1
Q
introduction
A
- the intricate system of checks and balances and separation of powers created a system open to external influence - encouraging the formation of pressure groups
- the constitution created a number of access points, at both state and federal level, along with a political system that encouraged political participation and an active public, in order better hold politicians to account
- there’s a common US view that you have ‘to pay to play’ whereby wealthy individuals and groups can manipulate the political system in their favour
- the 2012 election costed more than $6 billion
2
Q
access points
A
- large number of access points open to pressure groups
- federalist nature of the US system enables groups to advance their interests to the executive and legislature at both state and federal levels
- they can also challenge decisions in the courts, try and influence the outcome of pre-election primaries
3
Q
expanding federal government
A
- the expansion in the size of federal government and the degree of regulatory control over businesses, a number of groups have been founded to advance the interests of businesses, consumers, and workers alike, in order to shape the policy framework to their advantage
- the US Chamber of Commerce claims to represent the interests of more than 3 million businesses, while the AFL-CIO combines 57 trade union groups, representing over 12 million workers in the USA
4
Q
increasing partisanship
A
- the increasingly adversarial nature of US politics has contributed to the growth of ideological and issue-based pressure groups
- there has been a growth in the number of partisan think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, which aims to ‘build a stronger’, more vigourous conservative movement’, or the liberal Centre for American Prgoress, which in contrast is committed to ‘progressive ideas and actions’
- the ideological divisions over a range of social issues have led to the creation of antithetical pressure groups
- e.g. NARAL Pro-chioce America champions a woman’s right to abortion, whilst the National Right to Life Committee works against measure which allow abortions
5
Q
scrutiny
A
- there has been an overall growing distrust of politicians which has led to the growth of public interest groups aimed to improve political scrutiny, as well as issue-centre groups looking to inform the electorate about the voting records and policy positions of politicians
- e.g. the Centre for Responsive Politics tracks the influence of money and lobbying activity on elections and public policy making.
- similarly, the League of Conservation Voters publishes a ‘Dirty Dozen’ report every two years of those politicians with the worst environmental track record, 11 of which were defeated in the 2012 election cycle
6
Q
Methods and Strategies: electioneering
Funding
A
- much of the electioneering in the USA is paid for by countless pressure and advocacy groups
- all of whom seek to influence how voters view the candidates, indirectly shaping voters’ opinions of candidates
- there has been a growth of these funding vehicles since the introduction of electoral funding laws - they can maximise their funding power
- 527s have arisen form exploiting loopholes (ambiguity in the law) in the funding regulatory system, allowing them to avoid the restrictions, following successful legal challenges about the constitutionality of such funding regulations
- the proliferation of 527 groups and SuperPACs due to their ability to collect unlimited amount of money/donations
- the Washington Post claimed that SuperPACs contributed 80% of Romney’s advertising spending in the 2012 presidential race - such as $104 million spent by ‘American Crossroads’
- Evidence of this: the liberal Centre for American Progress has been claimed to be the keystone of the Obama administration, and a Time magazine article from 2008 claimed that ‘not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside groups held so much money’
- NRA donated $4,950 to John Barrow in the most recent election (but he lost) and $9,900 to Thad Cochran and $32,000 to Republican National Committee
7
Q
Political Action Committees
A
- the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 (FECA) limited campaign donations to candidates
- following this, the number of PACs increased dramatically, offering a way around this legislation
- although the maximum contribution to a PAC was $5000, donations could be made to an unlimited number of PACs
- the Federal Election Commission recorded that as of 2012 there were nearly 4600 PACs registers in the USA
8
Q
influence of PACs
A
- rise of PACs has led to the growth of electoral expenditure and given greater influence to pressure groups
- examples suggesting they go some way to influence decisions of lawmakers:
- 2 months following the Newtown shooting the Federal Election Commission disclosed that the NRA had raised $2.7 million through its PAC. In addition, the Sunlight Foundation highlighted how 42 of the 45 Senators who subsequently opposed gun control measures in 2013, to extend background checks, received funds from gun lobbyists. The NRA alone had contributed over $800,000 to 40 of those senators over the previous 23 years
- the Mobilisation for Healthcare for All claimed that Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman’s undermining of attempts to secure a government-funded health insurance, in the healthcare bill, claimed his stance was shaped by his acceptance of more than $1 million in campaign contributions from the medical insurance industry during his time in the Senate
analysis: PACs have great influence on legislation and where politicians stand on policy
9
Q
527s
A
- 527 groups began to appear following the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002, which effectively meant that PACs could no longer directly fund adverts which support or oppose a candidate
- they play a role in voter mobilisation efforts, by encouraging people to register to vote and to get out and vote
- it is quite partisan though it may not seem so
- the liberal EMILY’s list spent nearly $10 million in 2012 through its 527
- this targeted a key Democrat-voting group with the funding of its ‘WOMEN VOTE!’ program, which mobilised women voters in 22 races across 17 states
10
Q
SuperPACs
A
- SuperPACs have arisen as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v FEC, in January 2010, and the Speechnow.org v FEC ruling by the US Appeals Court, in July 2010, both of which served to lift many spending and contribution limits
- the proliferation of SuperPACs now raise unlimited amounts of money to influence elections
- although these PACs must publicly disclose their finances , and can’t coordinate with candidates of parties, they are free to advocate directly for or against a candidate
11
Q
impact of SuperPACs
A
- as of 2013, a total of 1,310 groups are organised as Super PACs
- SuperPACs spent over $609 million on the 2012 election cycle
- the conservative Restore our Future spent $147 million on Romney campaign and American Crossroads spent $104 million on Romney: top two Super PACs of 2012
- donations are often from the very wealthy: Billionaire Sheldon Adelson reportedly contributed £53.69 million to conservative Super PACs in 2012
12
Q
Methods and Strategies: electioneering
Endorsements
A
- pressure groups can also look to exert influence through the mobilisation of members and supporters to vote for a candidate
- the NRA Political Victory Fund, which grades and endorses candidates based on their voting records, is seen as particularly influential
- The NRA Political Victory Fund in 2008 succeeded in 203 of the 271 congressional races it was involved in, as well as having an 84% success rate in endorsing state legislative candidates
- the NRA also endorses conservative Democrat John Barrow to uphold his support for 2nd amendment rights
13
Q
Methods and Strategies: lobbying
A
- lobbying is the process through which pressure groups seek to build relations with lawmakers to secure favourable policy outcomes and influence the legislative agenda
- 12,411 registered lobbyists in 2012
- in 2012, the US Chamber of Commerce employed 183 lobbyists, who spent $136 million on lobbying activities
14
Q
impact of lobbyists on the 2010 Healthcare Act shows the influence of lobbyists on Capitol Hill…
A
- lobbyists linked to PhARMA contributed 20% of the campaign funds for Max Baucus (former chair of the Senate Finance Committee). Some argued that this influenced Baucus’ decision to exclude from discussions (about the healthcare reform in 2009) those pressure groups demanding wider healthcare coverage
15
Q
Methods and Strategies: grassroots activism
A
- the growth of the Tea Party movement over criticism of Obama’s economic policies, healthcare plans and ‘big government’ initiatives, shows the power of grassroots movements
- the 1963 march on Washington by various civil rights groups helped put pressure on congress
16
Q
Methods and Strategies: ballot initiatives
A
- pressure groups can use the federalist nature of the USA to achieve their aims
- 24 states currently allow initiatives and propositions, which put proposed laws onto the ballot at election times, meaning pressure groups are provided with a powerful way to influence the political system through direct democracy
- pressure groups can use their membership and resources to: introduce ballot initiatives, coordinate a campaign, fund a campaign, staff a campaign
- prominent examples in recent years of pressure groups success in this area:
1. ‘EqualityMaine’ led the efforts to collect 85,000 signatures in order to get ‘Question 1’ on the ballot in the 2012 election, allowing same-sex marriage in the state. The measure succeeded in overturning a previous initiative which banned same-sex marriage in 2009, with nearly 52% of the vote
2. in 2008 Proposition 8 was passed in California, which banned same-sex marriage. This saw over $82 million spent by various pressure groups
17
Q
Influence on the federal government: Legislature
A
- as chief law making body, Congress is an obvious target for pressure group activity
- securing the passage of legislation is a powerful way for pressure groups to gain influence over the political process
- the political system provides numerous access points and opportunities for pressure groups to influence the course of legislation through Congress
- as the USA has a bicameral legislature it means that pressure groups can use both the House of Representatives and the Senate to influence and shape legislation as it passes through either chamber
- the two chambers of government are often held by different parties, as was the case after the 2010 midterms, giving a pressure groups a greater chance of at least watering down legislation it disapproves of
18
Q
Influence on the federal government: Legislature
House of Representatives
A
- as the House was given the exclusive power to initiate money bills (a bill that solely concerns taxation or government spending), this makes it a significant target for groups wishing to secure a slice of the colossal annual federal budget, or those wishing to influence where the money is spent
- in this way since the Republican Party gained control of the House following the 2010 ‘Tea Party tidal wave’, the House has voted on 37 separate occasions to repeal ‘Obamacare’, with the most recent vote seeing all Republicans and just two Democrats support the measure.
- certainly the ongoing budget negotiations of 2013 show the influence of conservative groups on the House, with many Tea Party Republicans making clear their willingness to block any budget which raises taxes or provides funds for ‘Obamacare’, raising the threat of a government shutdown in the USA
19
Q
Influence on the federal government: Legislature
Senate
A
- pressure groups target the Senate due to its exclusive powers
- Foreign policy: pressure groups seek to influence America’s foreign policy as the Senate has the constitutional power to ratify treaties (requiring a two thirds majority of the senate’s support)
- AIPAC has succeeded in influencing the Senate with the introduction of the Us-Israel Strategic Partnership Bill which aimed to cement relations between the two nations
- Confirming appointments: the Senate is responsible for confirming presidential appointments to many positions in the executive branch and to all posts in the federal judiciary
- recently the process of Supreme Court nominations has become increasingly politicised
- some say it is dominated by pressure group activity
- the controversial rejection of Robert Bork, President Reagan’s nominee for SC judge in 1987, who was subjected to a series of attacks from liberal interest groups such as the National Organisation for Women (NOW) and the National Abortion Rights League
- Filibuster: A senator’s right to unlimited debate, giving individuals or groups of senators the power to delay or prevent a vote on a bill they disagree with
- pressure groups often target senators for their unlimited right to debate, who can exert real power with the mere threat of a filibuster
- in 2013 the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, which aimed to widen gun control in the USA, was successfully blocked by the threat of a filibuster, when a concerted lobbying effort by pro-gun groups meant it failed to reach the threshold needed to bring debate to an end on the Senate floor
20
Q
Influence on the federal government: Executive
President
A
- president holds a considerable amount of power in setting the national legislative agenda
- his position in moulding the legislative direction of the USA, through the annual State of Union address and his powers or persuasion, can be used by pressure groups to achieve their aims
- pressure groups can also persuade the president to use his executive orders to change the direction of policy
- such as the constant reinstatement and reversal of the ‘Mexico City Policy’ which bans federal funding for family planning clinics that give abortion advice
- George W Bush satisfied pro-life groups by reinstating the policy in 2001
21
Q
Influence on the federal government: Executive
Federal bureaucracy
A
- pressure groups seek to target and build relations with the relevant executive departments and regulatory bodies
- civil servants may well have long-term agendas which do not fit with the presidents immediate priorities, allowing pressure groups access to try and shape policy and thwart the president’s will
- when this relationship involved relevant congressional committee, an iron triangle can develop, which holds a firm grip on policy that presidents find hard to break
- pressure groups will look to develop relations with the relevant regulatory body which is supposed to be scrutinising them
- when this develops into too cosy a relationship, there can be regulatory capture as the pressure groups exert influence over the regulatory body charred with regulating it
22
Q
Influence on the federal government: Judiciary
A
- the Supreme Court’s power of review has been greatly criticised
- some commentators describe judges as ‘politicians in robes’ due to the fact that many of their constitutional rulings are in effect judicial lawmaking
- therefore, pressure groups take advantage of this by attempting to influence judicial decisions
- The ACLU was instrumental in the Boumediene v. Bush and Brown v. Board of Education verdict due to filing an amicus brief
- additionally, pressure groups look to shape the overall make-up of the Supreme Court by influencing a president’s choice of nominee or the Senate ratification process
- the withdrawal of George W. Bush’s nominee Harriet Miers in 2005 was seen as the product of a concerted campaign by conservative pressure groups, such as Christian Rights groups, which were worried about her position on a series of social issues
- the controversial rejection of Robert Bork was subjected to a series of attacks from liberal groups such as the National Organisation for Women (NOW) and the National Abortion Rights League
23
Q
Influence on the federal government: Judiciary
Litigation
A
- pressure groups can secure a ruling which is favourable to their interests by funding test cases to the Supreme Court
- an example of this would be: The American Foundation for Equal Rights used the courts to challenge Proposition 8, which had banned a same-sex marriage law previously passed by the California state
- the defining Hollingsworth v Perry ruling the Supreme Court effectively overturned the ballot initiative by not allowing those traditional marriage activist groups, which had placed it on the ballot in 2008, to defend it in court without the support of state officials
24
Q
Influence on the federal government: Judiciary
Amicus curiae
A
- amicus curiae: the right of individuals or groups to present information to the court, in order to help the justices make their decision before a ruling is made
- the term refers to a legal briefing which summarises a pressure group’s standpoint on the legal issue being considered
- pressure groups hope to sway the court’s decision in its favour by presenting legal briefings to a court which is undertaking judicial review
- these briefings have increased by over 800% since the 1940s
- 98 being filed in the 2013 Fisher v Texas ruling, by pressure groups such as the NAACP
- ACLU filed amicus briefings to Boumidienne v. Bush and Brown v. Board of Education
25
Power of Pressure Groups: Overview
- there is debate over how far pressure groups activity damages the US democracy
- pluralists would argue that pressure groups encourage participation, scrutiny and engagement in the political process and are a sign of a healthy democracy
- others point to their elitist nature, which allows few, usually wealthy pressure groups to dominate the system
26
positive view of pressure group activity
- pressure groups provide a healthy 'free market' of opinion
- they give empowerment to all US citizens
- people can use pressure groups as vehicles for influencing political leaders
- the vast number of access points give multiple opportunities for everyone to be heard and make a contribution in shaping society
27
evidence that pressure groups have protected minority groups:
- the NAACP, a black civil rights group, secures legislative equality with the passage of the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts
- they influenced the dismantling of the southern system of segregation, through Brown v Board of Education
- ACLU helped fund Boumediene v. Bush (2005) to get right to trial for detainees at Guantanamo Bay
28
Limitations and Constraints
- some would argue that the system works to limit existing barriers which stop full participation
- the system of regulations and constraints placed on pressure groups prevents them from becoming too powerful, or dominating the system
29
examples of regulations that limit pressure group activity/influence
1. Federal Election Campaign Act 1974: restricted influence of wealth by setting limits for individual donations and establishing a system of federal funding for major party candidates
2. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002: tightened the restrictions from the previous act by regulating soft money and intruding advertising restrictions
3. Lobbying Disclosure Act 1995: widened the requirements for lobbyists to register their activities while also banning the giving of gifts
4. Honest Leadership and Open Government Act 2007: attempted to close the revolving door by introducing a 'cooling off' period after leaving office, while also extending the ban on gifts and requirements for full disclosure of lobbying activities
30
negative view of pressure group activity
- alternative view it that America is dominated by a powerful elite
- the wide range of access points can be exploited by those groups with the resources and wealth to take advantage of them
- therefore certain pressure groups have come to dominate, using their greater numbers or wealth to monopolise the political system
- meaning that smaller groups are unable to exert any real political power as they do not have the wealth, voting power or insider connections to secure the ear of those in power
- there are three main areas of controversy:
1. revolving-door syndrome
2. iron triangles
3. regulatory capture
31
revolving-door syndrome
- a large number of lobbyists have been former politicians or staff members
- 64% of those who fail to get re-elected in 2012 move into the lobbying industry
- this leads to accusations that US politics is dominated by an insider elite
- whose members are able to influence the political system through the 'revolving door' giving them constant access to power e.g. Jim DeMint
- this also created a situation where politicians are unduly influenced, in creating public policy, by the lucrative prospect of a high-paid job for a lobbying firm when they leave politics e.g. Edward Albridge
32
examples of revolving-door syndrome/influences of lobbying firms
1. Senator Jim DeMint left his South Carolina Senate post in 2013 to take up a role as the president of the influential Heritage Foundation
2. John Ashcroft, who served 6 years in the Senate, set up the Ashcroft Group upon leaving office. In 2005, less than a month after collating $220,000 from Oracle Corporation, John Ashcroft used his contacts to secure a multibillion-dollar acquisition contract for Oracle with the Department of Justice
33
Iron Triangle
- political community featuring three very powerful players in the political process
- when pressure groups, congressional committees and the federal bureaucracy all have shared aims, they can develop a very strong relationship
- this gives them an iron grip on public policy, enabling them to effectively dictate and block attempt by Congress or the president for reform
- the most criticised iron triangle has been the military industry complex (MIC), the strong relationship between the Defence Department, the congressional armed forces committees and the leading weapons manufacturers, which some argue has contributed to the USA's huge defence budgets
34
examples of iron triangles:
- the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin has given large donations to the Republican Representative Buck McKeon. This is because Lockheed Martin has a factory in McKeon's district, meaning that McKeon’s constituents have a piece in their success. McKeon is also the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, giving him influence in policy area Lockheed Martin are interested in.
- the relationship between the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the House Committee on Aging, and the Social Security Administration clearly illustrates Iron Triangle profitability.
- AARP donates to attractive political candidates --> candidate supports/opposes legislation passed through Congress --> Congressperson increases Committees' budget/authority --> Committee on Aging passes regulations benefitting the AARP
- many critics conclude that the group illegitimately improves its commercial position by exploiting its large membership and funding to lobby Congress for helpful legislation.
35
Regulatory capture
- regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
- this has been a recent criticism laid at the door of the financial and energy regulatory bodies, in the wake of the recent banking crisis and the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster
36
evidence of regulatory capture
1. the Securities and Exchange commission pointed to its now failures in allowing the banks to be regulated on a voluntary basis, thus advancing the interests of the bank over that of the public. many blamed the heavy lobbying from the five big investment banks for this system
2. those who were supposed to be policing the drilling facilities in the Gulf of Mexico oil reserve weren't following regulations. The facilities hadn't been inspected which led to the 2010 oil spill.
37
NRA
- one of the most influential lobbying groups
- has influenced legislation (e.g. influenced the failed assault weapons ban bill by threatening senators on their scorecards - they got the 41 senators that they needed to oppose the bill and used the separation of powers as a means of influencing legislation)
- it is one of the 140 biggest overall donors to federal government
- in the 2014 election cycle the NRA donated $4,950 to John Barrow in the most recent election (but he lost) and $9,900 to Thad Cochran and $32,000 to Republican National Committee
- 94% of donations go to Republicans
- its 2012 revenue was £256 million making it one of the most wealthy pressure groups
- 5 million members (some analysts see the NRA as an example of size equating to influence)
- the NRA spent over $13 million against Democrats in the 2012 election cycle
- the NRA has turned 5 million members into one of he nation's most formidable voting blocs
- some argue that the NRA have more money to spend than its ideological opponents because more people are donating to the group and more people are joining, therefore in a free democracy, a group representing more people should have more influence than a group representing less
38
Jack Abramoff
- most influential lobbyist
- he was hired by a number of Native American tribes to lobby and promote their gaming interests
- he hugely overcharged his clients, taking around $85 million in fees, promising them that it was necessary and often lobbied against their interests (without their knowledge)
- he used money to bribe politicians
- he was at the center of an extensive corruption investigation that led to his conviction where he was found guilty for wire fraud and tax evasion in relation to the Native American Casino rights over the SunCruz Casinos
- sentences to 70 months in prison
39
Brady Campaign
- opposition group to the NRA
- 2012 revenue was $3.3 million compared to the NRA's $256 million
- in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the Brady Campaign, despite having a large support base behind implement background checks, the NRA lobbied heavily in the senate in 2013 and the bill never got passed.
- in 2013 the NRA spent $3.4 million on lobbying whereas the Brady Campaign spent $250,000 million on lobbying
40
Fix Gun Checks Act (2013) and Assault Weapon's Ban (2013)
- 51% of Americans opposed assault weapons ban following Sandy Hook massacre suggesting that the NRA is supporting candidatures who already share their views
41
AARP
- American Association for Retired Persons
- interest groups that is known for addressing issues affecting older Americans through a multitude of initiatives, including lobbying efforts, and activity permitted by its 501(c)(4) status.
- in 2014, it had 37 million members - one of the largest membership organisations in the US
- its a non profit body which therefore means it enjoys many tax exemptions
- the organisation says they are non partisan - does not support, oppose or give money to any candidate or political parties
- spent $9.6 million in the 2014 election cycle
- group typically associated with the Iron Triangle
- against Medicaid and Medicare reforms as it would have affected their revenue: the profit making wing of AARP makes money from Medicare by licensing its name to insurance companies which provide Medigap coverage
- many critics conclude that the group illegitimately improves its commercial position by exploiting its large membership and funding to lobby Congress for helpful legislation.
42
AIPAC
- advocates pro Israel policies
- pushes US policy in the Middle East in a pro-Israel direction
- mass membership (more than a hundred thousand) and a vast pool of donors)
- has bipartisan congressional support (Republicans, Democrats and Independents)
- many members are wealthy and important individuals e.g. Malcolm Hoenlein (been the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) which enables them to exert influence on the government
- close relationship with both Republicans and Democrats
- has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington DC
- New York Times - " the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel"
- In 2011, when the Palestinians announces that they would petition the UN for statehood, AIPAC helped persuade four hundred and forty-six members of Congress to co-sponsor resolutions opposing the idea.
- For decades, AIPAC has thrived on bipartisanship, exerting its influence on congressional Democrats and Republicans alike. Now with an increased polarised political atmosphere, AIPAC has less success?
- Many feel that AIPAC does not speak for them
43
Wedtech scandal
- a small manufacturing business from New York managed to win lucrative federal defence contracts
- it hired law firms that employed members of the House of Representatives and their relatives
- through both lobbying and bribery the company became a multi-million-dollar military contractor
44
controversial revolving door example (prospect of higher paid jobs)
- Edward C. Albridge (2003)
- undersecretary of defence: approved the purchase of 20 F-22 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin for $3 billion
- seen as controversial
- journalists argued that Albridge had previously been critical of the jets as they were running over budget
- His new job? 2 months later he became board-member of Lockheed Martin
analysis: unfair playing field for pressure groups
- revolving door undermines whether decisions are being made objectively and fairly
45
efforts to reform lobbying and revolving door
- Both the Ethics in Government Act (1978) and Ethics Reform Act (1989): required ex government officials to wait a year before becoming a lobbyist
- increased transparency and slowing revolving door
- success? No. Jack Abramoff scandal
- the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (2007): introduced regulations to regulate lobbying and slow the revolving door. Increased the one year 'cooling off' period to 2 years. Increased disclosure rules: lobbyists have to file reports every 3 months and if they failed there would be a penalty fine to $200,000 and 5 years in prison
- banned gifts and banned free air travel
- analysis: even these tougher laws still have loopholes. Also didn't put members of congress off from becoming lobbyists
- in 1974: 3% of member of congress became lobbyists
- in 2013: 47% members of congress become lobbyists
- many lobbyists have deregistered and now work as strategic advisers (changing the name of lobbying as to not have negative connotations)
46
AFL-CIO
- combines 57 trade unions
- represents over 12 million workers
- this is an example of where size equates to influence
- AFL-CIO runs a SuperPAC of which $5 million was donated form AFL-CIO in 2012
- the AFL-CIO lobbies heavily for workers rights
- but its closer relationship with the Democratic party means when there is a Republican government in control they have considerably less influence
US Politics - Pressure Groups
flashcards
Decks in class (4)
# Cards
