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.