Download
1 / 53
530 likes | 612 Views
Lecture 10: Interest Groups and Money. POLI 10: Introduction to American Politics Summer Session I 31 July 2013 Prof. Justin Levitt. Friendly Reminders. Hope you have started writing! Our TA David has Office Hours Today from 11-1:30. I can still meet by appointment—please contact me!
E N D
Lecture 10:Interest Groups and Money POLI 10: Introduction to American Politics Summer Session I 31 July 2013 Prof. Justin Levitt
Friendly Reminders • Hope you have started writing! • Our TA David has Office Hours Today from 11-1:30. I can still meet by appointment—please contact me! • I can also comment on drafts submitted by Thursday at noon. Send me a section or the whole thing.
Today’s myth: Campaign spending is out of control! Corporations (and/or unions) can buy politicians to get their way.
Lecture Overview • The Interests and the Passions • Influencing the Political Process • Public Finance 101
Previously… • Political parties organize big-tent coalitions of voters that require compromise between factions • Also, political parties want to win, and therefore adopt positions close to the median voter • Voters generally don’t care about all the issues, but feel very strongly on certain issues • Knowledge is a problem at all levels of government—politicians are expert lawmakers, not in the technicalities • How do we bridge these gaps?
Interest as the Bridge • Enlightenment scholars distinguished between passions, which were personal, private opinions, likes and dislikes, and concerns and interests, which were grounded in rational concerns about public issues • All individuals have interests—how taxpayer money is spent, whether roads are paved, does UCSD expand shuttle service, etc. • Business and NGOs also have interests—who wins government contracts?
Pluralism and Elite Theory • Pluralists like Robert Dahl and David Truman saw the proliferation of organized groups as a counterbalance to central authority • Party organizations and formal institutions often lead to hierarchical structures • Speaker, whips in the House • State Chair, County Chairs of parties • Yet on the other hand, leaders are not always successful—sometimes small but persistent groups win out
Origins of Mass Organizations • Mancur Olson (remember him from Lecture 1?) describes the concept of collective action problemsthat stem from Free-Riding • At the same time, big-tent parties mean that parties must compromise extensively between factions • This gives rise to situations where groups are taken for granted by their party—and want to make their opinions known • However, it’s difficult to do this alone, and coordination may be difficult
Paradox of Size vs. Effectiveness I • Larger groups will have a harder time succeeding because of increased prevalence of free-riding. • Assume that George has an interest in something he knows a lot of other people also care about • If he chooses not to get involved, there is a high probability someone else will address the problem for him • Therefore, he has the incentive to take advantage of this and not get involved because he knows someone else will • Assume that Sally also knows this, and she also decides someone else will handle the problem • Everyone else does this as well, so the problem is not solved
Paradox of Size vs. Effectiveness II • But what happens in a small group? • Assume that George has an interest in something he believes no one else cares about • If he chooses not to get involved, nothing will happen • Therefore, he has the incentive do something because no one else will • He fights tooth and nail, until the problem is solved • Problematically, George has more collective influence in Scenario I but less probability of getting things accomplished! • This is the dilemma: how to keep George involved in Scenario I
How do groups keep people involved? • Civic rewards • Endorsements • Inside information • Access to lawmakers • Fiscal rewards • AAA offers maps, discounts, insurance • AARP offers life insurance • New ideas, continuing pressure
Categorizing Political Organizations • First dimension: Political vs Social base—political groups are founded on the basis of ideology and issue-driven interest, while social groups have their base in group identity • Second dimension: Washington vs. Outsider form—Washington groups seek influence over policy outcomes (bills) while Outsider groups work through non-Governmental strategies
Civil Society • Originates in liberalism’s public/private distinction, refers to organizations purely in the private sphere: • Key Club, Kiwanis, Elks • Community groups • Religious organizations • Press • NGOs • Avoid outright political opinion, focus on community involvement and charity • May build social capital, leading to participation
Social Movements • Social movements are widespread, more-or-less spontaneous calls for political change • Originate in response to political inaction • May be triggered by an event • Take advantage of new technology (think social media in the Occupy movement) • Social movements initially eschew the political process, but often find increasing need to create more traditional interest groups to achieve results (Tea Party vs. Occupy)
Traditional Interest Groups and Lobbyists • These are what we normally mean by “Interest Groups” • Both are heavily engaged in insider politics: • Propose, support, and oppose legislation • Work with elected officials and through formal processes • Distinguish between business, industry, labor, and non-profit organizations (Lobbyists) and groups comprised directly of citizens (traditional Interest Groups) • Lobbying (working through the political process) is logical for these groups; they have investment in the system as-is
Joining The Man • Pluralists believe that the proliferation of interest groups is good a robust democracy—and Federalist 10 argued that it would help moderate politics • Because of Federal growth during the 1930s, the number of interest groups seemed to decline during the Fifth Party System era • Jack Walker discusses the resurgence of interest groups from the growth of social movements
Division within interest groups • We know that there are often many groups advocating on behalf of the same community • Often there is one “main” group and many smaller groups with slightly different agendas • Coordination between the groups is often necessary for success, but is not guaranteed • Many times the smaller group resists cooperation for symbolic reasons; witness the current divisions in LGBT groups between gay and lesbian members and trans-identified members
Leadership vs. Membership • Leaders of interest groups are often more privileged compared to their membership • This may lead to tension or even exclusion of less-advantaged members of the group • Dara Strolovitch discusses the problems at the intersection of interests: gender in race-based interest groups, race in sexuality-based interest groups, etc.
Lobbying • Lobbying specifically refers to process by which interests attempt to influence public policy • The term comes from the practice of standing in the lobby outside of the chamber following the progress of the bill and ready to exert pressure if necessary • Most interest groups hire professional lobbyists or have lobbyists (“Government Relations Director” or “Director of Public Affairs”) on staff
Lobbyists • There are about 12,000 registered professional lobbyists in Washington, DC • Many lobbyists represent more than one organization (I once saw a guy who had to speak both in favor and against the same bill) • Many lobbyists have spent time “on the Hill” working for Congress or as a member of Congress—developing relationships with members of Congress is key
What Lobbyists Do • Develop legislation and suggest bills to Congress • Provide funding to members of Congress—both while in session and as campaign contributions • Suggest amendments to change an “oppose” to a “support” or “neutral” • Liaise between the interest group and Congress: Provide technical information needed to members of Congress • Testify and bring out supporters or opponents of a bill • Exert pressure on the bureaucracies advising the President whether to sign • Attend policy implementation meetings and make recommendations to the Executive agencies implementing the law • Write amicus briefs in favor of/opposed to a law
What Lobbyists Say they Do (p. 597) This list would look different for Civil Society or Social Movement groups—how do you think it might differ?
Lobbying and Information • One key role of lobbyists is in providing information—professional lobbyists are generally incapable of this • Therefore, interest groups often sponsor think tanks, or organizations that hire intellectuals, policy analysts, and legal analysts to provide data to support the ideological policy goals • Unlike the Pew or Gallup, their goal is not to supply unbiased information, but rather support the aim of their organization, providing relevant material and ideological arguments to Congress, the Executive branch, and the Supreme Court
Ideology and Think Tanks • Think tanks are generally ideological (implicitly if not explicitly): • Heritage and the American Enterprise Institute are conservative • Center for American Progress and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities are liberal • Some like Brookings and the Public Policy Institute of California are explicitly non partisan • Ideological think tanks offer ways of breaking down the “big tents” of the parties: libertarian-leaning Republicans might turn more to the Cato Institute and not Heritage
“Mellowing” • Mellowing is a term used by Prof. Galderisi to refer to the non-bill-specific strategies used by lobbyists to influence policy • Mellowing is about developing connections that may later prove valuable—if I like AAA now, I may be more willing to write a letter for their issue campaigns next year • Interest groups fail to employ mellowing at their own risk; a well-connected lobbyist may be able to push through an amendment not wanted by a poorly connected group
How successful are lobbyists? • Difficult to measure • Does not seem to be a direct relationship between money and success • Lawmakers view interest groups as important—witness how union members may be able to demand “at will” meetings with Democratic representatives
Money is the mother’s milk of politics Jesse M. Unruh, Speaker of the California Assembly
Money as the blood of politics • Remember we said that politicians and parties need to win to accomplish their goals • Politicians need money to • Run for office • Hire campaign teams • Help fellow partisans • Interest groups are also happy to donate money in exchange for access and considerations
How much is needed? • Challengers need more than incumbents to garner name recognition, but safe incumbents raise on behalf of their fellow partisans • Campaigns have become more costly because of media costs—TV and radio ads are essential, but expensive • Social media campaigns can be more efficient, but also expensive—may need specialists or outside support • Parties may provide assistance, but at a cost
Campaign Finance before Buckley • Before 1971, campaigns largely unregulated • 1971: Congress passes Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which began the process of separating the lobbying/financing arm from the organization itself • FECA established PACs, Political Action Committees, which provide formal separation between the political and general arms of organizations • While the number of PACs stabilized in the early 1980s, the amount contributed grew steadily through the 1990s • FECA also led to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to serve as a clearinghouse for reporting campaign finance data
Buckley and its aftermath • Buckley v Valeo (1976) was the Supreme Court’s first weighing in on campaign finance • Buckleydeclared that campaign contributions were protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech—speech must include political speech of all kinds • The decision allowed restrictions on contributions to individuals (“hard money”), but not limitations on contributions to parties (“soft money”) or independent expenditures (like the Swift Boat ad we saw last week) • Contributions continued to increase through the 1980s and 90s, and after Bill Clinton was involved in a soft money scandal involving the Lincoln Bedroom, Congress revisited the question of soft money
McCain-Feingold and Citizens United • In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA or McCain-Feingold) • BCRA limited contributions from individuals and PACs to parties (the “soft money” donations) and limited the expenditures of organizations in the two months before an election • However, many groups opposed BCRA—especially the restrictions on independent expenditures • In 2010, Citizens United vs FEC stated that all campaign speech is protected—limits on campaign finance are not Constitutional
Campaign Finance in 2008 and 2012 • Presidential races have gotten incredibly expensive! • In 2008, the Presidential candidates alone spent over one billion dollars • Independent expenditures reached over $135 million • In 2012, spending exceeded $1.5 billion, and independent expenditures reached $1 billion—with over $800 million going toward negative ads • Are there limits on our ability to tolerate this? How can citizens and candidates respond? Let’s take a look at Suzanne Robbins’ take
