 billion to rescue financial institutions. A few months later, a $787 billion economic stimulus bill greatly increased opportunities for contractors at all levels of government: construction, information technology, renewable energy, and many others. While many businesses object to costly government rules, other businesses benefit from them. Bigger firms can better afford to comply with health and safety rules than smaller ones, giving them an edge.28 In other cases, regulation increases demand for a business’s services. Antipollution laws have enlarged the environmental services industry, with more than $300 billion in revenue and 1.7 million workers.29 Trade and Professional Associations Hundreds of businesses have offices in Washington, DC, to represent their interests to the government, but they make up only a portion of economic interest groups. Trade or i ndustry associations are another major part of that group. Businesses join trade associations when they have an interest in public policy but find it uneconomical to keep offices in the capital. For example, few individual farmers could afford Washington representation, so they have banded together in large national groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union. Even firms with government relations offices join trade associations. When issues affect an entire industry, individual companies want a united front. The federal government has responsibility for fighting movie piracy at home and abroad. Accordingly, major film companies belong to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA; see the photo). Such groups may perform public services as alternatives to government action. In response to demands for government censorship, for instance, MPAA established the rating system that curbs children’s access to movies with adult content. Professional associations usually consist of people with special training. These groups often start with the aim of gaining official recognition of their profession, including laws requiring a license or credential. They differ from most trade associations because they can sometimes impose formal discipline on their members. Professional associations argue that such requirements and procedures protect their clients. At the same time, they also hold down competition. In the state legislatures and in Congress, the American Medical Association (AMA) has fought independent medical providers, such as nurse midwives Trade or industry association— an organization that represents businesses in a particular field or industry. Trade or industry assoc The Motion picture association of america lobbies Congress and the executive branch to fight the illegal copying of movies. It also files lawsuits against those who make the copies. Courtesy of the MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA www.mpaa.org 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 240 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 241 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 241 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services (who deliver babies) and chiropractors. Describing “alternative” providers as unqualified, the AMA has sought laws forbidding them to practice or at least denying them federal reimbursement. The AMA’s detractors respond that barriers to entry have stifled consumer choice, leading to poorer health care at higher cost.30 The AMA is the lead organization for physicians, and the American Bar Association (ABA) plays a similar role for attorneys. Among trade associations, lead organizations include the National Association of Manufacturers for industrial companies, and both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business for small businesses. Within their fields, these groups have the largest memberships and the broadest scope of policy concerns. Beside the lead organizations stand many specialized groups. While the ABA serves lawyers in general, different kinds of lawyers have different interests. Members of the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America), specialize in lawsuits, and members of the Federation of Insurance and Corporate Counsel defend clients against them. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers seldom agrees with the National District Attorneys Association. The free-rider problem poses difficulties for trade and professional associations. These groups seek policies that benefit everyone in their fields. Here is where selective incentives come into play. Associations supply members with research, training, and opportunities to “network” with other members. Many also help members in dealings with government. Organized Labor Labor unions in the United States have always faced steep challenges in gaining and keeping members. Well into the twentieth century, industrial employers used violence against unions. In 1935, American labor gained important federal protections with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, or the Wagner Act. This law set up the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to protect union organizing and encourage collective bargaining. The act prohibited the setting up of company unions and firing workers who tried to organize their own unions. The Wagner Act, together with the growth of industry during and after World War II, helped bring union membership to one-third of nonagricultural employment by 1955. Membership then dropped off. Union leaders blamed the1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which curbed their ability to counteract the free-rider problem. This law banned closed shops, in which employees must belong to the union at the time of hiring. It allowed union shops, where new employees must join the union within a certain period; but at the same time, it allowed states to enact right-to-work laws, which forbid union shops and thus let employees decline membership. The 22 states with right-to-work laws tend to have lower levels of union membership than states with union shops. Other forces have also weakened the unions. In 1955, about 33% of nonagricultural jobs were in manufacturing, the old mainstay of organized labor. Forty years later, that proportion had plunged to less than 16%. Union membership fell accordingly, so that by 2011, less than one in eight nonagricultural employees in the United States belonged to a union.31 Although other industrial countries have also seen declining rates of union membership, the figure in the United States is especially low. In 2010, for instance, it was less than half the rate of Britain and Canada.32 One area of growth consists of public employees. In 2009, for the first time in American history, a majority of union members were working in government instead of the private sector.33 (Job losses in industry hastened the shift in the public/private balance, which had been under way for years.) Many of the public sector union members are white-collar professionals such as teachers.34 In 2009, the outgoing general counsel of the National Education Association (NEA) candidly explained the group’s effectiveness: Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act)—the New Deal statute that set up the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to protect union organizing and encourage collective bargaining. The act forbade such unfair employer practices as setting up a company union and firing workers who organized unions. Taft-Hartley Act—the 1947 law that curbed union power in several ways, including a ban on closed shops. Closed shop—a requirement that employees join a labor union before the business hires them. The TaftHartley Act outlawed it. Union shop—a requirement that an employee join a union after starting employment. Right-to-work laws—laws in 22 states that forbid union shops. 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 241 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 242 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 242 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.35 In recent years, blue-collar unions have aimed for a comeback. The 1.4-million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents truck drivers, delivery service employees, and workers in other occupations, has striven to overcome a history of corruption.36 That effort is part of a strategy to improve the union’s image. Its leaders have talked about international human rights and launched services such as the James R. Hoffa Memorial Scholarship Fund. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has more than 2 million members, including nurses, health technicians, janitors, food service workers, and office workers.37 It has worked to bring Hispanics and other ethnic groups into the labor movement. The largest American labor group is the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). It is not a union itself. Rather, it is an organization of 56 unions and their 12 million members.38 The AFL-CIO tries to serve labor’s interests through public relations, education of union organizers, and political activity. In recent years, some labor leaders have voiced disappointment in the AFL-CIO’s efforts to sustain labor union membership. In 2005, the Teamsters, the SEIU, and five other major unions broke away from the AFL-CIO to form Change to Win, which focuses on union organizing.39 What does labor want? Samuel Gompers, an early union leader, said in 1890, “We do want more, and when it becomes more, we shall still want more. And we shall never cease to demand more until we have received the results of our labor.”40 Unions back laws that mean better pay, benefits, and workplace safety. Like other economic groups, they also try to use public policy to thwart competition. Industrial unions oppose measures that would lower trade barriers, unless they also improve wages and working conditions overseas. (Critics say that the American unions want to make foreign labor more costly and less competitive.) Public employee unions fight efforts to shift government services to private contractors. Teacher unions oppose programs that would let parents use tax money for nonpublic schools. Economic groups can contribute to deliberation. As we have seen, they marshal information and arguments to gain support from policymakers and the general public. When rising energy prices led to calls for the breakup of energy companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a 132-page report on antitrust law and the oil industry.41 In the same vein, the National Education Association publishes detailed studies of issues such as the No Child Left Behind Act.42 Deliberation requires multiple points of view, but on any given issue, there is no guarantee that organized economic groups will represent more than one side. For instance, consider an industry group that presses for tax breaks or subsidies for its members. Even though each such measure might mean millions of dollars in spending or forgone revenue, that sum will make up only a tiny fraction of a multitrillion-dollar federal budget, and the cost to each taxpayer will not be noticeable. (A billion dollars came to less than three onehundredths of 1% of federal spending in 2012.) So while the affected group has a strong incentive to argue for such measures, there may be no material incentive for another economic group to rebut them. Another type of organization can sometimes fill the void, however. We now turn out attention to policy groups. American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)—the leading group of American labor, an organization of 56 unions and their 11 million members. American Federat Narrow interest groups sometimes benefit at the taxpayers’ expense. By permission of Gary Varvel and Creators Syndicate, Inc. 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 242 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 243 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 243 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services POLICY GROUPS MAJOR ISSUE • What are policy groups, and how do they affect policy deliberation? Policy groups differ from economic groups in that their announced mission is to serve higher goals than their members’ material interests. Observers sometimes refer to them as ideological interest groups, though they call themselves public interest groups. Some work on many issues. The American Conservative Union says that it “represents the views of Americans who are concerned with economic growth through lower taxes and reduced government spending and the issues of liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values and national security.”43 Americans for Democratic Action is “committed to liberal politics, liberal policies, and a liberal future” on a wide range of issues.44 Other groups, such as the Children’s Defense Fund, concentrate on more specific topics. Sometimes, the boundary between economic and policy groups is vague. Consider the groups that oppose urban sprawl, the spread of homes and businesses into undeveloped land at the edge of cities. Much of the motivation behind the movement stems from a sincere belief that sprawl wastes resources, but self-interest also plays a part because stopping sprawl will benefit urban property owners (whose real estate values will rise) and downtown business owners (who will not have to face suburban competition). Forms of Organization Many policy groups are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue code. Such groups pay no income tax, but contributions to them are not tax-deductible. Although they may not give direct contributions to federal candidates, they may make independent expenditures in campaigns and advocate specific legislative positions.45 One example is Citizens United, a conservative group that prevailed in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, which held that the federal government could not ban independent political expenditures by corporations and unions (see below). The most prominent 501(c)(4) is AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons), whose 40 million members make it the largest interest group in the United States.46 Other groups are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the same law. This status enables a group’s supporters to deduct contributions from income tax and also makes it much easier to receive grants from private foundations. Such an organization may not do any electioneering or spend more than a small fraction of its resources advocating stands on particular measures. So how can these groups influence policy? The limits on advocacy do not apply to analyses of public issues, provided that they do not explicitly tell legislators how to vote. Think tanks are 501(c)(3) organizations that specialize in such work by issuing statements and reports, and by supporting the writing of books on policy topics. For instance, the Cato Institute looks at issues from a libertarian angle, faulting government intervention both in the economy and in individuals’ private lives. Think tanks can foster deliberation by supplying intellectual fuel to staffers and lawmakers. The idea of establishing a Council of Economic Advisers in the White House started with a 1931 pamphlet from the Brookings Institution, a leading think tank in the nation’s capital.47 The conservative Manhattan Institute sponsored Charles Murray’s controversial 1984 book, Losing Ground, which convinced many policymakers that federal welfare programs had worsened poverty. Although critics questioned the book’s analysis, it helped lead to major welfare reform in 1988 and 1996. Because most think tanks post their material on the Internet, anyone can now read reports on the very day that they come out. Scholars from these organizations also appear on cable television and talk radio. Think tanks can thus contribute to everyday conversations among activists and ordinary citizens, but the higher media profile has come at a price. A common criticism is that short-term thinking is crowding out long-term deliberation. One scholar says that the national media care for “the 30-second sound bite Think tank—a research organization, usually nonprofit, that issues statements and reports on policy issues. Policy group—an interest group that purports to seek goals that benefit the broader public, not just its own members. Ideological interest group—an interest group with a strong commitment to a particular political philosophy whether liberal, conservative, or libertarian. Public interest group—a nonprofit organization whose primary goal is to seek benefits for the broader public, not just its own members. 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 243 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 244 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 244 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services rather than an in-depth analysis of the issues and many websites publicize reports without critiquing the methodology or level of analysis. These practices serve to undermine the basic standards desirable for rigorous analysis of the issues.”48 Some 501(c)(3) organizations mount “nonpartisan” voter registration and getout-the-vote efforts in accord with federal rules, even if these drives focus on locales or demographic categories that favor one party. Republican and Democratic leaders alike have helped raise money for groups that tend to turn out votes for their own side.49 For instance, President Clinton appeared at fund-raisers for the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, a group that increases participation among Mexican Americans, who mostly vote Democratic. Yet another type of 501(c)(3) is a foundation. The usual purpose of a foundation is to make grants to organizations and individuals for scientific, educational, or other charitable purposes. Many foundations are nonpolitical, but some provide large sums to think tanks and other policy groups. Examples are the Ford Foundation, which supports liberal groups, and the Bradley Foundation, which supports conservative ones. Economic or policy groups sometimes prefer to give money to federal candidates. For this purpose, they form political action committees (PACs), which are not taxexempt and must abide by the contribution limits and disclosure rules enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). A policy group may be a conglomerate, with several kinds of organization. The Sierra Club, a major environmental group, is a 501(c)(4). The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)(3) and thus can take tax-deductible contributions for public education, litigation, and training. The Sierra Club Political Committee supports candidates who favor the club’s environmental stands and opposes those who take the other side. Super PACs are a relatively new kind of political action committee made possible by the Citizens United case, as well as a 2010 federal court case called SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. A Super PAC (the formal term for which is “independent expenditureonly committee”) may raise unlimited sums from individuals, unions, associations, and corporations, and spend unlimited sums to support or oppose political candidates. Super PACs must report contributions and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission, just as a traditional PAC would. But unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs may not give money directly to parties or candidates. (Our chapter on elections and campaigns will offer more detail on traditional PACs and Super PACs.) Membership and Funding When Tocqueville wrote of associations, he was describing clusters of Americans who had regular local meetings. And until the late twentieth century, such associations were the building blocks of most national policy groups. Either a national group arose from existing local groups, or a national group admitted local chapters. The League of Women Voters began in 1920 at the convention of the National Women’s Suffrage Association, which had Foundation—a nonprofit corporation or a charitable trust that makes grants to organizations or individuals for scientific, educational, cultural, religious, or other charitable purposes. Some foundations support policy groups. Political action committee (PAC)—a political committee, other than a candidate’s campaign committee or a party committee, that raises and spends money to elect or defeat candidates. Businesses and labor unions often form PACs because they cannot give money directly to federal candidates from their own treasuries. Super PAC—a political action committee that can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, corporations, and associations, and spend unlimited sums on independent expenditures in federal election campaigns, provided that it does not contribute to or coordinate with parties or candidates. Foundation Not all think tanks specialize in sound bites. Some continue to produce lengthy technical documents, which draw the attention of cartoonists. © Harley Schwadron. Reproduction rights available at www.CartoonStock.com 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 244 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 245 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 245 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services achieved its goal of a constitutional amendment securing voting rights for women. The League then focused on grassroots organization—working among the broad, general public. To this day, it works on local voter education. In the 1960s and 1970s, a different pattern became common. Instead of starting with a confederation of local groups or a national convention of individuals, the new kind of group would start with a small number of leaders. Scholar Theda Skocpol calls these groups “associations without members.”54 Often working from Washington, DC, the organizers would solicit grants from individuals or foundations (hence the importance of 501(c)(3) status) and seek free publicity.55 If successful, they would use much of their money for research and communication, plowing the rest back into more fundraising. Some groups also did grassroots organizing, but many did not. For example, the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, which promotes the civil rights of Hispanics, began in 1968 with money from the Ford Foundation and has never built local chapters.56 Face-to-face groups attract members with opportunities to make business contacts, gain friends, and even get dates. The new kind does not supply such benefits. According to scholar Robert Putnam, membership seldom involves much more than mailing checks. The bond between any two members of a such a group, he says, “is less like the bond between two members of a gardening club or prayer group and more like the bond between two Yankees fans on opposite coasts or perhaps two devoted L. L. Bean catalog users: they share some of the same interests but they are unaware of each other’s existence.”57 And just as Yankee fans wear caps and shirts with their team’s logo, so do members of the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association. Group membership can be a form of self-branding. Without the lure of personal relationships, how does a new-style national policy group attract and hold members? Often starting with money from foundations, it seeks people who share its philosophy. Usually, this process involves renting mailing lists from Grassroots—the broad general public. Interest groups often seek grassroots support. In 2010, a set of prominent Republicans formed one of the first Super PACs, American Crossroads. Although the group correctly asserted that it received contributions from hundreds of people during that year, more than three-quarters of its money came from a handful of wealthy individuals and corporations. Soon afterwards, the founders of American Crossroads created a 501(c)(4) group, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, or Crossroads GPS. One purpose of the group was to engage in issue advocacy and research, but it could also play a part in electoral politics. Before Citizens United, a 501(c)(4) group could not run ads explicitly advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates. Now, it could do so, provided that such activity did not account for more than half of its spending. Unlike a traditional or Super PAC, a 501(c)(4) does not have to make public disclosure of its donors. “There are some donors who are interested in anonymity when it comes to advocating for specific issues,” a Crossroads GPS spokesperson told the Washington Post. 50 “Whether it’s legitimate or not, there is this near-hysteria, this belief that the Democrats are going to come after us,” said one potential contributor.51 The two groups raised more than $70 million during the 2010 campaign, and their advertising helped Republicans regain a majority in the House. They remained active after the midterm race. “On The Crossroads Groups the policy side, Crossroads GPS, we are working to stop President Obama’s agenda. On the political side, American Crossroads, we’re looking to replace him as president,” said a spokesperson for both groups.52 Pro-transparency organizations criticized the Crossroads groups for taking so much money from corporate interests and for blurring the line between campaigning and true issue advocacy. They were especially critical of the “dark money” passing through Crossroads GPS. But Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reports an irony: Most of the organizations behind the latest disclosure push—including Americans United for Change, Common Cause and Public Citizen—fall under a portion of the tax code that allows them to keep their donor details private. Some of the groups do reveal their biggest contributors voluntarily, but not at the level of detail required for political campaigns, super PACs and other explicitly electionoriented organizations. The contrast underscores the muddiness surrounding much of the disclosure debate, because a broad array of the nonprofit groups that advocate for greater transparency in political donations are often not required to make such disclosures themselves.53 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 245 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 246 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 246 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services like-minded publications. Organizers of a liberal group, for instance, often find their best prospects among subscribers to liberal magazines. Then it sends them a massproduced, direct-mail letter explaining its purpose and asking them to become “members” by sending money. Those who do respond—seldom more than a tiny fraction of the original addressees—enable the group to broaden its financial base. They also become the core of the group’s future mailing list. In recent years, associations have also used social media to gain the attention of potential members. Current members can re-post or re-tweet material to their friends and acquaintances, who in turn may “like” or “follow” the group and thus receive future communications. Over time, recruiters hope, these relatively passive forms of participation will prompt them to play a more active part, especially by sending membership dues. Letters and online communication may not be quite enough to win membership, so policy groups offer their own selective incentives. For a membership fee of just $16 a year, AARP offers travel discounts, insurance, investment services, and tax assistance, among other things.58 (Because the benefits are so extensive, and preceded most of AARP’s legislative activity, some would classify the organization more as an economic group than a policy group.) Other incentives, such as branded merchandise (see the photo), depend for their value on the members’ devotion to the cause. People display them not only for self-branding but as expressions of altruism and public spirit. Even after they receive their seed money and start building membership, policy groups also receive grants. Labor unions have supported liberal organizations such as the Economic Policy Institute, and corporations have backed conservative ones such as the Heritage Foundation—though a large share of corporate money goes to liberal groups.59 The federal government also gives grants to policy groups. A group may not use these funds to influence lawmakers, but federal dollars that it receives may “free up” money from other sources, which it may use for policy initiatives. Although Planned Parenthood is a leading provider of abortion services, it has received millions in federal grants, even under Republican presidents who opposed abortion.60 Scholars have pointed out that the greater the number of members, the harder it is to consult with them, and that large membership organizations follow the lead of the Washington staff.61 Supporters of interest groups argue that these studies underestimate the rank and file. If a company makes bad decisions, shareholders sell their stock; and if an association strays from its mission, members stop sending their dues. In 1988, AARP and other groups secured passage of legislation expanding Medicare to include unlimited annual hospital coverage for catastrophic illness, as well as other benefits such as outpatient prescription drugs. To fund the new benefits, Medicare recipients would have to pay higher premiums. To AARP’s surprise, senior citizens rebelled. The next year, AARP did a U-turn and supported repeal of the measure. Policy Groups and Political Controversies The best-known policy groups focus on contentious domestic issues. For years, the National Rifle Association (NRA) blocked proposals to increase federal regulation of firearms. During the 1990s, it lost some battles to Handgun Control and other anti-firearm groups. General public opinion seemed to tilt against the NRA, but it still retained powerful resources, including 3 million highly motivated members, and the potential support of the 47% of Americans who report having a firearm on their property.62 Since the start of the new century, NRA has regained some ground. Abortion stirs even deeper passions among many. Leading organizations include the National Right to Life Committee, which favors curbs on abortion, and NARAL ProChoice America, which opposes them. (The latter’s name was once the National Abortion The Sierra Club offers a branded backpack as an incentive to join. Staff/MCT/Newscom FOCUS QUESTION To what extent can policy groups distinguish the public interest from the economic interests of their supporters and financial backers? 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 246 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 247 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 247 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services Rights and Reproduction Action League, but it has dropped the mention of abortion.) Many other groups also take part in the issue, including some whose names confound common expectations: Catholics for a Free Choice and Feminists for Life; and as Figure 8-2 suggests, the names of organizations do not always reveal their purpose. Civil rights and civil liberties involve a large number of additional issues. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is the largest and oldest of the major civil rights organizations. Related groups include the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Martin Luther King Jr., and the National Urban League. These organizations originated in the struggle for AfricanAmerican equality, but in recent decades other groups have formed to aid Hispanics, Asian Americans, people with disabilities, and women. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is an umbrella organization uniting dozens of such groups. On civil liberties, the most prominent organization is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has often supported unpopular defendants in court cases involving free expression. Most of these groups take liberal positions, but they have conservative and libertarian counterparts. The American Civil Rights Institute backs legislation to end racial preferences, while the Institute for Justice and the Washington Legal Foundation wage legal battles against preferences and other forms of government activism. Policy and economic groups are key players in American politics. They supply much of the analysis and information on which public deliberation depends, and many of them give citizens a chance to express their views and take part in public life. In one way or another, they all try to influence what government does. Accordingly, it is important to know how they do this work. METHODS OF INFLUENCE MAJOR ISSUE • How do economic and policy groups try to get their way, and do their techniques contribute to deliberative democracy? People often assume that interest groups operate simply by giving money to politicians’ campaigns. Indeed, they often do so, but political contributions are only one of the ways in which groups exercise influence. Direct Lobbying In the nineteenth century, people representing special interests would wait in the lobbies of Congress and the state legislatures to make their case to lawmakers passing through. This practice gave rise to the terms lobbying and lobbyists, referring to the direct advocacy of special interests and the people who do it. In-house lobbyists are on a group’s payroll, while others work at outside law firms or consulting companies. Groups retain these contract lobbyists or “lobbyists for hire” either to take the place of in-house lobbyists or to Lobbyist—an individual whose job is to influence policymakers on behalf of an interest group. In-house lobbyist—a lobbyist on a group’s payroll. Contract lobbyist—a lobbyist who works at outside law firms or consulting companies and takes on interest groups as clients. a. Supports lower taxes, less government, and more freedom, and organizes citizen activists on behalf of these issues to engage in grassroots activities such as rallies and protests. b. Works for policies that will reduce federal debt. c. Supports very conservative “pro-family” positions. d. Works to strengthen political participation and curb special interests. e. Fights the agenda of the “Radical Right." 1. Eagle Forum (www.eagleforum.org) 2. FreedomWorks (www.freedomworks.org) 3. The Concord Coalition (www.concordcoalition.org) 4. Common Cause (www.commoncause.org) 5. People For the American Way (www.pfaw.org) FIGURE 8-2 Frequently, a policy group’s name says little about its purpose, viewpoint, or sponsorship. The vagueness may be intentional. a group may have more credibility if its name conveys an image of public spirit and nonpartisanship. The first column in this figure lists some advocacy groups and think tanks. The second column, in different order, briefly describes what they stand for. See if you can match the items in the two columns. (answers: 1-c, 2-a, 3-b, 4-d, 5-e) SourCe: Courtesy of eagle Forum www.eagleforum.org; Courtesy of FreedomWorks/www.freedomworks.org; Courtesy of The Concord Coalition; Courtesy of Common Cause; Courtesy of people for the american Way 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 247 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 248 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 248 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services supplement their efforts for special projects. In 2011, total expenditures on federal lobbying came to $3.32 billion.63 The spending included salaries for lobbyists and their staffs, as well as expenses for research and communication. “Lobbying is about education,” says Jeffrey Seisler, CEO of Clean Fuels Consulting. “That is, the education of policymakers.”64 Direct lobbying consists of talking with officials of the executive branch, lawmakers, and their aides; offering issue analysis; and supplying drafts of proposed bills. These exchanges may take the form of low-key office visits and hallway conversations, or they may involve formal presentations before committees or regulatory boards. Either way, lobbyists have to learn all about their issues and be ready for tough questions. According to lobbyist Wright Andrews, “For every hour I actually spend on the Hill, I spend nine hours in the office on preparation.”65 In 2011, a Gallup poll asked Americans to rank the honesty and ethical standards of various professions. Lobbyists tied with telemarketers for last place.66 Yet the most effective lobbyists have a reputation in the political world for integrity. Policymakers use their facts and arguments in public forums, and if opponents can discredit this material, the result is embarrassment. Officials and staffers thus learn to rely on “straight shooters.” To make sure their information remains dependable, good lobbyists often keep technical experts on their support staffs. The deliberative process depends on those who do this job well. Lobbyist Bill Sarpalius, a former House member (D-TX), said, “Good lobbyists do their homework and help Members of Congress understand the impact of legislation, the outcomes of which American citizens must live with every day. Good lobbyists understand the industry or organization he or she is representing. Good lobbyists are great sources of information. Good lobbyists are factual. Good lobbyists are truthful.”67 Not all lobbyists are good. In 2006, lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in federal court to several felony counts. He admitted that he had bribed officials and bilked his own clients. After news stories told how Abramoff had provided lawmakers with lavish travel and entertainment, Congress took steps to reform ethics rules, but the rules changes seemed unlikely to change the basics of Washington lobbying. “The Abramoff style is so far afield from the normal course of business as to be irrelevant to me and probably most people in my line of work,” said lobbyist Joel Johnson, who had served in the Clinton White House.68 Lobbyists must also know the key decision makers as well as the procedures of the agency or legislative body that makes the policy.69 Academic training may confer policy expertise, but it takes practical experience to gain these other kinds of knowledge. Many lobbyists are former public officials or staffers, who have access to policymakers. “Go to work on Capitol Hill,” a top lobbyist advises would-be colleagues. “Learn how the place works before you lobby—be an intern, be a legislative correspondent. Understand what a member of Congress or their staff needs.”70 Conversely, many congressional aides and officials of the executive branch have worked as lobbyists.71 Accordingly, critics refer to a revolving door between the public and private sectors. Congress has tried to slow down the revolving door by limiting what executive branch officials, lawmakers, and other government employees may do after they leave government service. Among other things, they must observe a waiting period before they can undertake certain lobbying activities. These “cooling-off periods” usually last a year or two, depending on the job or office. In some cases, the limitation is permanent. The aim is to keep Revolving door—slang for the interchange of employees between government and the private sector. on January 3, 2006, lobbyist Jack abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to bribe public officials. AP Photo/Gerald Herbert Direct lobbying—meetings or communications between interest group representatives and the officials they are trying to persuade. 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 248 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be

pied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 249 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 249 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services individuals from taking unfair advantage of the contacts and inside knowledge that come from public service. In 2009, President Obama issued an executive order further curbing the activities of former lobbyists who enter government service and of appointees who leave the government to lobby,72 but within weeks of issuing the order, he waived it for three former lobbyists that he was naming to government posts, citing the need for their knowledge and expertise.73 Lobbyists say that the “revolving door” provides them with more expertise, enabling them to supply better information. More generally, lobbyists portray themselves as servants of deliberative democracy. Pointing to the information they supply, they may argue that they are helping policymakers reason on public policy. Of course, some policymakers may decide on the basis of political survival, but the merits still matter to them. They must offer policy justifications in order to sell their position to other policymakers and explain it to constituents. In this way, the self-interest of lobbyists and policymakers alike can foster deliberation.74 Critics see a flaw in that reasoning, since not all interests join the fray. Groups that cannot afford sophisticated lobbying will probably not gain access to policymakers. They may have a good case, but if officials never hear them, then their arguments go to waste and official “deliberation” is incomplete. Likewise, the specific interests of organized groups often speak more loudly than the diffuse interests of the general public. At congressional hearings, witnesses who favor more spending on programs greatly outnumber those who favor less.75 There is also a bias against the future. Policymakers sometimes deliver bounty to current voters at the expense of their descendants. Consider Social Security and Medicare, both of which do a great deal of good for today’s senior citizens. Without benefit cuts, tax increases, or some mix of the two, these programs will run into hard times before future generations get to use them. Tax increases are usually unpopular, though, and any proposal to curb benefits will draw fire from groups such as AARP. People currently in college might gain from reform, but very few of them are focusing on these issues. (Unless you are a returning student well into middle age, it is unlikely that you and your friends spend much time talking about retirement.) Younger people have less money and vote at lower rates than older ones, so they have much less political clout. Grassroots, Air Wars, and Grasstops Politicians worry about elections, so although good access and solid policy arguments are crucial, an interest group will have more impact if it enjoys grassroots power, the ability to influence the voters. This power requires a membership that is • large, • geographically dispersed, and • intensely concerned about the group’s issues. When an important issue comes up for decision, leaders of the group try to mobilize the membership. Through newsletters, e-mails, or social media, they explain the issue’s significance and ask members to get in touch with Congress. If this effort works, lawmakers receive so many messages and calls that they may bow to the group’s wishes. Politicians reason that anyone who feels strongly enough to write or call will probably cast his or her next vote on the basis of the issue. (Petitions and preprinted postcards have scant effect, however, because they take so little effort.) A good example of grassroots power is AARP, whose members care passionately about senior citizens’ issues and vote in every state and congressional district. Although many people equate interest group power with campaign finance, AARP makes no contributions to candidates. It does not have to. Its millions of activists volunteer to write letters and swarm politicians’ offices.76 AARP and other interest groups regularly issue voter guides, listing where each elected official stood on key roll calls. The groups often summarize this information in vote ratings, which score lawmakers according to how often they sided with the group. Voter guides and vote ratings identify politicians as friends or foes, sending a message to a group’s members and sympathizers. FOCUS QUESTION Will the rise of social media strengthen the influence of groups representing younger generations? 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 249 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 250 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 250 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services A stealthier tactic is grasstops lobbying. For every lawmaker whose vote is at stake, a grass tops lobbying operation will use sophisticated databases to mobilize former staffers, friends, neighbors, or local political figures—anyone whose opinion would carry weight with the lawmaker. They may discuss the issue without ever disclosing what prompted them, so the lawmaker may not even know of the grasstops operation. Interest groups have increasingly relied on the Internet (see the box on “The Impact of Social Media and Communications Technology”). Most major groups post issue material, and those that rely on member contributions usually make it easy to give online. “To be an effective advocate you have to use social media,” said John Feehery of Quinn, Gillespie. “Whether you call yourself a lobbyist, a public affairs person or a strategist, if you don’t include social media in your offering you’re just not really playing.”77 Katherine Hamilton, a lobbyist at the same firm, said: “If you are a thought leader and you establish yourself through a blog, through tweeting, any kind of social media, you can present that as an asset to attract clients.”78 Groups often wage air war by buying advertisements in the broadcast and print media. During the 108th Congress (2003–2004), interest groups spent over $404 million on such advertisements.81 In an effort to reach a broader public, some of the spending went to national media. Other ad campaigns targeted policymakers and their staffs by focusing on Washington area television stations and publications that policymakers read. As with direct lobbying, there is disagreement about how issue advertising serves deliberative democracy. Some say that it gets the public to think about issues that they would otherwise overlook or that the mainstream press tends to ignore. Others call it a tool of manipulation, not deliberation. They argue that the advertising fails to foster evenhanded debate, noting that most issue ads came from corporations or groups of corporations. YouTube and other online video sites have enabled other interests to get their message out. Groups opposed to the war in Iraq posted clips of television news stories about the conflict, as well as their own videos of congressional hearings and antiwar rallies. Such methods have limits in persuading the undecided, however. Unlike television ads, Web videos only reach people who seek them out or belong to e-mail lists. Grasstops—an interest group tactic of enlisting the support of people with strong local influence or a personal connection to lawmakers. Air war—an interest group effort to sway public opinion through broadcast advertisements. The 112th Congress considered legislation to crack down on foreign Web sites trafficking in pirated music and motion pictures. The House version was called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), while the Senate version had a more unwieldy name: the PROTECT IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA for short). The legislation had support from the entertainment industry, including the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America. These groups had created a powerful coalition that included other industries and reached across party lines. By early 2012, it seemed likely that some form of the legislation would soon reach the president’s desk. But as the Bessette–Pitney blog noted on January 18, 2012, the legislation faced opposition from Silicon Valley interests, which argued that it would place unfair burdens on legitimate Web sites. To drive home the point, popular sites such as Craigslist and Wikipedia staged a brief “blackout” on January 18, the Internet’s first such intentional stoppage. Instead of their usual content, many of these sites featured arguments against the legislation. Fight for the Future, the coalition against the legislation, claimed that it flooded Congress The SOPA/PIPA War with millions of e-mails and over 100,000 calls.79 House and Senate cosponsors of the legislation started to withdraw their names, and appropriately, they announced their change of heart on Facebook. Soon, both chambers of Congress indefinitely postponed action. The action showed “that Americans actually still can dictate policy and not just lobbyists,” Reddit co-founder Alex Ohanian told Politico. “It’s motivating because this was a decentralized movement. Lots of people with great ideas started contributing and it started to get momentum. This idea went viral. It’s powerful when you think we’ve now hit this critical mass. We can get a message out there that actually affects politicians.”80 CRITICAL THINkING QUESTION Did the outcome represent a triumph of popular will, or did it result from the ability of one industry to mobilize its resources more effectively than another industry? 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 250 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 251 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 251 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services Campaign Finance Since 1907, federal law has forbidden business corporations from contributing directly to federal candidates. Labor unions have faced a similar ban since 1943. In that same year, however, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (a predecessor of the AFL-CIO) found a way around this barrier. From voluntary contributions by union members, it set up a separate fund that could give money to campaigns without tapping union treasuries. The CIO called this organization the Political Action Committee (PAC), a name that has since applied to all similar operations. After years of slow growth, PACs spread with the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which capped individual contributions at $1,000 per candidate per election and PAC contributions at $5,000. (A 2002 law raised the individual cap to $2,000 and provided that it would rise with inflation. For the 2012 election, the cap was $2,500.) PACs offered congressional candidates a way to raise money in larger sums. For economic and policy groups, they offered a lawful way to stay in campaign politics. A corporation, union, or trade association may set up a connected PAC, which may seek contributions only from people with connections to the parent organizations, such as members, employees, or shareholders. For example, the Democratic Republican Independent Voter Education Committee (DRIVE) is the PAC for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The organization that sponsors a connected PAC may directly pay its overhead expenses (e.g., office space and staff). A nonconnected PAC does not have ties to an existing organization and may seek contributions from anyone who may lawfully give to federal campaigns. Nonconnected PACs usually aim to support candidates with specific policy positions. EMILY’s List, which backs pro-choice Democratic women, is the largest such PAC. This group, whose name is an acronym for “Early Money Is Like Yeast” (i.e., it makes the “dough” rise), is well known for bundling contributions. In this practice, the PAC asks its individual supporters to write checks to a candidate. It then collects the checks and delivers them in a “bundle,” earning the candidate’s gratitude. Because the payee is the candidate instead of the PAC, these contributions do not count against the PAC’s contribution limit and indeed can add up to a figure well over that limit. Under the letter of the law, a bundle of 100 checks of $2,500 each is not a $250,000 contribution from the PAC but a set of separate contributions from 100 individuals. Until 2002, another loophole consisted of soft money contributions to political parties. Although corporations and labor unions may not contribute directly to candidates for federal office, they (as well as individuals) could give unlimited amounts to political parties, ostensibly for nonfederal elections or for “party-building” activities. Campaign finance legislation banned the practice, but in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions could make unlimited independent expenditures for or against candidates.82 As noted earlier, this decision helped give rise to Super PACs. Surprisingly, there is no scholarly consensus linking contributions to specific outcomes on Capitol Hill.83 According to a pollster who surveyed members of the Washington political community: “We couldn’t find any direct relationship between campaign donations and clout. The only place we could find a modest correlation with influence was in spending on lobbying.”84 So why do groups give money? Contributions are one way to gain access. All other things being equal, a politician is more likely to listen to a contributor than a noncontributor. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) candidly acknowledged that if she finds 30 messages on her desk, “of the thirty, you’re going to know ten of them. Anyone is going to Connected PAC—a political action committee that is under the sponsorship of a corporation, union, or trade association and may solicit contributions only from people with connections to the sponsoring organization. Nonconnected PAC—a political action committee that is not under the sponsorship of an existing organization and may seek contributions from anyone who may lawfully give to federal campaigns. Bundling—the practice of gathering a large number of small contributions into one group. Although the recipient typically views the result as one large contribution, each check counts separately for the purposes of campaign finance limits. Soft money—political spending that influences elections but is not subject to contribution or expenditure limits under campaign finance law. president obama’s proposal for changes in health coverage sparked an advertising war. Courtesy of Health Care for America Now 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 251 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 252 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 252 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services make phone calls to the people they know first. I’m going to call the people I know. Among the people I know are donors.”85 Still, the money is no substitute for good policy arguments and motivated constituencies. According to one health care executive, “The PAC gets you a place at the table, but you have to know which fork to use.”86 If anything, it is the elected officials who have the leverage, using their policymaking power to pressure economic groups into making contributions. As Table 8-1 shows, incumbents get most PAC money. One former aide to a congressional campaign committee said of its chairman, “He has the [nerve] to let the business community know that if you don’t give us the money, see what happens: We may not have the votes to pass your bills, but we sure as hell can kill them.”87 Philanthropy Philanthropy is another way interest groups wield influence. Charity may seem to be the most selfless of activities. Indeed, a genuine sense of social responsibility may lie behind many of the educational and philanthropic works of corporations, unions, and other interest groups. Yet other motivations are seldom far away. Public service may improve an organization’s public image, an important goal when people have a bad opinion of it. For instance, many Americans believe that the managed care industry denies necessary health services to clients. Such attitudes encourage politicians to fight the industry. To improve their public image, managed care companies emphasize charitable activities. CIGNA Corporation said, “The mission of the CIGNA Contributions Program is to strengthen CIGNA by supporting organizations and activities that improve the overall climate for business.”88 Charitable contributions also create potential allies. If a group receives money, its members are more likely to side with their benefactor in political disputes. When AT&T sought federal approval for a controversial merger, for instance, it received statements of support from groups to which it had contributed, including the NAACP, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), and the NEA. Policymakers have pet charities. For interest groups seeking influence, giving to these charities is “a win-win,” lobbyist Wright Andrews told the Associated Press. “Give to charities and get a tax deduction. There’s no question it gives you better access. Access is power. It goes to having a direct impact on whether you get support or not.”89 Interest groups may focus on charities with which politicians have some connection. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia), has long ties to the Washington TABLE 8-1 PACS This table shows 2010 PAC contributions going to incumbents, challengers, and open-seat candidates for Congress. Incumbents consistently get most of the money from business and labor. Sector Total (in millions) To Incumbents To Challengers To Open Seats Agribusiness $22.0 83% 5% 12% Communication/Electronics $25.0 91% 2% 7% Construction $15.0 79% 10% 12% Defense $14.0 92% 1% 7% Energy/Natural Resources $28.0 79% 8% 13% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate $62.0 84% 5% 11% Health $54.0 84% 5% 11% Lawyers & Lobbyists $15.0 86% 3% 11% Transportation $21.0 85% 5% 10% Miscellaneous Business $37.0 81% 7% 12% Labor $63.0 81% 6% 13% Ideology/Single-Issue $60.0 53% 24% 23% SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, “PAC Dollars to Incumbents, Challengers, and Open Seat Candidates,” www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/pac2cands.php?cycle=2010, accessed June 1, 2012. 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 252 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 253 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 253 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services Bach Consort. “This is a major, major—the major event for us,” he told lobbyists and corporate executives at a 2010 fund-raiser. “Many of you are here, and who have contributed, you are special to us.”90 Whereas direct contributions to federal candidates are subject to dollar limits and public disclosure, charitable contributions are unlimited and often go unreported.91 So philanthropy frequently enables interests to curry favor with public officials out of public view. Critics say that such practices are a way of evading the spirit of campaign finance laws under the guise of good citizenship. Supporters of the practice take a more benign view. In many cases, charity does reflect a genuine belief in corporate citizenship, and even when the motive is not entirely noble, it may still be beneficial. Tocqueville spoke of “self-interest properly understood,” the idea that “by serving his fellows man serves himself and that doing good is to his private advantage.”92 Corporate philanthropy and “community service” may reflect selfish calculations, but the effect is the same as if they had stemmed from sheer benevolence. Legal Action As mentioned before, interest groups have long made a practice of bringing their issues to court, as the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund did with the landmark school segregation case of Brown v. Board of Education. Many of the Supreme Court’s most important cases have involved sponsorship by an interest group. Congress has encouraged litigation by interest groups. Since the 1970s Clean Air Act, every major environmental law has provided for “citizen suits.” Under such provisions, individuals or interest groups may sue polluters who are breaking the law or regulators who are failing on the job. The idea began at a time when lawmakers distrusted the executive branch and wanted a backup enforcement mechanism in case officials got too cozy with industry. In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a citizen suit that environmental groups had pressed under the Clean Water Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that members of the groups had had standing to sue. In dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia raised questions about citizen suits in general, saying that they give a private citizen the power to enforce the law, acting as “a self-appointed mini-EPA.” Interest groups, he added, have great discretion in picking enforcement targets. The size of the potential penalties can give such groups massive bargaining power, “which is often used to achieve settlements requiring the defendant to support environmental projects of the plaintiffs’ choosing. Thus is a public fine diverted to a private interest.”93 Although conservatives have often criticized interest group legal action for promoting judicial activism, they, too, have joined the fray. Conservative foundations and donors have helped finance suits against racial preferences, restrictions on school vouchers, limitations on religion, and infringements of property rights. A related tactic is the filing of an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the court brief. Those who file such briefs are not parties to the case but want to volunteer information and analysis to the court. The Court receives them in most cases that go to argument.94 There is evidence that the briefs do influence court deliberations, so interest groups hire top attorneys to write them.95 In a pair of affirmative action cases in 2003, supporters of existing programs deluged the Court with briefs. Referring to the briefs’ binding, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the Court had relied on “the powerful consensus of the dark green briefs.”96 Protest The civil rights movement pioneered the techniques of nonviolent protest, including organized demonstrations. The “March on Washington” has become a standard tactic of many organizations. The problem here is that the whole idea of protest is to capture public attention, and once it becomes routine, it stops being newsworthy. What is more, the objects of protest learn to adapt. Radical organizer Saul Alinsky recalled a corporate executive who displayed the blueprints to a new plant, telling him, “See the big hall? That’s our sit-in room! When the sit-inners come they’ll be shown in and there will be coffee, TV, and good toilet facilities—they can sit here until hell freezes over.”97 Amicus curiae brief—a document filed by an individual or group that is not a party to a legal case, which provides information that aids the court in its deliberations (the term is Latin for “friend of the court”). Interest groups use such briefs to influence court decisions. 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 253 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 254 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 254 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services Another protest tactic is the boycott, in which the group urges people not to do business with the target, whether a business or an entire state. Boycotts work when organizers can enlist a large share of the target’s clientele. Martin Luther King Jr. rose to fame when he organized a boycott of segregated public buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Because his followers accounted for much of the bus ridership, the campaign had an impact. By contrast, national groups have often mounted boycotts of large, popular corporations to protest offenses ranging from objectionable music lyrics to unfair labor practices. Some boycotts have worked: in the 1980s, consumer pressure led companies to divest from South Africa, which was oppressing its black majority. Boycotts usually flop, however, because most consumers never even hear about them in the first place. Protest has tended to be a tactic of the liberal side of the political spectrum. During the Obama administration, however, protest emerged on the right. The “tea party” movement arose in opposition to the 2009 economic stimulus bill, the president’s health care plan, and other expansions of federal power. Recalling the 1773 Boston Tea Party, participants sent tea bags to elected officials as a symbol of their disapproval. The modern tea party protesters also staged spirited rallies and harshly confronted lawmakers at town hall meetings. The movement was loose and decentralized, though it did receive some support from national organizations. In this and similar cases, however, critics contend that protests and other tactics are not truly a spontaneous outpouring of opinion. They say that this “grassroots” activity is artificial, so they dub it Astroturf. Beyond the question of methods, however, is the broader question of whether interest group politics supports or undermines good citizenship. INTEREST GROUPS AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY Any appraisal of the role of interest groups in deliberative democracy must grapple with the potential conflict between their goals and the broader public good. It must also consider whether good citizens can serve certain kinds of interests. Foreign Interests To influence policy in the United States, foreign governments hire lobbyists, who must register with the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2010, foreign governments spent $460 million on lobbying.98 Some question whether former officials— or any American citizen, for that matter—should lobby for foreign businesses or governments. To the extent that American interests are in competition or conflict with those of other countries, the argument goes, such lobbying constitutes bad citizenship. In this sense, foreign lobbying would also undercut the main goal of American deliberative democracy, which is to serve the common interests of the United States. Defenders of foreign lobbying say that international voices aid deliberation by presenting policymakers with perspectives that they might not otherwise consider. The two sides would disagree sharply about trade policy. Evidence indicates that foreign lobbying has influenced the federal government to reduce trade barriers. Some would say that this trend is a sellout of American workers, while others would say that lower barriers may foster American economic growth.99 Further complicating the issue is the meaning of “foreign.” Many American firms “offshore” much of their work overseas. (If you call a customer service line, the person on the Astroturf—slang for an outpouring of “grassroots” sentiment that an interest group manufactures. a worker at a Toyota plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. The company is Japanese, but the workers are american. AP Photo/James Crisp, File 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 254 11/7/12 11:16 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. CHapTer 8 Interest Groups 255 # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 255 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services other end may be in India.) Conversely, many foreign firms have extensive operations in the United States, employing large numbers of Americans. Thorny questions also involve policy groups that support foreign governments or groups of people in other countries. As we saw at the start of this chapter, Students for a Free Tibet is an example. One view is that supporting such groups is inconsistent with the duties of citizens, since the foreign interests are seldom identical to those of the United States. In a highly controversial paper, scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt criticized “The Israel Lobby” for denying such conflict. “Indeed the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep US support intact.”100 Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz strongly dissented: “In other words, any group that needs a lobby must be working against ‘American national interest.’ . . . By their reasoning, the very existence of the ACLU proves that civil liberties are not in America’s national interest!”101 An Inherent Conflict? Some would disagree with Dershowitz, arguing that interest group activity is in conflict with citizenship and deliberative democracy. Critics of interest groups say that they encourage people to forget what they should do for their country and instead focus on what their country can do for them, in the form of prescription drug benefits, ethanol subsidies, and tax breaks. “AARP is concentrating the political mind on the elderly,” says the executive director of the Concord Coalition, an antideficit group, but “nobody is representing those in future generations.”102 Vassar professor Michael McCarthy says that while there is a place for lobbyists, they have a duty to consider the public good: “The task of practical wisdom and the purpose of legitimate political deliberation is to determine concretely, here and now, what national unity, justice, security, prosperity, and liberty really require in the thicket and turmoil of existing reality.” This task, he adds, belongs not only to public officials, “but it is also the responsibility of democratic citizens as they interact with government through voluntary associations. It is also, we argue, the responsibility of professional lobbyists as they struggle to balance civic and professional obligations in their daily practice.”103 Lobbyist Thomas Susman disagrees. He notes that many lobbyists are lawyers, and thus they must abide by codes and canons requiring them to put their clients’ interests first. More important, he says, the common good may be a reliable guidepost for legislators, but not for lobbyists. “[I]s it my job, as a lobbyist, to determine whether the common good is best served by cheap power provided by hydroelectric plants that can make electricity more readily available to the poor, or by maintaining pristine waterways? I think that’s Congress’s role, not mine.”104 Others would say that interest groups perform a vital role in promoting deliberation and citizen participation. After the NRA scored a legislative victory in the House of Representatives, the group won praise from George Stephanopoulos, television commentator and former aide to President Clinton. “You know, there’s a lot of talk about extremists here. But let me make one small vote for the NRA. They’re good citizens. You know what, they call their congressmen. They write, they vote, they contribute and they get what they want over time. Now, I disagree with what they’re trying to do, but they mobilized well.”105 In response to criticism that they represent the privileged few, lobbyists say that the interest group community actually represents the broad general public, for as we have seen, millions of American citizens are shareholders, employees, and customers. And one survey has found that 84% of Americans belong to at least one voluntary association.106 Deliberation requires debate, which in turn requires disagreement. Interest groups supply those clashing viewpoints. Many policy groups sincerely aim for the public good instead of private benefit, yet they have very different views about which policies are best for their country. Their members’ backgrounds and economic interests will color those views. Many business owners think that higher minimum wages are bad for the overall economy, FOCUS QUESTION In deliberations on public policy, does bias necessarily taint information and analysis from interest groups? 87897_ch08_ptg01_hr_235-258.indd 255 11/7/12 11:17 AM Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 256 CHapTer 8 Interest Groups # 109826 Cust: Cengage Learning / OH / Wadsworth Au: Bessette/Pitney Pg. No. 256 Title: American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship Server: C / M / Y / K Short / Normal DESIGN SERVICES OF carlisle Publishing Services while union members think that they are good for social equity. Such differences are unavoidable. Also, serious abuses exist. As this chapter has shown, lawmakers have tried to curb those abuses by regulating lobbying and campaign finance. Debate continues about the propriety and adequacy of the rules. Yet for all the public cynicism about lobbyists and special interests, citizens do not simply shrug off corruption as “part of the game.” Scandals helped lead voters to change party control of Congress in 2006 and 2010. Although sometimes slow to react, politicians try to avoid such backlash by taking action against offenders. Key members of Congress have lost leadership positions and committee chairs because of misconduct. This chapter began with quotations from 2012 presidential candidates denouncing special interests. Yet both had ties to special interests. Mitt Romney drew some of his closest advisers from the ranks of Washington lobbyists.107 President Obama repeatedly suggested that lobbyists should not have special access, but the Washington Post reported in 2012: “The White House visitor records make it clear that Obama’s senior officials are granting that access to some of K Street’s most influential representatives.”108 (Washington’s K Street is home to many lobbying firms.) And when President Obama said people did not want Washington to work on behalf of special interests, he was addressing a $10,000-per-person fund-raising event at the home of a New York real estate developer. Moreover, both candidates took contributions from individual members of economic or policy groups. How could they avoid doing so? The point here is not to fault the candidates but to stress that interest groups are inevitably a part of political life. They sometimes contribute to deliberation and sometimes detract from it. They foster good citizenship and public spirit but often encourage selfishness. Amid the debates about campaign finance and lobbying rules, one thing is clear: abolishing interest groups is no more practical than abolishing human nature. As Madison wrote, “The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.