THE ENERGY INDUSTRY PUSHES AN ENERGY BILL

The electrical and energy utility industry contributed over $67 million to congressional candidates in the 2000 presidential election. Seventy-five percent of the campaign monies went to Republicans. In 2001, the newly elected Bush administration promised a new energy policy for the nation that included subsidies for industry and some loosening of regulatory restrictions. Vice President Cheney met secretly with a task force made up primarily of representatives of large energy corporations and trade associations to work out the general outlines of a new national energy policy. Although the energy bill did not get far in the 107^th Congress, it was reintroduced in 2002. The bill gained momentum by massive lobbying and large special interest contribution, primarily to Republicans during the 2002 congressional elections. The bill contained billions in tax breaks, direct subsidies for energy companies, repeal of an important energy consumer-protection bill and other encouragement for companies in key states and districts. The failure of Republicans to break a Democratic filibuster at the end of 2003 prevented the energy bill's passage. Republicans promise to reintroduce the energy bill again in 2004. This story illustrates the central role special interests play in fashioning and pushing major bills that will benefit their corporations and trade associations. Chapter 7 examines the affect special interest has on democracy in America.

INTEREST GROUPS IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY: CONTRASTING VIEWS

Interest groups are private organizations that try to influence the behavior of political decision makers and thereby shape public policy. There is a certain amount of ambivalence in the way Americans view the position of interest groups in a democratic society. Such groups have traditionally been seen as special interests that undermine the public good and make the pursuit of the public interest extremely difficult. By contrast, pluralists believe the interest group system contributes to democracy and the public interest because people are free to join or to organize groups that reflect their own particular interests.

INTEREST GROUP FORMATION: STRUCTURAL, POLITICAL LINKAGE, AND GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS

The number of interest groups began to escalate in the late 1960s and has continued to grow steadily. Interest groups seem to flourish in the presence of structural factors such as a diversity of interests, a political culture that supports the pursuit of private interests, rules that make it easy to organize, and government that is sufficiently active for its policies to have consequences for private parties. All of these conditions are present in the United States, a diverse and complex society of many races, religions, and ethnic groups. Our culture is one where the pursuit of self-interest is considered to be the basis of the good and prosperous society, and rules of the political game encourage the formation of interest groups. For example, the First Amendment guarantees citizens basic rights that are essential to the ability of citizens to form organizations.

WHAT INTERESTS ARE REPRESENTED

Interest groups can be examined by organizational form or by the type of interest represented. American interest groups come in a wide variety of forms, ranging from very small organizations to associations made up of combinations of other organizations. Interest groups may also be classified by the type of interest they represent; in this way, political scientist E. E. Schattschneider has distinguished between private interests and public interests. Public interests are interests that are connected in one way or another to the general welfare of the community, while private interests are associated with benefits for some fraction of the community.

WHAT INTEREST GROUPS DO

Interest groups are composed of people with common goals or interests who try to convey the views of some sector of society and to influence government on their behalf. They are private organizations that attempt to influence the shape of public policy in a number of ways. Interest group activity includes both the inside game and the outside game. The inside game involves direct contact (lobbying) of interest group representatives and government officials. The outside game is an indirect form of influence that involves interest group efforts to mobilize public opinion, voters, and important contributors (the grass roots) in order to bring pressure on elected officials.

Lobbying, access, and the old-boy network are common techniques of the inside game. Many of the most successful lobbyists are recruited from the ranks of retired members of Congress and high-level bureaucratic officials. The outside game may involve mobilizing members to send massive mailings to appropriate officials, or new-style lobbyists may try to shape public opinion by "educating" the public on issues that are important to the interest group.

POSSIBLE FLAWS IN THE PLURALIST HEAVEN

This section of your textbook looks at possible inequalities in the interest group system and evaluates their effects. If the interest group system is dominated by the upper classes, then the norm of political equality is violated and democracy is less fully developed than it might be. Representational inequalities involve the question of who interest groups represent (those who are the best educated, have the highest incomes, and have the most prestigious occupations are more likely to join organizations). Interest groups are dominated by corporations, business trade associations, and professional associations. There are also resource inequalities because interest groups representing corporations and the professions represent a substantial resource advantage over others (these are the most economically well-off sectors of American society). Access inequality refers to inequalities of representation and resources that are accentuated by the ability of some groups to form relatively stable alliances with important government institutions and decision makers.

Interest groups have some expectation of a return on their investment when they contribute money to campaigns and candidates through political action committees (PACs). However, some argue that there are so many interest groups that they tend to neutralize each other. This may be true on high visibility issues, which involve the public and a variety of interest groups, but interest groups seem to be most influential in the small details of legislation. This chapter also looks at the political activities of corporations and the debate about how much political influence they wield. Business and the professions dominate monetary contributions to the political parties for their campaign activities. The advantage of such soft money contributions is that there are no limits on allowable amounts, unlike contributions to candidates, which are limited by law.

THE SPECIAL PLACE OF CORPORATIONS

There is a wide range of assessments concerning the actual extent of corporate political power. Economist and political scientist Charles Lindblom argues that corporations wield such disproportionate power in American politics that they undermine democracy. However, corporate political power is not a constant; it grows and declines over a period of time. Some scholars point to issues of great importance on which business in general or one corporation in particular loses. The authors of your text believe that the best way to think about corporations in American politics is to see their power waxing and waning within a generally privileged position.

CURING THE MISCHIEF OF FACTIONS

James Madison was thinking primarily about the tyranny of majority factions when he referred to the mischief of factions in Federalist, No.10. We now know that the politics of faction is usually the province of narrow and privileged interests rather than majorities. This undermines political equality which is vital for a functioning democracy and makes it difficult for the United States to formulate broad and coherent national policies because policies tend to be the work of agreements made between narrow factions. At the same time, the right of the people to form organizations for the purpose of petitioning the government is one of our most fundamental and cherished rights.

Americans have been concerned about the politics of faction for a long time, and a number of attempts have been made to solve some of the problems. Disclosure has been the principal tool of regulation, particularly with the Public Utilities Act of 1935 and the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946. In 1993, Congress passed a Clinton administration proposal requiring that lobbyists report on virtually all of their activities. Reformers have also tried to regulate some of the abuses of the politics of faction. The Ethics in Government Act (1978) prohibits ex-officials from lobbying their former agency for one year and prohibits them from lobbying at all on any issue in which the official was substantially involved. Other efforts to alleviate some of the mischiefs of faction include attempts to control some of the campaign practices of political action committees (PACs). Many worry that these reforms do not get to the heart of the problem, and some political scientists have suggested that we focus our efforts on strengthening institutions of majoritarian democracy such as political parties, the presidency, and Congress.

Your authors note that efforts to reform the interest group system may be frustrated by the inescapable fact that highly unequal resources eventually will find their way into our political life. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln worried about the possibilities of democracy in a society marked by great inequalities of wealth and income.

Copyright © 1995-2008, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Legal and Privacy Terms