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.