Interest Groups Synthesis

Interest groups have grown to be a key, if not the most influential, linkage institution in America. An interest group is an organization of people with shared policy goals entering the policy process at several points to try to achieve these goals. Interest groups are distinct from parties. Political parties fight election battles; interest groups do not field candidates for office, but they may choose sides. Interest groups are policy specialists; political parties are policy generalists. Politicians are often experts at politics but not policy.

There are multiple theories of interest group politics:

1) The pluralist theory says that politics is mainly a competition among groups; each one pressing for its own preferred politics. “…society is best seen as a collection of special interests and is best served by a process that serves a wide array of those interests”.

2) The elite theory says that societies are divided among class lines and an upper elite class rules, regardless of the formal processes of governmental organization.

3) The hyperpluralist theory says that groups are so strong and interests so diverse and conflictual that government is weakened.

In pluralism, or group theory, groups provide a key link between the people and the government. The theory suggests that due to fair group competition, no one group will ever dominate. Groups play by the “rules of the game”: Groups weak in one resource may use another, while lobbying is open to all so it is not a problem.

The elite theory denies pluralism by saying that real power is held by the relatively few. The largest corporations hold the most power; they command the most resources and can claim that their success is necessary for the health of the overall economy. Elite power is fortified by a system of interlocking directorates of these corporations and other institutions. Other groups may win many minor policy battles, but elites prevail when it comes to big policy decisions.

Hyperpluralism suggests that there are subgovernments, networks of groups that exercise a great deal of control over specific policy areas. These consist of interest groups, government agency, and congressional committees that handle particular policies, forming what are also known as iron triangles. The hyperpluralist critique says that groups have become too powerful as the government tries to appease every interest. Having many subgovernments (iron triangles) aggravates the process. Interest groups can give strong electoral support to Congress and funding and political support to bureaucracy who give low regulation and special favors to interest groups.

Interest groups can have varying levels of effectiveness. A potential group is all the people who might be interest group members because they share a common interest. An interest group has high start-up costs: large investment by a small few necessary to take collective action. This brings up the free-rider problem, when some people don’t join because they can benefit from the group without joining. The bigger the group is, the larger the problem is.

Large interest groups are difficult to organize. Olson’s theory of large groups says, “The larger the group, the further it will fall short of providing an optimal amount of a collective good”. Thus, the larger they are, the less united on policy. Small groups are subsequently more organized and more focused than large groups. Multinational corporations are successful because there are few of them and, therefore, have an easier time organizing for political action. Customer groups have a difficult time getting significant policy gains because the benefits are spread over the entire population.

The intensity of the issue helps determine its success. Single-issue groups are groups that focus on a narrow interest, dislike compromise, and often draw membership from people new to politics. Groups may focus on an emotional issue, providing them with a psychological advantage. Intensity encourages non-conventional means of participation. Money is another major factor; interest groups backed by financial institutions have a much higher chance of success than interest groups without much financial backing.

Lobbying is a major force within interest groups. Inside lobbying is the use of close connections with policymakers. Outside lobbying is the placing of constituency pressure on policymakers. Lobbyists are a source of information, help politicians plan political strategies for reelection campaigns, and are a source of ideas and innovations. The USDA approved drug-filled milk because of lobbyists.

Electioneering involves direct group involvement in the election process. Political Action Committees (PACs) are political funding vehicles used by interest groups to donate money. Donations to particular candidates capped at $5000/year. Most PAC money goes to incumbents. Super PACs allow unlimited monetary contributions from individuals and organizations. The subtle difference between the two is that super PACs cannot coordinate directly with campaigns. However, super PACs still pay for TV ads supporting issues and attacking rivals.

If an interest group fails in one area, courts may be able to provide a remedy. Interest groups can file amicus curiae briefs to influence a court’s decision. Amicus curiae refer to briefs submitted by a “friend of the court” to raise additional points of view and present information not contained in the briefs of the formal parties. Class action lawsuits can also permit a small number of people to collectively sue.

Groups use public opinion to influence policymakers. Interest groups may focus on economic interests such as labor, agriculture, and business. Nearly two-thirds of lobby groups in Washington are business related. Ideological groups are driven by deeply held beliefs to lobby on a number of related issues: NOW, NAACP. An environmental group is Greenpeace. A consumer and public interest lobby is the Better Business Bureau.

Lowi argues the public interest is not upheld if the system gives special interests the ability to determine policies affecting them, particularly if they go against what public opinion supports. This is the counter-argument to interest group pluralism.