Interest Groups - AP Government and Politics

Hyperpluralism is the political theory that government policy, and ability to enact laws for the good of the nation, is heavily weakened by the various competing interest groups, who all demand a say in government. Often these groups contradict one another and slow down the overall process of government policy-making.

The Taft-Hartley Act was designed to reduce the impact of labor unions in the United States and, as such, would logically have the support of many members of Congress (who answer to businessmen more than they do to the working classes), but would be less likely to have the support of the President. The Act was passed in 1947, after it was vetoed by Harry Truman, who believed the Act would enforce a type of “wage slavery” in the United States; however, Congress overturned Truman’s veto and the Act passed.

Members of an interest group all share the same position on one specific issue, whether it is religious, social, political, or moral. Their main goal is to use lobbying, media campaigns, polls, and research to influence the public in favor of their beliefs. In this way, they are able to catch the attention of presidential candidates.

Jonathan Rauch is a political and economic writer who coined the term “demosclerosis” to refer to the loss of government power in the years since World War II, more specifically to the stagnation of the ability of government to affect policy change because of the increased power of special interest groups who effectively hold the government hostage.

Pluralism asserts that the best system is one that represents as many or all possible interests. This allows for the competition of many different interests until a decision can be reached. Some of the answers may be the outcome of a success of the pluralist system. And the most wealthy option represents the elite theory.

Unlike political parties, interest groups do not in fact put forth candidates to run for public office. While they do often support and/or endorse candidates, it is considered a suspicious conflict of interest for any interest group to actually nominate a candidate. This fact also partially results from the specific nature of interest groups– because interest groups focus on only a few select issues, with a serious depth of knowledge only in these few areas, it would be quite difficult to nominate a candidate who would be merely a specialist amongst the other generalist nominees of every other political party.

Elitist theorists believe that the government is, in fact, controlled by a small circle of select elite individuals whose monetary resources allow them to reign all-powerfully behind the scenes in Washington, D.C. Due to this belief, elitist theorists therefore take a derisive view of lobbying, dismissing the practice as ineffective, corrupt, and useless. The average citizen, no matter how passionately he or she may lobby the government, is helpless to even match, let alone truly combat, the massive bases of power and influence which the elite inner circle enjoys. Large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals are able to hire entire units of highly skilled lobbyists to continually assail the government on their employers’ behalf, so that ordinary people, who have no great collection of money, perks, or influence to offer, are hopelessly drowned out. By and large, elitist theorists thus denounce lobbying as a futile practice, which only ends up benefitting those already in the best position to profit– aka the elite.

"Electioneering" is a general term that encompasses every overt but legal method by which interest groups and their lobbyists are directly involved in politics. The most frequently used electioneering tactic is the creation and organization of PACs– the majority of interest groups highly prioritize funding the electoral campaigns of candidates whom they see as somehow favorable or aligned with their cause. Other popular electioneering strategies include loaning staffers to help manage campaign efforts, sponsoring advertisements, and helping to organize rallies and other venues at which citizens are urged to demonstrate their support for a group’s preferred candidate.

James Madison wrote a great deal about interest groups (which in his day were called “factions”), which he saw as unfortunate but necessary evils whose efforts and machinations must be diligently circumvented. Madison was keenly suspicious of any and all interest groups, especially those which profess to be working for the public good– according to Madison, such claims are merely an elaborate façade meant to disguise the selfish motives which nearly every single group seeks to further. A double-edged difficulty thus faces the nation, or so Madison believed: a democratic society must not seek to silence the voices of those citizens who band together to exert their will upon their government but neither can a democratic society allow one group to ride roughshod over the rights of any other. Madison’s proposed solution involves allowing interest groups to exist but under carefully controlled conditions, with corruption minimized as much as possible and as many groups permitted to operate as is feasible, in the hopes that their vast numbers will serve as a simple system of checks and balances.

Rather than being a solution, in fact, hyperpluralists decry iron triangles as the most damaging part of the modern interest group politics. Iron triangles are more generally known as lesser governmental organizations, in which interest group leaders join with relevant government agencies and congressional members to control policy decisions and implementation. This cooperation between leaders of interest groups, agencies, and congressional committees constitutes an unfair monopoly of power– or so hyperpluralist theorists allege. Members of Congress draft and sponsor favorable laws and government agencies carry out and uphold these directives, so that by banding together, these individuals together are able to wield far-reaching control over government activities. Each of these three groups thus forms one side of the triangle, while the so-called “iron” is provided by the inflexible stores of power which the triangle’s members amass.

Political Action Committees are most likely to support an incumbent seeking reelection. Political Actions Committees are groups set up to ensure the election of one candidate over another.

In American elections, Political Action Committees (PACs) are organizations that raise money by collecting campaign contributions and donations. They then use this money to fund the campaign of someone running for office. They can be used to fund either an incumbent or a challenger. They can also be used to fund desired legislation, although this is less common and more of a secondary purpose.

PACs give money to political campaigns for a variety of reasons but when faced with an election between an incumbent and a new candidate, PACs time and again overwhelmingly choose to sponsor the incumbent. Statistically speaking, incumbents are more likely to win re-election, even when faced with a seemingly intriguing new opponent. PACs therefore view incumbent candidates as sound investment opportunities– if a PAC’s monetary gift is able to help an incumbent retain their position, then the PAC has automatically gained a friend and potential ally who may later reciprocate by supporting PAC issues.

Political Action Committees or (PACs) are organizations created to support campaign finance for a candidate.

In recent years, the government has placed limitations on the amount of money one individual can contribute to a political campaign. One of the consequences of this ruling has been the increased use of bundling. Bundling is when one individual or organization campaigns for and collects contributions from a large group of people within a community.

The problem faced by most interest groups is that the majority of people who benefit from the policies of the interest group can do so without actively participating in the interest group. This is known as "The Free Rider Problem." One of the main things that interest groups try to accomplish is to convince those who benefit from their policies and goals is that it benefits them so much that it behooves them to get involved and help accelerate the movement.

When it comes to assessing a particular interest group’s chances of success, three factors are key: funds, intensity, and size. Adequate funding is quite naturally necessary in order for a group to promote its goals among both governmental figures and the larger public audience. But financial wealth alone is not enough to guarantee victory, especially in the competitive world of lobbying. Intensity is also crucial– members of a group must truly believe in the issue for which they are advocating. The law of intensity applies to the public as well, because if a group chooses a topic which has great emotional resonance (such as abortion or gun control), regular citizens are more likely to offer their support and are more willing to navigate the messy avenues of politics to promote their cause. A group’s size is also key but, contrary to common perception, larger groups are not in fact necessarily more effective. Practice has proven that it is quite difficult to adequately mobilize massive numbers of people, both in terms of gleaning participation and in sustaining enthusiasm. Interest groups with smaller membership rosters actually tend to achieve their goals more often, because it is much easier for them to organize themselves, to continually generate intensity, and to share in the benefits of success together.

While interest groups employ many tactics to accomplish their goals, the four most popular (and proven effective) tools of their trade are: direct public appeals, lobbying, litigation, and electioneering. Corporate welfare, on the other hand, is instead one of the benefits which interest groups sponsored by corporations reap as a result of their efforts to win over members of Congress. Common examples of corporate welfare include tax exemptions, fee rebates, and loopholes written into bills passed by Congress, all advocated for and put forward by those Congressional members who gratefully received corporate interest group support and now are motivated to return the favor.

Interest groups have a wide range of processes that are intended to affect the country's laws and policies, depending on what branch of the government and what kind of law the group is trying to change. Regarding the legislative process, their chief activity in effecting change is through lobbying members of Congress to help craft and pass legislation.

The correct answer is the revolving door. The iron triangle refers to the people who influence the creation of legislation. Gerrymandering involved drawing borders for electoral districts. Pork barrel and logrolling are types of legislative practices that involve trading favors to get the best outcome for one’s constituents.