Chapter 10Interest Groups Chapter Overview

Interest groups have long been central to American politics. During the debate over ratification, James Madison discussed the role of “factions” in a democratic polis. His writings, particularly in The Federalist No. 10, outlined a vision of a political system that checked the power of factions. Today, we generally refer to these “factions” as “interest groups,” the topic of this chapter. We begin our analysis of interest groups by describing the role of interest groups in American politics and contrasting the three leading theories of interest group politics: pluralism, elitism, and hyperpluralism. Then, we analyze the factors that make some interest groups more successful than others in the political arena and assess the four basic strategies that interest groups use to try to shape policy. Next, we contrast the various types of interest groups. We conclude by evaluating ideas to limit the reach and influence of interest groups. By the end of the chapter, students should have a good understanding of the nature and role of interest groups in the United States.

Lecture Suggestions

Describe the role of interest groups in American politics.

LECTURE 1: James Madison viewed interest groups—which he called “factions”—as a necessary evil in politics. He believed that interest groups not only conflict with each other but, more importantly, also conflict with the common good. Nevertheless, Madison believed that the origin of interest groups was to be found in human nature—“a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points”—and therefore impossible to eliminate from politics. Explain the role of interest groups in American politics based on Madison’s framework.

Protecting Economic Interests: Madison identified economic interests as the most prevalent in politics.

Advancing Social Movements: Major social movements in American history have spawned many interest groups.

Seeking Government Benefits: As government expands its activities, it creates more interest groups.

Responding to Government Regulation: As more businesses and professions came under government regulation in the twentieth century, more organizations formed to protect and further their interests, including such large and powerful groups as the American Medical Association (doctors), the American Bar Association (lawyers), and the National Association of Broadcasters (broadcasters).

LECTURE 2: Politics can be viewed as a struggle among interest groups over government policy. Interest groups, rather than individual citizens, can be viewed as the principal participants in American politics.

10.1

Pluralism is the idea that democracy can be preserved in a large, complex society through individual membership in interest groups that compete, bargain, and compromise over government policy.

Pluralism assumes that compromises can be arranged and that interests can be balanced in relatively stable fashion.

Critics of pluralism charge that interest groups dominate the political arena, monopolize access to governmental power, and thereby restrict individual participation rather than enhance it.

LECTURE 3: Interest groups can have a positive and a negative impact on American society. It is important to support organized action but also to understand that sometimes the desires of the interest group may not be in the best interest of the public.

Discuss the undemocratic nature of interest groups.

The organizations themselves are often undemocratic. They are, for example, unelected and are typically comprised primarily of members from the middle class.

Not all interest groups are able to exercise the same degree of influence or have the same kind of access. Indeed, groups with stronger membership and more money are frequently more effective in accomplishing their goals than those without.

In promoting their own interests, interest groups also promote the public interest.

Yet at the same time, interest groups play a central role in American democracy.

Pluralist politics depends on the competition between interest groups. This is a key organizing principle of American democracy.

Interest groups provide an effective mechanism for individuals to interact with the government and act as a check on the power of the government.

Many of the most important achievements in American history, such as the expansion of the franchise, the establishment of protections for workers and the environment, and the enactment of government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all the results of pressure brought by interest groups.

LECTURE 4: Differentiate between the four primary types of interest groups.

Economic groups include trade associations, labor unions, and professional associations. Trade associations are organized commercial groups, ranging from industrial corporations to agricultural producers.

Many corporations form their own interest groups, hire lobbyists (professionals who try to influence governmental officials), create political action committees (PACs) to raise and spend money to influence electoral outcomes, and use other techniques to bring their needs to the attention of government and the general public.

Labor unions are groups of workers who have joined together to negotiate collectively with employers and to inform the government and the public of their needs.

Professional associations represent people—generally well-paid and highly educated ones—in a specific profession.

Public interest groups are defined as groups that form in the pursuit of “a collective good, the achievement of which will not selectively and materially benefit the membership or activists of the organization.”

Think tanks conduct research and often engage in advocacy on issues of public interest and often advocate a strong ideological viewpoint.

Governmental units: State- and local-level governmental units form interest groups that petition the federal authorities for help and to otherwise voice their concerns.

LECTURE 5: The number and levels of activity of groups have grown exponentially in the past few decades. Indeed, between the 1960s and the 1990s, the U.S. witnessed an explosion in both the number and activity levels of interest groups. Examine the reasons for this trend with your students.

As the country grew in size and began to broaden the range of political power exercised by people of different religions, ethnicities, income levels, genders, and racial makeups, differences deepened to form cleavages—social divisions that have become important in the development of various interest groups. Because many of them strive to gather supporters across social cleavages, they can serve as a unifying factor in a fragmented society.

Disturbance theory states that groups form whenever other interests are perceived as threatening or the status quo is disturbed. Essentially, social change causes the growth of

interest groups. As society becomes more complex, divisions emerge, which then become the basis for new groups.

As government takes on new responsibilities, interest groups arise to attempt to influence how those responsibilities are carried out. Interest groups also form as people try to get a “piece of the action”—that is, attempt to influence how government allocates resources in exercising its new responsibilities.

Compare and contrast the theories of pluralism, elitism, and hyperpluralism.

LECTURE 1: Compare and contrast the theories of pluralism, elitism, and hyperpluralism.

Pluralism argues that competition between interest groups is a central component of American democracy. From the pluralist perspective, interest groups make competing claims on government. This competition means that no one group can become dominant. If one group gains too much power, the others will act against it to balance the system. Further, different groups have strengths in different areas. Business, for example, may have money, but labor unions have people. This competition over resources also helps ensure that no one group becomes too powerful.

Elitists reject the pluralists’ assertion that competing groups balance power. Rather, they contend that the unequal distribution of power in society ensures that the interests of some groups will dominate over others.

Hyperpluralists argue that pluralism in the United States is out of control, resulting in a government that is excessively deferential to interest groups, resulting in expanding

10.2

government, conflicting regulations, and skyrocketing budget deficits.

LECTURE 2: Differentiate between pluralist and factionalist understandings of the role of interest groups in American politics.

In Federalist No. 10, Madison noted the capacity of the proposed federal republic “to break and control the violence of faction.” Madison was referring to a group of individuals who share a belief that, if acted upon, would jeopardize the rights of individuals outside of the group and/or the interests of the community as a whole.

Political scientists in the 1950s began to reconsider the place of interest groups in politics. These theorists viewed the competition created by interest groups for the influence in American politics as generally healthy, and a legitimate aspect of democratic governance. This thinking on the place of interest groups in America became known as pluralism.

While Madison wished to mute the power of groups, pluralism states that said power is not a problem because the system provides multiple access points for influence.

LECTURE 3: Outline the primary critiques of the pluralist theory of interest groups.

One critique of the pluralist theory is that the system is resistant to change; it is much more difficult to change the status quo than it is to defend the status quo. Thus, there are many stopping points for policy—the apparent openness does not count for much, and multiple access points mean nothing if there are multiple stopping points as well.

Another critique of pluralism is that some people do not fail to participate due to lack of interest but because there are insurmountable obstacles to participation; this is not contentment with the status quo but a result of exclusion. Poor people are not represented well; they have no powerful interest group representing them.

Some issues are not actually considered issues by the political elite; when poverty disappeared as an issue in the 1940s and 1950s, elected officials stopped talking about it as though there were no more poor people. These nondecisions are ignored by pluralism—as the American political scientist Elmer Eric Schattschneider said, some issues are “organized out.” If some issues are not heard, then the goodness of the pluralist model breaks down.

Disturbance theory states that when social, political, and economic relationships change, individuals form groups in response. But the problem is that groups do not always form when there is a disturbance—the formation of groups faces the collective action problem. The free rider problem is a barrier to collective action because people can reap the benefits of group efforts without participating.

LECTURE 4: Identify and describe the iron triangle and the revolving door and how this shapes and reinforces the iron triangle.

Iron triangles refer to stable relationships among interest groups, congressional committees, and administrative agencies functioning in the same policy area.

The term revolving doors is often used to criticize people who move from a government post (where they acquired experience,

knowledge, and personal contacts) to a job in the private sector as a consultant, lobbyist, or salesperson.

LECTURE 5: The iron triangle approach provides a convenient way to look at the interrelationship among interest groups, executive agencies, and congressional committees.

Draw a pictorial representation of an iron triangle. As an example, veterans’ interest groups (the first point on the triangle) work closely with both the Department of Veterans Affairs (an executive agency, and the second point on the triangle) and the House Veterans Affairs Committee (the third point on the triangle). The iron triangle thus connects the legislative branch to the executive bureaucracy and the interest group.

In another example, Congressional defense committees in the House and Senate provide one side of the triangle, the U.S. Defense Department the second, and defense contractors the third. This iron triangle is often referred to as the Military Industrial Complex.

In working together, the three often come to identify and understand problems in similar ways. In doing so, their interests come to overlap, and the traditional idea of checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches breaks down.

Analyze the factors that make some interest groups more successful than others in the political arena.

LECTURE 1: What makes an interest group successful? There is no one thing that makes one political interest group more successful than another. However, the most successful interest groups share a number of key

10.3

features—each of which, all things being equal, makes a group more successful than others.

Access: This means, “Who do you know?” If the goal of an interest group is to affect policy-making, then access to the policy-maker is critical. Hence, those groups with access tend to be more successful.

Information: As stated in this chapter, the number one commodity for interest groups is reliable information. In fact, groups that have demonstrated that they have such data can more easily gain access.

Leadership Skills and Prestige: Some groups (the American Medical Association, for example) have greater prestige than others. Physicians are among the most respected professionals in America. Likewise, some groups have charismatic leaders (Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, led the Southern Christian Leadership Conference during the civil rights movement). These traits tend to make a group more successful.

Numerical Strength: Generally, it is accurate to say there is power in numbers. Policy-makers would be more inclined to listen to groups with large memberships. There is, however, a law of diminishing returns at work here. If a group is very large, it most likely will be sacrificing another important trait for success: unity.

Group Unity: Without unity of purpose, groups expend a great deal of energy on internal disputes with little left over for external use. Groups with fewer people tend to have greater unity.

Money: While money is important and those groups with it tend to be more successful, it is not as important as the media would lead people to believe.

Narrow Goals: Groups that focus on narrow goals can focus their resources in a more efficient manner. The text calls them special interest groups. Groups like Common Cause, which tackle numerous goals of a broad nature—from campaign finance to reforming Congress—often find that they are not as efficient.

Defensive: Groups that seek to sustain the status quo tend to be more successful than groups seeking change or reform. Part of the explanation is the bias built into American political institutions, such as Congress, that make it easier to block the passage of a law than to pass a law.

Nature of the Issue: Groups are interested in different issues. Some issues are general, while others are technical in nature. When issues are technical, voters are less inclined to notice or care. Hence, groups dealing with highly technical issues tend to be more successful.

LECTURE 2: Interest groups engage in electoral strategy to try to get people elected who will further their interests. Perhaps the most widely discussed avenue used by interest groups centers on the power of the purse. Examine the role of money in the politics of interest groups.

Political Action Committees (PACs) are groups that collect money from individuals and make donations to political parties and candidates on behalf of the shared interest.

Groups can use independent expenditures: funds are donated to elect or defeat candidates but are not coordinated with any political campaign. Groups can also use a practice called “bundling”—collecting individual checks and presenting them to a candidate at one time.

Groups may also form 527 groups: independent, nonparty groups that raise and spend money on political activities. These are tax-exempt and have no limits in law.

LECTURE 3: In addition to money, groups use other tactics to influence public policy and electoral politics.

Endorsements: groups publicize their support for a candidate. Voter mobilization: groups will dedicate themselves to

increasing voter registration and turnout in competitive races. Voter education: groups will disseminate materials to

prospective voters. Volunteer work: groups provide volunteers to do the work on

the campaigns.

LECTURE 4: Differentiate between inside and outside lobbying.

Inside lobbying refers to appeals directly to lawmakers and legislative staff either in meetings, by providing research and information, or by testifying at committee hearings.

Because inside lobbying is a matter of personal contact with policymakers, it involves some form of direct interaction—often called gaining access—between a lobbyist and an agency official, a member of Congress, or a member of the legislator’s staff. To be influential, a lobbyist must be seen as trustworthy and must develop relationships with individuals who have influence in the relevant policy area.

Testifying allows an interest group to present its views in public and “on the record,” potentially raising its visibility and appealing to political actors. Although this is a more visible form of inside lobbying than privately meeting with a

policymaker in an office or a restaurant, it is often considered window dressing. Most people who follow politics seriously feel it is not an effective tactic.

A great deal of money is spent by organizations to lobby the federal government, prompting Congress to pass the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, which requires lobbyists to register with the federal government and report their activities, and bars certain types of informal lobbying activities that have been used in the past, such as giving expensive gifts, purchasing expensive meals, and paying for trips for members of Congress.

Outside lobbying (or grassroots lobbying), also known as indirect lobbying, is the attempt to influence decision makers indirectly, by influencing the public.

In appealing directly to the public, interest groups are trying to build public sentiment in order to bring pressure to bear on the officials who will actually make the decisions.

Sometimes escalating conflict surrounding the issue can be a successful means of attracting public interest, in turn forcing elected officials to get involved. Interest groups also lobby other groups and try to form alliances with them to advance common interests on a particular issue. Coalition building—bringing diverse interests together to advance a cause—is frequently successful.

There is evidence that grassroots lobbying is effective in producing real support and is an important tool for getting a group’s message to officials.

LECTURE 5: Explore the role of effective leadership in interest groups.

When people believe in the leaders of an organization, they are more supportive of its goals and more likely to support it financially.

Interest groups use inspirational leadership to build membership.

Effective leaders “sell” their issues to the public by attracting media attention and membership.

César Chávez dedicated his life to helping farm workers organize and mobilize to demand fair treatment. In 1962, he organized the National Farm Workers Association, a labor union that later merged with other organizations to form the United Farm Workers of America (UFW).

Chávez and his union gained crucial support from middle-class consumers who boycotted grapes and lettuce harvested by nonunion labor, ultimately forcing the powerful agribusinesses to capitulate. The UFW is a good example of a group of low-income people uniting to fight large corporations. By overcoming the barriers to organizing, providing membership benefits, and having solid leadership, groups of all kinds can successfully press for change.

Assess the four basic strategies that interest groups use to try to shape policy.

LECTURE 1: Assess the four basic strategies that interest groups use to try to shape policy.

Lobbying refers to efforts by individuals or groups to influence governmental decision makers.

Electioneering refers to efforts to aid candidates financially and in garnering voter support in their campaigns.

10.4

Interest groups will also engage in litigation to influence public policy.

Finally, interest groups can also appeal directly to the public to garner support for their position.

LECTURE 2: Differentiate between inside and outside lobbying.

Inside lobbying refers to appeals directly to lawmakers and legislative staff either in meetings, by providing research and information, or by testifying at committee hearings.

Because inside lobbying is a matter of personal contact with policymakers, it involves some form of direct interaction—often called gaining access—between a lobbyist and an agency official, a member of Congress, or a member of the legislator’s staff. To be influential, a lobbyist must be seen as trustworthy and must develop relationships with individuals who have influence in the relevant policy area.

Testifying allows an interest group to present its views in public and “on the record,” potentially raising its visibility and appealing to political actors. Although this is a more visible form of inside lobbying than privately meeting with a policymaker in an office or a restaurant, it is often considered window dressing. Most people who follow politics seriously feel it is not an effective tactic.

A great deal of money is spent by organizations to lobby the federal government, prompting Congress to pass the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, which requires lobbyists to register with the federal government and report their activities, and bars certain types of informal lobbying activities that have been used in the past, such as giving

expensive gifts, purchasing expensive meals, and paying for trips for members of Congress.

Outside lobbying (or grassroots lobbying), also known as indirect lobbying, is the attempt to influence decision makers indirectly, by influencing the public.

In appealing directly to the public, interest groups are trying to build public sentiment in order to bring pressure to bear on the officials who will actually make the decisions.

Sometimes escalating conflict surrounding the issue can be a successful means of attracting public interest, in turn forcing elected officials to get involved. Interest groups also lobby other groups and try to form alliances with them to advance common interests on a particular issue. Coalition building—bringing diverse interests together to advance a cause—is frequently successful.

There is evidence that grassroots lobbying is effective in producing real support and is an important tool for getting a group’s message to officials.

LECTURE 3: Examine the traditional tactics of grassroots or indirect lobbying.

Direct Contact: Face-to-face meetings or telephone conversations between individuals.

Direct Mail: Information mailed to a large number of people to advertise, market concepts, or solicit support.

Well-heeled interest groups advertise in major newspapers and magazines as well as on TV and the Internet to increase their visibility and improve their public image. Because such ads are frequently designed to resemble editorials, they have sometimes

been dubbed “advertorials.” Some interest groups sponsor television shows to influence the public.

Organized groups can advance their cause in many ways—from Web pages, e-mail campaigns, and chat rooms to blogs and social networking sites, which allow people and groups to post information in order to stimulate interest in particular topics, raise public awareness, and influence public opinion. Cliff Landesman of Idealist.org identifies eight purposes for which interest groups use the Web: publicity, public education, communication, volunteer recruitment, research, advocacy, service provision, and fundraising.

LECTURE 4: A significant amount of money is needed just to launch an organization, and continuous funding is needed to maintain it thereafter. Examine the role of money in interest group politics.

Money is needed to recruit members, hire staff, rent offices, pay overhead, and raise additional funds. If the group plans to use many of the tactics discussed, substantial funds are needed. Advertising and direct mail campaigns are very expensive, and money is also needed to raise more money.

Money is often the key predictor of who wins and who loses in American politics; however, money alone does not always win. Public support is equally important, which is why interest groups put so much effort into outside lobbying.

LECTURE 5: Discuss the bias in representation in interest group politics.

Activists are not typical Americans—most of them are drawn from the elite levels of society.

There is a profound difference among the races, and within races along gender lines.

Individuals who participate in group activity tend to develop political tolerance, trust, and a sense of efficacy—qualities that are essential for maintaining a healthy democracy.

Generally, activists are more politically sophisticated, more knowledgeable, and more involved in their communities. Educational attainment, family income, and social class are among the largest factors in predicting participation in organized interest groups—and in politics more generally, but there are exceptions.

The least biased form of political participation is voting; not surprisingly, the most skewed form of participation is making campaign contributions: People with more education and more income predominate the latter.

Identify the various types of interest groups and their policy concerns.

LECTURE 1: The blossoming of business and special interest PACs since 1974 is worthy of examination in depth. The lecturer can begin by outlining provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974, followed by a review of court interpretations that have legalized corporation PACs financed through direct solicitation of stockholders and employees.

Unions previously had a virtual monopoly of this type of politics. But over the past two decades, millions of dollars have flowed into campaigns from these new sources, especially business and trade association PACs.

In 1974, there were 608 PACs, one-third of them labor-based. In 1990, there were 4,172 and less than one-tenth were labor-

10.5

based. By 1992, PAC campaign contributions had reached $175 million—more than doubling their size in 1980.

Examples abound of individual Senate candidates receiving in excess of $1 million in PAC funds; in fact, some House candidates have come close.

By the early 1990s, PACs were contributing over one-half of the campaign contributions received by candidates for House seats and one-third of Senate candidate contributions. PAC contributions are concentrated on incumbents, especially members of certain powerful committees dealing with such issues as taxation, clean air, and health.

As Philip Stern titled his book on PACs, Congress is “The best that money can buy.” Some skeptics argue that the impact of PAC money is exaggerated, that the very number of PACs reduces the impact of any one individual PAC. That is, the PACs balance each other out, in proper Madisonian fashion.

The lecture can be rounded off with an evaluation of the effect of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act on PACs. The authors asserted this legislation increased the role of PACs. Today, most lawmakers in Washington have formed a leadership PAC. For data on PACs (and on many other items of American electoral politics), see Stanley, Harold W., and Richard G. Niemi, Vital Statistics on American Politics (CQ Press, 2008). The Open Secrets PAC website (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/index.php) also offers extensive information.

LECTURE 2: Organized interest groups channel their campaign contributions through political action committees (PACs).

Most PACs use their campaign contributions to acquire access and influence with decision makers.

The pattern of campaign contributions by major industries corresponds closely with the pattern of congressional voting on many key issues.

Interest-group PAC contributions account for about 35 percent of House campaign contributions and 20 percent of contributions to Senate campaigns.

Business, trade, and professional PACs usually split their contributions in order to ensure access to both Democrats and Republicans.

LECTURE 3: Differentiate between the Republican and Democratic approaches to political action committees.

Point out that Democrats are loath to restrict PACs, the one area of fundraising where they surpass Republicans.

In addition, note that many Democrats were loath to ban soft money, given the fact that they had raised nearly as much as Republicans had in the 2000 elections, and have matched or exceeded Republicans in more recent elections.

As a result of these differences, Democrats generally oppose restrictions on PACs, while Republicans generally support them.

LECTURE 4: Trade and professional associations and corporations are the most common lobbies in Washington, but unions, public-interest groups, farm groups, environmental groups, ideological groups, religious and civil rights organizations, women’s groups, veterans and defense-related groups, groups organized around a single issue (for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving), and even organizations representing state and local governments, also recognize that they need to be “where the action is.”

Differentiate between various kinds of organized interest groups in American politics.

Business and Trade Organizations: More than half of the organizations with offices in Washington are business or trade associations, and all together these organizations account for about 75 percent of all of the reported lobbying expenditures.

Professional Associations: Professional associations rival business and trade organizations in lobbying influence.

Organized Labor: Labor unions remain a major political influence in Congress and the Democratic Party.

Farm Organizations: Agricultural interests are organized both into large inclusive groups—such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Grange—and very effective specialized groups—such as the National Milk Producers and the National Cattlemen’s Association.

Women’s Organizations: Women’s organizations date back to the anti-slavery societies in pre–Civil War America.

Religious Groups: Churches and religious groups have a long history of involvement in American politics—from the pre-Civil War anti-slavery crusades, to the prohibition effort in the early twentieth century, to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Public-Interest Groups: Public-interest groups claim to represent broad classes of people—consumers, voters, reformers, or the public as a whole.

Single-Issue Groups: Like public-interest groups, single-issue groups appeal to principle and belief; but as their name implies, single-issue groups concentrate their attention on a single cause.

Ideological Groups: Ideological organizations pursue liberal or conservative agendas, often with great passion and considerable financial resources derived from true-believing contributors.

Government Lobbies: The federal government’s grant-in-aid programs to state and local governments (see Chapter 4) have spawned a host of lobbying efforts by these governments in Washington, D.C.

LECTURE 5: The economist Mancur Olson described three key barriers facing people who share concerns and want to create formal problem-resolving organizations.

Free riding is more likely to occur with groups that provide public goods or collective goods—things of value that cannot be given to one group exclusively but instead benefit society as a whole. A person will join a group when the benefits outweigh the costs, but if you can reap the benefits without incurring any costs, why join? Organized groups must be conscious of the free-rider problem so that they can provide other benefits to members to get them to join.

Cost: Less affluent people frequently need to spend their time and energy earning money, including holding second jobs, and they simply cannot volunteer or make large contributions to groups they may support.

Finally, the absence of a sense of political efficacy—the belief that one person can make a difference—is the third barrier to interest group formation identified by Olson.

LECTURE 6: Despite the barriers to association and the problem of free riding identified by economist Mancur Olson, groups attempt to mobilize individuals in support of their efforts. Identify and explain the mechanisms

used by interest groups to make membership and participation more attractive.

Selective benefits may be given to members—benefits that only group members receive, even if the collective good for which they strive remains available to everyone.

Material benefits—tangible benefits that have value, such as magazines, discounts, and paraphernalia such as T-shirts and plaques.

Solidary benefits are primarily social, focusing on providing activities and a sense of belonging—meetings, dinners, dances, and other such social activities.

Purposive benefits of group membership are “the intangible rewards that derive from the sense of satisfaction of having contributed to the attainment of a worthwhile cause.”

Evaluate how well Madison’s ideas for controlling the influence of interest groups have worked in practice.

LECTURE 1: In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison addressed the topic of special interests in describing what he called “factions.”

Madison argued that the design of our republic would not eliminate factions but would limit the influence they might have. Madison could not have foreseen what would happen with interest groups over time.

First is the tremendous expansion of society that contributed to the explosion of groups. Second is the prevalence of logrolling. Logrolling among interests is facilitated by a third development, the rise of professional politicians who, in seeking reelection, broker the group deals in return for the electoral support that

10.6

interest groups provide. To analyze this, we first must understand exactly what Madison was arguing in Federalist No. 10.

Factions: Madison begins this essay stating, “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” In the first portion of the essay, Madison discusses the desirability and possibility of removing the causes of faction. He rejects that possibility, stating that factions are sown in the nature of man. Madison concludes, “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.”

Controlling Factions: How, then, does a government control the effects of faction? If a faction is composed of a numerical minority, then in a democracy (Madison uses the word “republic”) it is controlled, since it will be outvoted by the majority. The real problem is majority faction. Part of the cure comes in Madison’s second usage of the word “republic.” Earlier in the essay Madison used the word “republic” as synonymous with “majority rule.” Now, he defines it as a representative democracy. It helps cure the mischief of faction because it allows for a large republic.

Advantages of a Republic: A republic provides two advantages over a pure (direct) democracy. First, the people themselves do not make decisions. Instead they decide who will make the decisions in elections. Second, a republic can cover a larger area. One effect of this difference is to “refine and enlarge” the public’s views by “passing them through a

chosen body of citizens whose wisdom by best discern” the true interests of the citizens. Here Madison is first concerned with a problem experienced with pure democracies: folly. By folly he means that strict majority rule democracies often make bad decisions. As stated in another Federalist, citizens may intend good, but they don’t always make decisions in their best interests.

A second major argument made in Federalist No. 10 is that a large republic is better than a small republic. Here is the argument from Publius’ perspective. It is probably the most important component behind the Framer’s design of the Constitution. Some would say it is Madison’s major contribution to American political thought, calling it pluralism.

The Large Republic Argument: Having argued that a republic is better than a pure (direct) democracy, Madison now argues that a large republic is better than a small republic. It is at this point in his argument that Madison is credited with endorsing pluralism. Why is a large republic better than a small republic? Madison asserts that no matter how large or how many people there are in a country, the number in the legislature is not going to vary that much. This is important because it means that in a large republic you are not going to have that many more legislators than if you had a small republic. The importance of this point is that in a large republic there will be a much greater number of people (and, hence, a large geographical area, usually) represented by a legislator. This will result in a higher caliber of individual getting elected to the legislature. Remember, Madison had already argued that a republic is better than a pure democracy because in a republic the legislator will be wiser

and thus can refine the public’s wishes. So, in a republic anything that is in agreement with the spirit of democracy that increases the chances of a wiser person being elected is a positive factor. The large republic will do this. How? In a large republic, the areas electing legislators will be more populous and probably geographically larger. Hence, to get elected, politicians will have to be familiar to the voters. This familiarity, in Madison’s time, would come from having achieved something. Madison asserts that politicians will not be able to get elected to the national legislature merely by knowing more people. There will be too many people to have to know. Instead, they will only be successful at being elected if they are known for their accomplishments.

Prevalence of Logrolling: The authors, quoting the research of others, write, “Rather than check and balance each other, interest groups often cooperate . . .” The first thing to note about this quote is that it refers to checks and balances in a manner that is inaccurate. When the Framers discussed this concept, they did so by referring to what would go on in the three branches of the national government. They did not see how that could keep interest groups—on the outside of government—from forming alliances. If, however, the point is that the deals made by interest groups are then carried out in the government, what would Madison say about that? Madison would say, “Well done!” Making deals is exactly what he had in mind in designing the large republic. If the voters don’t like the deals, they can elect new officials. Of course, the voters can also hope the president will veto bad deals, or the Supreme Court may be able to find them unconstitutional. In the end, since it is a democracy—albeit a representative democracy—the voters have the final say.

Rise of Professional Politicians: This point ties in with the debate in recent years over term limits. The authors, in quoting the study, argue that politicians are controlled by interest groups, which then ensure they will get elected. The problem with this argument is the one mentioned above. Voters can always refuse to reelect politicians that seem to be more concerned with brokering the interests of major groups instead of making decisions that are good for the most constituents. Of course, there is no proof that brokering interests is always bad. Again, that is what Madison wanted the Congress to do: broker the multiplicity of interests in the large republic.

What Was Madison’s Failure? Did Madison not foresee modern developments, or did he underestimate several modern developments? Madison did not foresee the technological advancements that would change entirely how campaigns for national office were conducted. How could he? He did not foresee that mass media—particularly television—would reduce the large republic to a technologically small republic. Politicians, with the aid of television, could enter into the public’s living rooms. There the politician would introduce himself (with the assistance of consultants who would tell him everything from what to say to how to dress and comb his/her hair), his family, and perhaps even his dog. Having overcome one of the large republic arguments, with the assistance of television, the burden became greater on the voter. This is because voters do not get to know the politician on a personal basis, but rather for something they had achieved. Voters, then, might start judging candidates for office by how they look or what their family looks like. Madison didn’t foresee this.

Alexis de Tocqueville: And then there is Alexis de Tocqueville. The young French aristocrat visited the United States in the 1830s to study its prison system. Upon returning to France, his book Democracy in America explained the workings of American democracy in detail to an inquisitive Europe. He discussed the workings of democracy in America and its potential in a world undergoing radical change. He, unlike Madison, praised democracy for raising the level of the average person but noted that emphasis on equality—more than liberty—presented a potential for danger. He marveled at the mere fact that people were coming together and associating, which reflected a strong democratic culture.

LECTURE 2: Measuring the real impact of interest groups can be difficult. If groups disappeared, the system would continue.

The challenge is figuring out direct causes—if a group engaged in lobbying and the interest received a vote, the connection is very hard to prove. For example, interest groups spend money on elections, but spending increases as the competition does—so there are many groups on both sides, making it hard to parse out whether one group caused the election of a particular member.

Another problem is that groups know which members agree with them, so they give money to those members. Are those members bought, or just supported?

One study concluded that money buys time—that is, the member will spend time on the issue—but it does not necessarily buy the desired outcome. The problem is that groups probably have the most impact when the outcomes they seek are not contested, so

we would not be able to measure the impact they have—we can’t see it.

LECTURE 3: James Madison was thinking primarily about the tyranny of majority factions when he referred to the mischief of factions in The Federalist Papers, No. 10. We now know that the politics of faction is usually the province of narrow and privileged interests rather than majorities. This undermines political equality, which is vital for a functioning democracy, and makes it difficult for the United States to formulate broad and coherent national policies because policies tend to be the work of agreements made between narrow factions. At the same time, the right of the people to form organizations for the purpose of petitioning the government is one of our most fundamental and cherished rights.

Americans have been concerned about the politics of faction for a long time, and a number of attempts have been made to solve some of the problems.

Disclosure has been the principal tool of regulation, particularly with the Public Utilities Act of 1935 and the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946.

In 1993, the Congress passed a Clinton Administration proposal requiring that lobbyists report on virtually all of their activities.

Reformers have also tried to regulate some of the abuses of the politics of faction.

The Ethics in Government Act (1978) prohibits ex-officials from lobbying their former agency for one year and prohibits them from lobbying at all on any issue in which the official was substantially involved.

Other efforts to alleviate some of the mischiefs of faction include attempts to control some of the campaign practices

of PACs. Included in these efforts was the 2002 McCain-Feingold Bill that was designed to put limits on soft money.

A lobbying reform bill was passed in 2007, aimed at reducing the anonymity of earmarks and requiring lobbyists to post Internet reports about their activities or special gifts given to members of Congress and their staffs.

Many worry that these reforms do not get to the heart of the problem, and some political scientists have suggested that we focus our efforts on strengthening the institutions of majoritarian democracy such as political parties, the Presidency, and the Congress.

Efforts to reform the interest group system may be frustrated by the inescapable fact that highly unequal resources eventually will find their way into our political life. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, for example, worried about the possibilities of democracy in a society marked by great inequalities of wealth and income.

LECTURE 4: Three methods have been used to try to control the influence of interest groups:

Disclosure has always been the main method by making sure everyone knows who is lobbying who. By requiring interest groups and advocacy groups to disclose their lobbying activities, greater transparency is introduced to the system. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 is a good example of this. That act requires that lobbyists register and report their activities every six months.

Reform efforts have also focused on trying to limit the revolving door—former government officials who go on to work as

lobbyists. The 1978 Ethics in Government Act, for example, attempted to limit that practice. A 2007 update imposed a two-year time out before retired members of Congress could lobby their former colleagues.

Finally, efforts have also attempted to limit the flow of money into politics. Examples here include the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. However, the Courts have generally been suspicious of such efforts, and many such restrictions, including several provisions of McCain-Feingold, have been declared unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.

LECTURE 5: Charles Lindblom argues that corporate power is so disproportionate as to undermine our democracy: “The large private corporation fits oddly into democratic theory. Indeed, it does not fit.” His fears were later justified.

Over the last decade, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent $527 million lobbying Congress. The largest Labor Union—the AFL-CIO—spent only $44 million.

Due to our faith in free enterprise, corporations and business have a unique relationship within American society. Also, many Americans have recognized that their higher standard of living is due to the health of our American economy.

Business doesn’t always win. Sometimes resources are squandered or used ineffectively. Other times, corporations lose out in the “give-and-take” of politics. Sometimes they find themselves battling each other, which is why they are most powerful when they build alliances among themselves.