Interest Groups and Their Role in American Politics - Research Paper Example

? Interest Groups: Understanding their Role in American Politics Interest groups have played a significant part in politics, and the degree to which they have influenced legislation and governance has provided an interesting study throughout the years. What are interest groups? Walker, quoting David Truman, suggested that “interest groups arise more or less spontaneously in response to feelings of common interest among individuals who are experiencing some form of deprivation or frustration. (1983: 390).” Bound by these feelings of common interest and need, interest groups participate in the political process by engaging with actors of the state so that policies will be enacted that respond to their perceived needs. The early beginnings of interest group theory is that public policy is crafted as a result of filtering through the various – and sometimes competing – interests and determining what can best respond to the needs of the majority (Denzau and Munger, 1986: 89). Interest groups cover the wide range of interests of human beings – from the corporate interests of big companies, such as pharmaceutical corporations and mining companies, that push for their interests by funding campaigns and releasing big money, to the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, such as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community that is aggressively pushing for equality legislation and even for same-sex marriage. A particular example of an interest group is the organization SAGE (Service and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders). . It is the largest and oldest organization in America devoted to promoting the welfare of LGBT senior citizens and make sure that their voices do not get lost in a cacophony of voices. SAGE formed itself in 1978 not only to deliver services to LGBT elders in New York City but also to push for policy reforms at the national level, and provides technical assistance to similarly-minded groups all over the country. It is not however a simple issue of sterile technical assistance. Considering the historical marginalization of LGBT communities and their susceptibility to the hate agenda of conservative groups, SAGE employs a radical organizing component as well (Reisch, 2005: 288) – that is to say, “the replacement of oppressive institutions, conditions, systems and practices with ones that reflect principles of justice, equity and respect for human diversity.” SAGE works in tandem with other organizations in order to further the shared goal. After all, theirs is a shared commitment towards addressing the needs and uplifting the well-being of LGBT elderly and pushing for equality and tolerance, regardless of age differences. It is through the consolidation of their voices that change can be sought and demands can be made to reform policies or introduce new ones. Coupled with this, SAGE is also following the strategy of pushing for their advocacy on three levels: city/local, state and federal level. This is a sound strategy in that it acknowledges that policy is generated in multiple fulcrums of power an if one is to push an agenda, then pressure tactics must be applied on the multiple fulcrums and not just one one. While interest groups are in theory a crucial component in any thriving democracy, many have criticized how some interest groups have created adverse effects in the American political terrain. Sustein (1985: 29) writes: The dissatisfaction takes various forms, but many of the concerns have a common root in the problems produced by the existence of interest groups, or “factions”, and their influence over the political process. The scheme is challenged on the grounds that it allows powerful private organizations to block necessary government action; that the lawmaking process has been transformed into a series of accommodations among competing elites, and that the rise of a large bureaucracy exercising broad discretionary power has undermined original constitutional goals by circumventing the safeguards of separation of powers and electoral accountability. While interest groups and political parties may appear to be very similar to each other, there are very marked differences between both. Interest groups often focus on a single issue, using it as a fulcrum for their advocacy. For example, gun owners form themselves into an interest group pushing for the freedom to bear arms. Pro-life advocates coalesce around the singular issue of abortion and their opposition to it. On the other hand, political parties generally have positions on a wide number of issues and push for a wide range of policies that may include the interests of some interest groups, but exclude the interests of others. However, political parties tend to be a convergence point of like-minded interest groups – their interests may be said to be complementary, but are not the same. For example, the Republicans are known for their strenuous positions against immigration, their support of the right to bear arms, and their intolerance of gay marriages. These issues are not the same, but one can say that they are illumined by the same frame of analysis. That is why they attract people who agree with them on their positions in all these issues. Another distinction is given by Brunell (2005: 681), who states, “Interest groups are policy maximizers, while political parties are focused on maximizing the number of seats they win in Congress. These competing goals have important implications for the relationship between interest groups and parties.” This essentially means that political parties have to play a balancing act by accommodating the different interests and responding to the demands of the groups, so that they can be assured of a wider constituency and funding for their campaigns. This is a perennial challenge that political parties face. How do interest groups push their advocacy and influence the President and Congress? One way of doing it is through increasing their membership base and coalescing with other groups in order to create a show of force that they hope will generate momentum. Going back to the example of SAGE, it outlined some of its key strategies for 2012. These are (1) transforming the national landscape on LGBT aging, (2) Providing leadership for the LGBT community on aging, (3) introducing new service programs for the LGBT elderly, (4) providing information to LGBT seniors in order to empower them. (ibid.) In order that these priorities be fulfilled, SAGE emphasized organizational partnerships, effective national leadership that supports and is supported by local interventions, and synchronization of goal to resources.  For example, SAGE is one of many organizations that advocate for older Americans of particular groups.  SAGE is a member of  Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO), which includes the following organizations:   National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA), National Caucus and Center on Black Aging (NCBA),  National Hispanic Council on Aging (NHCOA),  and National Indian Council on Aging  (NICA).” This strategy fits well with the academic perception of coalitions pushing for progressive change – Changing culturally entrenched structures of prejudice and discrimination is a paramount focus in social change activities. The success of a coalition to effect broad change depends to a great extent on its efforts to break down these barriers. (Roberts-de Genarro & Mizrahi: 2005: 306). Primarily they do it through funding campaigns. This is where the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission1 comes in. By way of brief background, the case takes root in 2008 when a non-profit corporation, Citizens United, released a documentary entitled “Hillary” that was made to target the former Senator who was at the time vying for the nomination of the Democrats. The Supreme Court ruled that electioneering communications fell under the protective ambit of the First Amendment. It therefore overruled the case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which banned the use of treasury money by corporations to campaign for or against particular candidates, and the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the restrictions on electioneering communications imposed on corporate expenditures. Many had called it an affirmation of the First Amendment as guaranteed by the Constitution, but many more felt that the Court was privileging corporate interests and was hijacking the integrity of the elections. There has also been a clear tendency to label those who support Citizens United as conservatives and those who oppose it as more progressive. The decision states that “Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.” It then proceeded to say that corporations and human beings both have a right to free speech that the government is dutybound to protect. Said Justice Kennedy, “Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech.” Opponents of the decision, however, are skeptical that the protection of free speech is indeed the agenda of the decision – noting that historically, corporate interests have often trumped public interest, and wondering if this is yet another example of the unfortunate pattern. Indeed this is a way that powerful interest groups can lobby the President and Congress to make laws and pass policies that will benefit them and advance their interests. “If the ban is struck down”, says Cohen (2009) corporations may soon be writing large checks to the same elected officials whom they are asking to give them bailouts or to remove health-and-safety regulations from their factories or to insert customized loopholes into the tax code.” Fears have been raised that the decision will see an emergence of corporate lobbying in even grander scale than present: pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms, gun manufacturers and the like, will push their agenda even further, at a time when the ordinary American is fearing unemployment and is resentful of Wall Street and the profits it rakes in on a daily basis. Indeed, money is an easy way of making government work the way one wants it to work. But the most potent way that an interest group can effect change is by creating a movement to redefine society’s values. An important challenge that may have gone unnoticed is that pushing for changes in social policy always requires pushing for a change in social values, which is not always the easiest thing to do. To quote Popple (2007: 335): “Social welfare policies are influenced much more by social values than they are by data from empirical research.” Policy analysis always means looking at deeper at the entrenched values, before beginning to change them. Quoting Yanow: Contending frames entail not just different policy discourses – different language, understanding and perceptions – and potentially different courses of action, but also different values and different meanings. The role of the interpretive policy is to map the “architecture” of debate relative to the policy issue under investigation, by identifying the language and its entailments (understandings, actions, meanings) used by different interpretive communities in their framing of the issue. (2000: 12-13) In the end, the question remains: do interest groups enrich government, or do they corrupt government? If there are some interest groups that corrupt government and impede the general welfare and development of society, what do we do? Do we restrain some and leave others free to do what they want? It is important to remember that The right of free speech and dissent are the backbone of any democratic society. To end with the words of Bossie and Olson, (2011) “Today, thanks to Citizens United, we may celebrate that the First Amendment confirms what our forefathers fought for: "the freedom to think for ourselves." References Bossie, D. and Olson, T. (2011). How the Citizens Ruling Freed Up Political Speech. The Washington Face to Face. Brunell, T. (2005). “The Relationship Between Political Parties and Interest Groups: Explaining Patters of PAC Contributions to Candidates for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly. Vol. 58:4. Pp 681-688. Cohen, A. (2009). A Century-old Principle: Keep Corporate Money out of Elections. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/opinion/11tue4.html Denzau, A. and Munger, M. (1986). “Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented”. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 80, No. 1. Pp. 89-106. Popple, P. (2007). The Policy Based Profession: An Introduction to Social Welfare Analysis for Social Workers. Pearson. Reisch, Michael (2005) Radical Community Organizing in in Weil. M and M Reisch(eds) Handbook of Community Practice Thousands Oaks CA. Sage , PP.287-304. Roberts De Genarro, M. and Mizrahi, T. (2005). “Coalitions As Social Change Agents.” Handbook of Community Practice. London: Sage Publications. Sage Strategic Plan. (2008). “SAGE Strategic Plan 2008-2012: Rising to the Challenge on LGBT Aging Summary.” Available at www.sageusa.org. Sustein, C. (1985). “Interest Groups in American Public Law.” Stanford Law Review. Vol. 38, No. 1. Pp 29-87. Walker, J. (1983). “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” The American Political Science Review. Vol. 77, No. 2. Pp. 390-406. Yanow, D. (2000). “”Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis.” London: Sage Publications. Read More