Bianca Capatina
“Pressure groups define the political issues that dominate US politics”.Discuss.
Being the most pluralist political system in the world, it comes as expected that pressure groups would have a considerable amount of influence over the American system.However, their sectional views alone are not dictating the political agenda of the US politics, but rather influencing it at different levels(local/state/national), depending on their insider/outsider status and levels of funding.
Firstly, because Congress is dominated by their representative function, pressure groups have a leading role in the US elections. This is because their power and influence is heightened by Political Action Committees , which are pressure groups that collect money from their members (up to $5,000/individual)and give it to candidates and political parties which support their interests. This was done by protecting elected officials from accountability in 2000, when 98% of the House incumbents were re-elected, undermining the political efficiency and leaning towards corruption.Their influence could be further observed in 2012, when the SUPERPAC Priorities USA spent $67 mil. on advertising for Obama’s re-election. Priorities USA’s belief is that Republicans’ agenda is to reward the wealthiest few at at the expense of the middle class, so it it came naturally that after he got elected Obama cut the income tax of the middle class families and also offered them tax reliefs.
Secondly, the revolving door syndrome looks at the idea that former members of Congress often end up working with pressure groups and inevitably become lobbyists for a particular cause/campaign.This then enables the former Congressmen to exploit and abuse their their contacts within government in the hopes of achieving policy success for their particular cause.They exploit their knowledge of and contacts within Congress or executive branches to further the interests of their pressure group clients and in doing so to make money for themselves. High-profile U.S. Representative Democratic Dick Gephardt left his congressional post to become a lobbyist and his lobbying agency, Gephardt Government Affairs Group, earned close to $7 million in revenues in 2010 from clients including Goldman Sachs,Boeing and Visa Inc.
Thirdly, the iron triangles syndrome furthers the idea that pressure groups are indeed very influential in the American politics. This concept describes the strong policy making relationship between the legislature (congressional committees), the executive (federal bureaucracy) and pressure groups, which arguably guarantees policy success for all three institutions involved. It is also arguable that iron triangles can become so powerful to the extent that their create their own sub-government, a term used to describe a stable alliance of convenience and necessity. This lead to the question whether pressure group activities are compatible in a pluralist society, as in this sense they seem to rather mirror an elitist organ within a system that seeks less vertical political actions.An example of an iron triangle is AIPAC, the Defense Department and the Foreign Relations Committee.The interests of each one are, in order, to protect Israel from hostile neighbours with military aid, to sell military equipment to foreign nations(profit for the government) and lastly many of its members are funded by AIPAC.
On the other hand, one should not fail to consider the externals and other factors such as the existence of the countervailing pressure groups on issues such as gay rights, abortion, healthcare(Big Pharma lobby)and smoking(ASH), that balance the amount of power pressure groups have and act as a check on them. The externals to be considered are the size, access to resources, wealth, support and the insider outsider status. All these greatly affect the importance and power pressure groups have over the political system. There is an unequal balance amongst pressure groups, in the sense that some pressure groups are better funded than others. This affectively allows them to raise awareness more effectively through campaigns and rallies. For example, the Christian Coalition’s influence has decresed directly proportional to its financial struggles in the last years, as its contributions have fallen from $25.5 mill. in 1996 to being bankrupt.
Secondly, in theory pressure groups seek to merely influence government, not to control it. Their constitutional political power is weak in the sense that nothing was written in the Constitution outlining their role and importance. The Constitution merely recognises pressure groups as a potential obstacle, which can positively enhance the democratic credibility of the government.But pressure groups have the chance to impact the Constitution at the highest standard of legal assistance. Groups often bring issues which they feel are in need of reform.With the necessary resources pressure groups can effectively determine the nature of a case(ie:NAACP on Civil Rights). Even if some members of the Congress represent the views of some pressure groups, they also represent the views of their party and their electors.And because it’s ultimately the voters that decide his/her time in office, I doubt that a representative would vote on something that conflicts with the wishes of his/her constituency. The strength of this argument can be further illustrated by the public’s power of recalling representatives, in this way ensuring that accountability is retained within the USA’s political system.Between 1913 and 2012, there were 36 recall elections of state legislators in 19 states.However, they do concentrate their wealth on supporting those who advance their cause and defeating those who don’t, having a high influence of one’s prospects of winning.One example is NRA’s funded attack on Maggie Hassan, the Democrat candidate for New Hampshire governor. But it should be highlighted that in what concerns the appointment of Supreme Court members, power still lies within the Senate, who have the final decision. For example, Clarence Thomas still succeeded despite being opposed by the NAACP.
Thirdly, the ultimate locus where the power lies is the political parties. Ideological thinking is more related to partisanship than in the past, resulting in ideological overlap being diminished. This means that it’s a large majority of supporters and opponents that establish the political agenda, due to an increased indentification of people with a political label. The effect this has is concrete political agendas and rule by the majority, leaving little space for the concerns of pressure groups that don’t overlap with the party views being advanced. This means that in practice it is the US politics that shapes the ideas promoted by pressure groups rather than the other way round.
To this is added the fact that pressure groups that don’t comprend big majorities usually carry their activities at a more junior level(state/local) because small support translates into less visibility and funding. So, even if an interest group is pro-eminent at a state level, the best it can do is influence the policies that strictly affect that state, but this would not count as “dominating” the American politics. Their success was seen with the 2014 Marijuana initiatives in Alaska, Florida and Washington and with the Minimum Wage increases in Republican states such as Alaska, South Dakotha and Arkansas.
In conclusion, even if the influence of pressure groups is completely recognized in the American system and like most of the things in the US system is primarily dependant on money, which opens doors up to the top, it is the wishes of the public that ultimately shape the direction of the politics, things that can be observed by the way parties shift their policies every electoral cycle.