How important is money in terms of the success of pressure groups?

                Perhaps the most overt theme that runs throughout all facets of American politics is the role played by money. In regards to pressure groups, those that seek to influence the political process have to ‘pay to play.’ That is the way politics operates in the states. However, money alone does not necessarily guarantee influence or even a fair hearing. As with political candidates, there is no direct link between money and ‘success.’ That said; it is very difficult to have any real impact upon the political process without a fistful of dollars.

                As we have already considered, money can be used by pressure groups in several ways. Those who wish to influence politicians can simply donate their money directly to a political candidate, as in the case of the University of California who in 2012 donated well over a million dollars to Obama’s re-election campaign. Money can be used to advertise a particular cause, sponsor a test case and pay for an amicus curiae brief in the courts. However, money alone does not guarantee genuine influence over the political process. This argument even applies to the financial services industry. Despite firm opposition to any form of state regulation, representatives of the financial services industry have been unable to prevent the Obama administration tightening up regulation of their activities.

                If money alone does not determine success, then it would seem appropriate to consider exactly what does! Perhaps the most significant factor of all comes down to simple numbers. Politicians must always seek to maximize their support amongst the electorate. As such, they will always be more willing to listen to those groups that represent or at least reflect the views of many millions of Americans. For instance, politicians from both parties will court the grey vote due to the relatively high turnout amongst older people. This inevitably places the AARP as one of the big boys of the political scene. Politicians must also mobilize their likely supporters to the ballot box, which inevitably means they need to gain the support of those groups with a high number of members. Democrats will invariably have to take note of their traditional voting alliance (such as labor unions, LGBT groups, feminists, the National Council of La Raza, the NAACP, the Sierra Club and the CORE) and promote a message consistent with such demands. Equally, a Republican seeking elected office will have to respond to the concerns raised by those groups that come under the umbrella of the religious right. Such groups can also provide volunteers and a valuable endorsement for said political candidate. It is worth noting here that the influence of such groups will always be greater during the run-up to an election.

                Another important factor to consider is the level of support amongst the public. Those groups which promote the views of the majority will always have a potentially greater impact than those which represent a minority view. Politicians can do very little without power, and in order to gain and regain elected office they need to secure more votes than their rival(s). It must also be acknowledged that groups which reflect a majority position are invariably well-resourced. A similar observation applies to insiders such as the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association and the AARP.

                One should hardly be surprised to discover that money alone cannot guarantee success for a pressure group. Whilst few would deny that money helps to further a cause or interest, money in itself does not necessarily equate to success. There are several intangible factors one might consider ranging from the skill of lobbyists to the relative unity of a pressure group. Politicians themselves are shaped by a number of factors ranging from their own self-interest to their own particular worldview. Whilst the ability to donate money to a political campaign may gain the attention of a politician, it is unlikely that a pro-choice pressure group such as the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) could ever persuade a conservative Republican running in a red state to change their ideological stance.

On the other hand, politicians must allocate a proportion of their time to their donors. The ‘job description’ of a politician requires them to sit around a table convincing those who have paid a considerable sum of money that they are being heard. Politicians must also be wary of losing money and other resources to another candidate if that particular pressure group is dissatisfied with the service they are providing. This is most notable during a primary campaign, which is one reason why an incumbent may well have to adopt a more ideologically pure stance in order to secure a sufficient level of financial support. In this particular scenario, two or more candidates may well be in competition for financial support from wealthy groups. As such, a well-funded conservative pressure group can have a significant say upon a Republican primary whereas a liberal group can wield considerable influence upon the race for the Democrat nomination.

               

Money undoubtedly casts a lengthy shadow over the political process. Jesse Unruh once pithily remarked that “money is the mother’s milk of politics!” … and many would agree with him. However, money must be used effectively in order to have any lasting impact upon the political process. The message put forward must also resonate with the public and politicians in order to have any real impact. There is little point constructing a slick media campaign if the message itself does not connect with a wider audience. Money is certainly a prerequisite to being heard, and it can allow that group to shout their message a little louder than their opponents. That said; money alone offers no guarantee whatsoever of success. For instance, many of the wealthiest corporations in the country have been deeply disappointed with the Obama administration. However, this has neither prevented Obama gaining re-election nor stopped his administration implementing measures contrary to their demands. Equally, Republicans have at times implemented measures that have been strongly opposed by wealthy pressure groups. One might therefore conclude that the relationship between money and influence is more multifarious than is commonly assumed.

                The counter-argument of course is put forward by the Occupy movement. Although it is difficult to identify a unifying theme within such a diverse association, the central critique is that the wealthiest 1% dominates the political process. In doing so, the interests of society as a whole (the 99%) are marginalized in order to serve the needs of those with money and influence. In order to support this line of argument, it should be recognized that decision-makers have often implemented an agenda that suits the interests of the wealthy rather than the rest of society. Nonetheless, the position taken by the Occupy movement must be balanced alongside the observation that the wealthy do not necessarily get their way all the time.

Before we leave this particular question, it is worth noting that the impact of money may well be exaggerated by the pressure groups themselves. It is in the self-interest of such groups to emphasize the causality between money and political influence. If money offered no access to politicians, then such groups would find it much more problematic to raise revenue from their members or those sympathetic to their cause. Equally, they have every interest in exaggerating the level of money held by the opposing cause. The discourse of politics is routinely debased towards that of ‘them’ against ‘us.’ Pressure groups, as well as politicians and the media, routinely fall into this linguistic ploy; portraying themselves as the one true organization in need of money in order to get their message across and thereby combat their wealthier rivals. In order to fully comprehend American politics, it is important to make note of the role played by discourse. 

Methods used by pressure groups

                   All pressure groups must ultimately capture the attention of decision-makers in order to advance their particular cause or interest. This can take many forms ranging from lobbying to astroturfing. There are no hard and fast rules in terms of acquiring the attention of decision-makers, although there are certain tried and trusted methods that readily come to mind (such as the provision of campaign finance via PACs). Another dependent factor to consider is the type of pressure group. Insiders employ conventional means by which to gain the attention of decision-makers, whereas outsiders use direct action or mass protest in order to highlight their demands.

                   It seems appropriate to begin here with lobbying, as this is traditionally the most effective means available when seeking the attention of decision-makers. The term lobbying derives from the practice in which representatives of various interests meet legislators in a hotel lobby. Lobbying is associated with insider groups who are always the most persuasive players in the corridors of power. Insider groups are usually organized on a federalist basis that mirrors that of the states. The national headquarters are likely to be housed on K Street, with some sort of state-based headquarters existing alongside local branches. Lobbyists command a high salary for their activities and their contacts. It makes logical sense for pressure groups to employ the very best lobbyists they can afford.

                   Lobbying has proved itself to be an effective route on a great many occasions. Interestingly, most of the activity of lobbyists rarely gains the attention of either the media or the general public. However, the activities of lobbyists do gain attention when their activities are illegal or the consequences of such actions have been harmful in some way. Some lobbyists have also been subject to bribery, although there are rules in place to prevent this.

                   When considering the impact of lobbyists, one must be careful to distinguish between cause and effect. Whilst politicians may well be swayed by influential lobbyists; they are also subject to several other factors. Take the case of the NRA. Gun control measures are notoriously difficult to implement within the states, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the NRA is partly responsible for this. The NRA is one of the most well organized groups in the country. However, politicians might adopt a pro-gun position due to their own particular interpretation of the second amendment. They might also be influenced by the views of their constituents, particularly in the conservative heartland of Middle America. It is always problematic within political discourse to properly identify a link between cause and effect. Very often, it depends upon our own particular worldview. In other words, those who are strongly in favor of gun control may exaggerate the overall impact of the NRA. Equally, those who seek to uphold the second amendment may also exaggerate the role of the NRA in terms of defending this particular element of the Bill of Rights.

                   Another factor to consider is the level of governance that is most relevant to the pressure group itself. Groups operating at the local/state level will invariably have a smaller range of methods available than one that seeks a nationwide influence upon decision-makers. The resources available to pressure groups are another point to consider. Well-resourced pressure groups have an obvious advantage over those with relatively few resources. However, resources have to be used in the most efficient manner possible. A group which squanders resources may well lose the support of its members. Given the choice of groups available, people can simply shift their membership from one group to another if they are dissatisfied.

                   All pressure groups must utilize the media in the best way they can. A striking image can often gain the attention of the public and decision-makers, because people tend to notice emotive images on hot-button issues (such as abortion). New media sources have to some degree leveled the playing field, in that access to the Internet is nothing like as financially prohibitive as advertising in the mainstream media. New social media also enables pressure groups to contact people more effectively than they could via traditional methods, an observation particularly relevant towards a younger demographic. Making a historical parallel can also gain the attention of the media, as in 2013 when a protest march on the nation’s capital marked the  fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a Dream’ speech. Finally, the task of gaining the media’s attention is always made easier when elements within the media (and the political process) are sympathetic to that particular cause, or those particular interests. One of the reasons why the pro-Israeli lobby is more successful in the states than those who promote the Palestinian point of view is that the former has far more support within the media and amongst decision-makers (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2007).

                   This being America, the judicial route can prove a highly effective means by which to advance a particular cause. Funding a test case has long provided a valuable route by which to change judicial interpretation of the law and thereby secure a long-term victory for that particular cause. There are several historical examples to consider, but the stand-out example from the noughties is that of DC v. Heller (2008) which was sponsored by the NRA. The Heller judgment overturned a ban on handguns implemented by the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment should be interpreted as the right of an individual to possess a firearm. Pressure groups may also present their case via an amicus curiae brief. They will also seek representation within congressional committees.

                   Holding a demonstration is almost exclusively associated with outsider groups. Insiders such as the AARP rarely have to resort to such a crass and noisy exhibition. The impact of demonstrations however upon decision-makers is often muted. It is fair to say that those who make the most noise often have the least impact. For instance, protests held during the Bush administration against military involvement in Iraq were never going to persuade the President to pull our forces out of that country. That said; no politician can entirely ignore demonstrations if they reflect public support for a particular course of action. Politicians have to listen to those demonstrations that connect with the wider public, but do not want to be blown off course by such actions. This is part of the ‘smoke and mirrors’ which lies at the very heart of how politics really operates.

                   From a wholly different angle, pressure groups may also seek to advance their cause or members’ interests by publishing the findings of a favorable opinion poll. 'Leading' questions are set in a way to achieve the desired result. Think-tanks may also contact politicians in order to persuade them to adopt a certain path of action. Although they rarely attract public attention, think-tanks can have a major influence upon the political process. Politicians by their very nature seek to implement ideas; and think-tanks offer a rich source of suggested policies. Conservative think-tanks of note include the Cato Institute, the Mercatus Center and the Federalist Society; whereas the Progressive Policy Institute and the Center for American Progress performs a similar role for the Democrats.

                   Another common method used by pressure groups is to officially endorse a particular candidate for office. This may be based upon their voting record and their campaign platform. On a more prosaic level, one method applicable to all pressure groups is to mobilize their supporters in order to contact decision-makers about an important matter. Politicians will find it difficult to ignore the demands of many potential voters, and any pressure group worth its salt will urge its members to contact elected representatives about a pressing issue.

The role of pressure groups during a proposition might also be considered. In order to get an initiative or proposition on the ballot paper, a certain number of signatories are required, the number of which differs according to that particular state. A successful pressure group must therefore be able to mobilize sufficient support in order to get that question on the ballot paper. To take a recent example, Personhood USA managed to raise proposition 26 in the state of Mississippi concerning the moment at which life is conceived. Once the question has been set, pressure groups also need to set up campaign offices and organize activists in an effective manner. This may even necessitate bringing in sympathizers from other states, as in the case of Mormons from the state of Utah who campaigned in California on proposition 8 concerning the issue of gay marriage.

                   The use of direct action by pressure groups is arguably the most dramatic method of all. In many cases, direct action can backfire upon that particular cause. The pro-life movement provides a good illustration of this point. There are millions of Americans who instinctively identify with the right to life, perhaps on the basis of their own religious faith. However, there are limits upon just how far pro-life pressure groups such as the Eagle Forum and Focus on the Family can operate before they risk losing public support. During his administration, George W. Bush was careful to distance himself from some of the more extremist elements of the pro-life movement. Whilst he supported pro-life Republican candidates for elected office and endorsed the Partial Birth Abortion Act; Bush did not wish to link himself in any way with pro-life extremists who might engage in direct action.

                   No understanding of the methods used by pressure groups would be complete without a reflection upon the involvement of celebrities. Such people are highly prized by pressure groups because celebrities have an instinctive understanding of how to manipulate the media, and they may have a strong media profile already. Some figures in the public eye are more than happy to lend their support to a particular cause, although one might be a little cynical of those celebrities who adopt the latest ‘flavor of the month’ cause – or those that pick a cause in order to promote their own individual brand. Celebrity involvement with pressure groups is usually associated with liberal causes such as equal marriage (which is now legal throughout the union on the basis of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)) and the right to choose. Indeed, for many social conservatives Hollywood represents a bastion of liberal views characterized by a lack of moral probity and integrity.

The relationship between pressure groups and democracy

                   The existence of many thousands of pressure groups enhances the democratic health of the nation. A society could hardly be considered democratic without the opportunity to join numerous pressure groups representing different interests. Quite frankly, the US has these in abundance. From a constitutional perspective, the first amendment enables citizens to form together and advance a particular cause. However, the actions of certain groups may of course undermine the democratic process.

                   As previously alluded to, there are two types of pressure groups that are commonly associated with undemocratic actions. Insider groups may exert excessive influence over the political process, particularly those who donate campaign funds. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that candidates for political office are essentially ‘up for sale’ to wealthy donors on the inside of the political process. Although there is no direct relationship between money and electoral success, it is incredibly difficult to gain and regain elected office in the states without a great deal of campaign funding. Moreover, the Citizens United judgment (2010) has exacerbated the impact wealthy insiders can exert upon politicians. It also seems reasonable to conclude that such groups make their ‘investment’ in order to gain something back. If they do not gain sufficient return upon that investment from the incumbent, they have the choice to switch funding to the challenger or simply leave the political process altogether. As such, they are in an influential position and in doing so can undermine democracy.

                   Outsider groups can of course be associated with democratic actions if they advance a cause that could be associated with democracy. Naturally, this is an inherently subjective judgment. Take the case of terrorists. In a technical sense of the term they are outsiders; and hardly anyone in the states would associate terrorist activity with democratic change. For the vast majority of Americans, terrorism and freedom are contradictory. That said; even terrorist activity might be associated with the march of democracy provided their cause is designed to promote and advance such values. Moreover, one might add that politicians themselves are at times to blame for the actions of such groups. Politicians may therefore be responsible for pushing such groups outside of the mainstream, thereby leading that group to engage in direct action. Indeed, this argument can be used by politicians seeking some level of contact with outsider groups. Throughout history, several outsiders have to some degree been brought into the mainstream.

                   In summary, the freedom to join a pressure group is an essential expression of living within a democratic society. However, the actions of such groups could certainly be considered undemocratic. Moreover, in any democratic society it might be necessary to ban certain extremist groups because they pose a threat to democratic itself. The decision over who to identify as an extremist group of course provides politicians with a great deal of power. Politicians have every incentive to err on the side of caution, even in the self-styled land of the free. On repeated occasions, politicians have restricted civil liberties in the face of a clear and present danger. It is perhaps worth recognizing that such restrictions have at times gained acquiescence from the wider public, particularly during those times when we feel threatened by the forces of extremism (as in the aftermath of 9/11).

Direct action

                   Direct action is associated exclusively with outsider pressure groups. Denied an effective route to decision-makers, outsider groups may feel that direct action is justified in order to advance their cause. Such action is therefore based upon an assumption that the status quo will not – for whatever reason – respond adequately to the demands of their members. For instance, politicians might adopt a prejudicial mindset against a minority group. They may also respond to wealthy interests whilst completely ignoring poorer members of society.

                   Direct action has a lengthy history in the states, and has at times contributed towards social change. Direct action could be considered both undemocratic and democratic; which naturally makes it such an intriguing case study. The undemocratic aspect of direct action is of course something of a no-brainer. Direct action will at times pose a threat to the life and liberty of individuals. Many innocent people can be affected by such action, including children. However, direct action can at times lead to a significant change to the law and in a broader sense societal attitudes. It is an undeniable trait of American history that change has on several occasions been instigated by direct action; some of which took the lives of the innocent. It is also worth noting that a degree of historical detachment is required in order for direct action to be presented in a more balanced light. This is dependent upon that particular side ‘winning’ history, as it’s the victorious who tend to write history.

                   Direct action is not necessarily illegal in all cases, and that is certainly worth noting. However, it can often pose a threat to – or at the very least disrupt – people’s everyday lives. This opens up an intriguing debate within those movements committed to significant change; ‘is constructive engagement with the political process more helpful to the cause than direct action?’ The latter may instigate a public backlash due to its indiscriminate impact. However, the public might be very strongly on their side and feel that direct action is entirely justified given the reluctance of politicians to listen and act upon such demands. This debate can be applied to an understanding of the civil rights movement, the feminist movement and the quest for equality amongst LGBT people. The debate within such movements is often heated and can at times be highly divisive. It also should be noted that constructive engagement with the conventional political process may be virtually impossible given the prevalent mindset of decision-makers. This argument could be applied to anarchist groups within the states.

The negative impact of pressure groups

                There are several cogent arguments to put forward in regards to the negative impact of pressure groups upon the political process. When seeking to deepen our understanding of these arguments, it is important to focus upon two particular types of pressure groups; insiders and outsiders. However, the actions of sectional groups might also be considered as they champion the interests of their own members rather than those of wider society.

                Perhaps the most obvious negative concerns the actions of outsider groups. Those who operate outside of the conventional political process may engage in direct action, which can at times pose a serious threat to our life and liberty. For instance, Operation Rescue has engaged in illegal activity against those working in abortion clinics. To most Americans, this would be viewed as entirely undemocratic. However, political discourse is littered with conflicting interpretations. As such, those at the extremist end of the pro-life movement could be described as the vanguard against a state-sponsored war against the defenseless unborn child. Such groups may well rationalize their actions by claiming that they are protecting the most vulnerable within society against the forces of liberal-secularism. Naturally, this argument can be taken to an illogical conclusion – as in the case of white extremist groups who defend their actions by exaggerating the threat posed by multiculturalism and immigration.

                Another issue to consider here is that direct action can lead to a more democratic society, particularly when the status quo does not properly listen and act upon the concerns of disadvantaged groups. Racial minorities offer a good illustration of this point. The civil rights movement has always been divided between those who seek to engage constructively with the political process against those who believe that direct action is the only proper response to a fundamentally racist system. During the turbulent decade of the 1960s, two figures within the civil rights movement (Martin Luther King and Malcolm X) encapsulated entirely different means by which to advance the cause. With the benefit of hindsight, direct action from certain elements of the civil rights movement may well have strengthened democracy in America.

                The actions of insider groups could also be considered in a negative context. This argument derives from both the left and right of the political spectrum, with each offering a critique of their particular bête noire. Those on the left claim that multi-national corporations and wealthy donors have effectively captured the political process. There are few better examples to cite than the financial services industry. These hugely influential insiders have been treated very favorably indeed by politicians from both main parties. Even those who derive from the financial elite seem to agree. The multi-billionaire financier Warren Buffett has said publically that the wealthy elite have been cossetted by Congress, and that his section of society is winning the class war! As one might expect, this left-wing perspective has gained salience in the aftermath of the credit crunch. At the risk of simplification, one might plausibly argue that ‘we’ have been dealing with the hangover from Wall Street’s excess.

                The right-wing critique against insider groups is of a slightly different hue. Best exemplified by the Tea Party movement, this viewpoint claims that the political process is dominated by groups that demand an ever greater level of resources from the taxpayer. Politicians therefore place an increasing burden upon the tax-payer simply in order to placate powerful interests. Demands made by such groups are therefore heard to the exclusion of the American people, which is entirely contrary to the spirit and ethos of what democracy is supposed to be.

 

                 The right-wing perspective emphasizes two further problems with pressure groups, that of government overload and regulatory capture. Government overload is precisely what it says, in that the state simply takes on too much due to the demands of influential insiders. One would only have to consider the whole area of agriculture, traditionally one of the most subsidized industries within the states. This may take the form of government subsidies that simply protect producers at the expense of the consumer. Government overload also leads to an unaffordable fiscal deficit, a problem that mushroomed under the Bush administration and one that has continued to expand exponentially under Obama. High levels of government debt are contrary to the country’s economic interests in the long-term. This latter point has been taken up by groups on the left of the political spectrum. For instance, Strike Debt aims to abolish personal debt by sending a package to random individuals saying that the debt is now cleared. The name of the project (Rolling Jubilee) is inspired by a story from the Old Testament in which all debts are forgiven every 50 or so years.

Regulatory capture occurs when an agency set up to regulate an industry has little or no impact. Such agencies are effectively captured by powerful interests who lobby legislators within the various levels of governance. One example to consider would be the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) in relation to financial services. Along with government overload, regulatory capture is part of the New Right perspective upon the role and significance of pressure groups.

Another criticism to consider relate to the actions of an iron triangle, which is commonly associated with a secretive decision-making process. In essence, pressure groups within an iron triangle can place their own interests above those of the people. An iron triangle is formed on the basis of vested interests, and each element of the triangle (congressional committees, pressure groups and federal agencies) benefit in some manner. They have the means and the motive to reach decisions that advance their own interests rather than those of the broader population. Take the case of agriculture. The provision of subsidies to farmers directly benefits members of the American Farm Bureau, which in turn may lead to politicians gaining votes from farmers and agricultural constituencies. However, the provision of subsidies is contrary to the interests of the wider population as it is based upon a double whammy of higher taxes and higher prices. Disposable income is therefore squeezed for what is ultimately a necessity for our very survival. This can be particularly hard upon low-income households, where spending on food takes up a disproportionately large amount of the household budget. Iron triangles also tend to reach decisions via secretive means, which is entirely contrary to democratic values that emphasize openness and transparency.

Another negative associated with pressure groups is the revolving door syndrome. The term describes a situation in which former members of the legislature/executive take up paid positions within pressure groups. A recently retired (or defeated) politician can often gain a higher salary, and a more stable job; as a lobbyist compared to that of a public servant. The pressure group however gains valuable insider information upon how decisions are really made and secures informal contacts with existing decision-makers. For instance, former Senator Ben Nelson gained a job working as a lobbyist for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners soon after losing an election. Taken together, the revolving door syndrome creates a mutually dependent relationship amongst influential insider groups and politicians that may well be to the detriment of wider society. Once again, it is the actions of pressure groups that could be criticized as opposed to their actual existence.

The overall impact of pressure groups, both positive and negative; depends of course upon two factors. Of these, the most important is the relative influence of that particular group. Insider groups such as the AIPAC, the AARP and the NRA will inevitably have a major impact upon the political process. For example, the NRA has sufficient resources to mobilize support against measures to control the use of firearms. It can also mobilize support against those who favor gun control. This could be considered either a positive or a negative depending upon one’s own ideological bent.

 

The second factor is the capacity of politicians to marginalize the demands of such groups. Perhaps the most interesting illustration to consider is the impact of the AARP. From the perspective of senior citizens, the AARP defends their interests within the corridors of power. However, from the perspective of a younger population the political process may well be systematically biased towards an older demographic. Politicians have a far greater incentive to respond to the grey vote than younger people because the former is both more numerous and much more likely to go to the polls. Politicians must consider these facts in order to gain power, because without power they can do practically nothing. Once again, the impact of the AARP could be included on either side of the debate.

The positive impact of pressure groups

                The entire debate concerning the various theoretical perspectives can be simplified into those which take a positive view of pressure groups, and those that take a more critical stance. Pluralism offers a positive perspective whereas all the other theories take a negative approach. As such, the debate concerning the various theoretical perspectives leads neatly onto a consideration of the impact of pressure groups upon the political process. When considering the following arguments, it is worth looking back to previous posts on the various theoretical perspectives available.

                It is also important to note that the debate concerning the positive or negative impact of such groups centers upon their actions, rather than their mere existence. Once we recognize this, it soon becomes clear that some pressure groups could be considered to have a negative impact. As with political parties, one cannot assume that the activities of pressure groups are an unqualified and universal positive.

                There are of course several positives one might associate with pressure groups. Perhaps the most significant is that they represent the demos. There are a huge variety of pressure groups available that citizens may join for a relatively small fee. Without representation via pressure groups, the US could hardly be described as a democratic society in any meaningful sense of the phrase. Pressure groups thereby give expression to the needs and concerns of the American people (Berry and Wilcox, 2007). In that sense at least, we can confidently state that pressure groups contribute something entirely positive towards the political process.

                 Another argument to suggest that pressure groups have a positive impact is that legislation is improved via consultation with various groups. In doing so, decision-makers can consider conflicting viewpoints and reach something of a compromise position. The argument that laws are improved via consultation with pressure groups stems from the pluralist perspective, which takes a positive view of the impact of such groups upon the broader political process.

                Thirdly, pressure groups represent those interests within society that might otherwise be marginalized. In the case of the US; the decision-making elite is overwhelmingly white, male and Protestant. Only 2 Presidents have derived from outside of the WASP demographic, only 2 women have ever been on a presidential ticket and the vast majority of law-makers are from a WASP background. In order to counter possible bias, pressure groups exist which seek to represent a wide gamut of minority groups. This may be based upon racial background (such as the National Council of La Raza or the Congress of Racial Equality), gender (such as the NOW) or sexuality (such as Queer Nation). Equally, there are pressure groups that seek to defend individual rights from the abuse of power by the official authorities. Prominent examples here include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). Pressure groups who uphold and defend the rights of minority groups and those of the individual contribute could be said to contribute positively towards the democratic process. The only counter-argument to consider is that such actions might serve to exacerbate the interests of such groups at the expense of wider society. It may well lead to the views of minority groups being imposed upon society under the guise of liberal values such as tolerance and choice.

                The final argument to consider is that of advancing the cause of democracy. Many groups have, throughout their history; sought to promote democratic values within the states. Although it is politicians that ultimately make decisions and implement legislation, and it is judges that rule upon matters that may impact upon democratic values; pressure groups play a vital role in promoting a democratic cause. This argument applies to a surprisingly broad range of groups. Although liberal groups such as the aforementioned ADA immediately spring to mind, or those that protect and uphold the rights of minority groups; we must of course recognize those that champion conservative values too. For instance, the NRA helped to bring the case of DC v. Heller (2008) to the attention of the Supreme Court. The Heller judgment reaffirmed the right of the individual to own firearms, a judgment also supported in the context of the states by the McDonald v. Chicago (2010) ruling. There are of course many historical examples to consider of instances in which pressure groups have advanced the march of democracy. Of these, perhaps the most famous pertains to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) who sponsored the test case leading to the de-segregation of schools (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). During the Bush administration, the ACLU brought the case of Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) to the judicial bench over the use of wiretapping by the official authorities. They also won a case against the FBI on the basis that ‘fishing’ expeditions were in violation of the first and fourth amendments.

Marxist perspective 

                The Marxist perspective plays a considerable role within political theory (Marx and Engels, 1848). However, its applicability towards an understanding of the American system has been somewhat muted. Marxism has long been verboten within American discourse, which may well have led political commentators to downplay its significance. Marxism however does cast some light upon the American political system, particularly the role and significance of pressure groups.

                Marxism is at heart a critique of the capitalist system. The Marxist perspective argues that the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat as a result of the power dynamics within a capitalist economic system. As a consequence, the political process is dominated by wealthy interests that serve to uphold the dominance of one social class over another. In making this bold claim, there is some level of overlap with the elitist description of the political process. However, Marxism seeks to put forward a prescription for a utopian society whereas elitism does not.

                A modern-day manifestation of the Marxist perspective is the Occupy movement. It seems somewhat appropriate that the movement was borne just outside the epicenter of the financial services industry, as there could scarcely be a more potent illustration of the power wielded by the bourgeoisie than Wall Street. Although it is sometimes criticized for lacking an overall narrative, OWS certainly reflects a Marxist perspective upon the capitalist economic system. 

New Right and corporatist perspective

                First and foremost, the New Right perspective (Buchanan, 1968) takes an unmistakably critical view of pressure groups. Whereas pluralism claims that such groups contribute positively to American democracy, the New Right offers a particularly robust critique of pressure group activity. It claims that pressure groups are in the business of procuring resources from the government in order to meet the needs of their members. In doing so, the government is held hostage to influential pressure groups. An ever-expanding government inevitably marginalizes those institutions that hold society together, such as the family and the church; in order to placate influential groups. A good example of this point is the role of the welfare state. Government schemes such as Medicare and Medicaid end up performing many of those roles that could be done by the individual (such as caring for family members who are sick and elderly) or within the community.

Secondly, the government undermines economic growth by placing an ever-expanding burden upon the taxpayer. According to the New Right perspective, the frontiers of the state need to be reduced in order to restore individual liberty. The New Right also claims that regulatory agencies effectively capture the political process, thereby serving their own interests at the expense of what the people want and need. Pressure groups thereby contribute to both government overload and regulatory (or agency) capture. As with all other theoretical perspectives, the persuasiveness of the argument depends in part upon our ability to ‘buy into’ the assumptions that lie behind it (i.e. that government spending is too high).

                Corporatism emerged as a critique of the pluralist perspective. Whereas pluralism takes a positive view of pressure groups, corporatism claims that only a small number of interest groups are purposefully engaged within the decision-making process. As such, a large number of pressure groups are effectively excluded or at the very least marginalized from those who make the decisions that really matter. Decision-makers listen to those who provide something to them (such as campaign funds or specialist knowledge) whilst excluding/marginalizing those groups that serve no useful purpose to them. Ultimately, the relationship between politicians and pressure groups is reciprocal. Without the potential for mutual benefit; the relationship would not exist.

                Rather than America being a pluralist democracy serving the people, the corporatist perspective claims that the decision-making process is dominated by those who can offer something of benefit to politicians. For instance, both labor unions and big businesses will always exert influence because they have something valuable to give. According to the corporatist perspective, the state merely adopts a co-ordinating role in which it provides the necessary choice architecture for the ‘right’ decision to be reached. Inevitably, this choice architecture is biased towards influential organizations. 

Elitism

                Elitism is the polar opposite of pluralism. For example, elitism claims that a number of insider pressure groups exert an undemocratic influence upon the political process. Far from being pluralist, America should more accurately be depicted as a country in which insider groups can effectively distort the political process. This is particularly notable with those groups that represent business interests. The need for high levels of campaign finance is a political reality that no candidate for elected office can ever ignore. As such, corporations have considerable influence over politicians which leads some to agree with Theodore Dreiser's quote that "corporations are the [American] government.”

Following the logic of the elitist perspective, American politics could be depicted as a contest between various elites (namely liberals against conservatives). This contest between elites occurs both in the context of political parties, and of course pressure groups. The Austrian theorist Joseph Schumpeter once argued that the people effectively decide which elite rules - thereby reflecting a hybrid of both democracy and elite rule. Schumpeter compared political democracy to an economic market in which we exercise choice just as we would within the marketplace. Americans therefore choose between candidates from the parties, and from causes represented by competing pressure groups. In the case of the latter, they might choose to support a pro-life advocacy group or a pro-choice group in regards to abortion.

Along with Schumpeter, there are three theorists who are normally cited within the elitist perspective. Of these, the most important is unquestionably C. Wright Mills (1956). In a seminal work on the distribution of power and influence; Mills claimed that the United States is dominated by a social and political elite whose members can be found within pressure groups and political parties. Although his work was published in the middle of the 20^th century, his argument still holds validity to this day. One would only have to consider the influence wielded by iron triangles. For instance, it could be argued that defense spending in the states is exorbitantly high due to the significant influence of the military-industrial complex.

                Thomas Dye (2001) argued that policies are the result of an elite consensus found in the nation’s capital. Far from serving the demos, the entire political process is skewed towards those who share the elite consensus. ‘They’ know what is best for the country, and ‘they’ effectively run America. As such, politicians ultimately respond to the Great Gulch of K Street and the wolves of Wall Street rather than ordinary folks living on Main Street. In order to support this argument, one would only have to consider the banking bail-out under administrations from both main parties. The left-wing author Naomi Klein (2000) described the bail-out for those too big to fail as “the biggest heist in monetary history … and the largest transfer of public wealth into private hands.” From the right of the political spectrum, the Tea Party is "mad as hell" at the bail-out of Wall Street.

                Thirdly, the sociologist Robert Putnam claims that elites dominate the political process due to their specialist knowledge. Legislation drawn up on the Hill is drafted by those who represent the interests of powerful insider groups, particularly those with a grasp of medical and financial services. Certain pressure groups, such as the American Medical Association (AMA), have both the expertise and the manpower to achieve this. Indeed, it is worth noting here that the financial services industry has approximately five lobbyists for every member of Congress – and it was pressure from such lobbyists that managed to keep the Merkley-Levin amendment off the statute books. The amendment would have prohibited banks from taking excessive risks with their customer’s savings, and might therefore have prevented the sub-prime lending fiasco. It is also worth noting that Spencer Bachus, chair of the House Financial Services Committee; is on record as saying that “Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”

                Having considered both pluralism and elitism, one might reasonably conclude that there is plenty of evidence to support both sides of the argument. This is entirely to be expected within any political debate. America does have a veneer of pluralism, and certainly compares well by international standards. However, there is no point hiding the fact that certain groups dominate the policy-making process. Whilst there are a massive number of pressure groups covering all shades of opinion, it is surely to be expected that some pressure groups are going to hold far greater level of influence than others. To take just one example, the financial services industry hired over 3,000 lobbyists (!) in order to shape the wording of the Financial Reform Bill. One caveat to add here is that no pressure group is commanding enough to enforce their demands upon the political process. Ultimately, it is politicians that decide – not pressure groups. Pluralists also offer a credible counter-argument to the elitist perspective with their claim that all groups face an alternative perspective.

The dichotomy between pluralism and elitism gives the debate over pressure groups much of its intellectual vibrancy. However, there are other perspectives to consider. It is important to note that each theoretical perspective casts light upon our understanding of pressure groups and in a wider sense the political process itself. Of these, the New Right perspective is arguably the most vibrant in the contemporary era. It has experienced a notable resurgence since the end of the noughties, principally due to the rise of the Tea Party movement with their ‘I am John Galt’ placards (Rand, 1957) and their slogan ‘Don’t tread on me.’ As such, I would like to now consider the New Right perspective upon pressure groups.

Pluralism

                It is in the nature of political discourse that a number of contesting theoretical perspectives exist that seek to cast insight upon our understanding. In the context of pressure groups, there are several theories to consider. Of these, perhaps the most salient in regards to the United States is that of pluralism. As with all theoretical models, the pluralist perspective makes a set of assumptions about the role and significance of the subject matter in question.

Firstly, the political process within the states offers numerous access points for pressure groups. In doing so, pressure groups have several opportunities to influence decision-makers. Given the federalist structure of the US, pressure groups can readily identify those who have the greatest influence and target their audience accordingly. In blunt terms, pressure groups gravitate towards those who have power. Moreover, if a pressure group fails to influence one level of governance they can quite easily transfer towards another. Given the legalistic character of American society, and the importance of the judicial branch of government; pressure groups have a strong incentive towards contacting members of the judiciary. This may entail filing an amicus curiae brief (meaning ‘friend of the court’) or bringing a test case to the court’s attention. Winning a test case can represent a significant victory for their particular cause. Indeed, the judicial route has often proved as beneficial to the civil rights movement as the legislative route. Pressure groups may also contribute to congressional committees, a presidential task-force and so on.

                There is much evidence to suggest that the pluralist perspective offers an insightful depiction of pressure group activity in the states. For one, the various institutions of governance adopt a relatively welcome attitude towards insider groups. Secondly, the federalist system facilitates numerous points of access. In a union of 50 states, each with their own particular way of doing things; there are a wide number of opportunities available for groups to exert pressure upon decision-makers. The most successful pressure groups actually organize their resources on the basis of a federalist structure. As such, they will have offices at both the national and state level. Power is also dispersed within the states, which again reflects a pluralist approach.

In terms of the pluralist perspective, a significant academic study was undertaken by Robert Dahl (1961) in New Haven, Massachusetts. He found that competitive elections in the states prevent any permanent elite from emerging. Competitive elections also ensure open access to the political process, in contrast to closed societies based upon an autocratic ideology. Dahl also found that widely differing groups of ordinary citizens were both active and influential within the political process. This could be categorized into three areas; party nominations, urban redevelopment and public education. Furthermore, Dahl claimed that the average voter held the same power that he or she would within a marketplace. He believed that this particular system ensured that the needs of the people were heard. In the contemporary era, the existence of democratic overload seems to add further weight to Dahl’s pluralist argument.

The pluralist perspective claims that pressure groups enhance the democratic process. Those who seek to emphasize the democratic impact of pressure groups often take a pluralist perspective; regardless of whether or not they explicitly recognize it. Pluralists however acknowledge that the proportion of those who contest the political process is relatively small, and that the public may well act as bystanders with little direct influence upon the decision-making process. This might still be considered democratic because those who contest the political process do ultimately represent the public. It might also be noted that the average American lacks the knowledge and expertise required to reach a sensible and workable arrangement on every single political issue.

There are a number of sub-sections to consider in relation to the pluralist perspective. Of these, classical pluralism is the most significant. It states that the decision-making process is located mostly within the framework of government. Pressure groups are thereby assumed to be rational actors who merely seek to maximize their influence. Classical pluralism also views the political process as one with various lines of conflict, and with an ever-shifting balance of power. Another variation to consider here is neo-pluralism. This branch of pluralist thought emerged during the 1960s in response to the criticism that classical pluralism was too simplistic. Neo-pluralists such as Charles Lindblom (1992) argue that a bias exists towards corporate power, despite the fact that multiple groups compete for political influence. The state is not a neutral arbiter as is commonly assumed by classical pluralism, although the central tenants of pluralism can still be applied to an understanding of the decision-making process. Instead, the state should be viewed in a compartmentalized manner in which different sections seek out a relationship that suits their own particular interests. 

Pressure groups and political parties

                Both pressure groups and political parties play an important role within the political process. As one might anticipate, there are differences and similarities between the two. Beginning with the differences, a pressure group does not stand for elected office. However, some political parties might be described as glorified pressure groups. This does not mean that they are pressure groups in the technical sense of the term. It does however mean that third party candidates and independents exercise a degree of influence within the political process that might be compared to that of a pressure group. This alludes to the ‘sting and die’ phenomenon in which the momentum behind third parties / independents quickly disappears. The barriers facing a third party or independent candidate are such that they, in effect; simply exert pressure upon candidates from the two main parties. It might also be argued that a pressure group might confusingly be labeled as a political party. For instance, the Tea Party movement is a pressure group ideologically aligned to fiscal conservatives within the GOP.

                Another important distinction between the two is that no system could operate without a political party or parties, but a political system could conceivably operate without pressure groups. Dictatorial regimes have operated without pressure groups, but all regimes have required a political party of some description. As the US is a liberal democracy, this argument is somewhat redundant. The third key distinction to be aware of is that pressure groups arguably hold more importance as agents of political change and representation. Political parties are relatively weak within the states, which inevitably leaves something of a political vacuum that pressure groups ultimately serve to fill. America does not facilitate strong political parties, but pressure groups (particular insiders) can play a key role in terms of securing change and representation.

                The similarities between pressure groups and political parties should be fairly obvious. To begin with, there are a number of roles that both organizations perform. Political parties and pressure groups seek to educate the public about political matters. A party might publish a platform during an election, whereas a cause group will highlight a particular issue. Secondly, both pressure groups and political parties enable the demos to actively participate in the political process. Many people’s initial engagement with the political process is via pressure groups rather than parties. That said; both enable citizens to make a contribution to the democratic process. Thirdly, pressure groups and parties represent the public within the political process. Pressure groups achieve this via an indirect manner, whereas political parties offer a more direct route.