Before discussing the ins and outs and the rights and wrongs of special interest groups, it is important that the definition of an “interest group” be confirmed. David B. Truman, in The Governmental Process states that an “interest group refers to any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes…” (Woll, Truman, 232). If we follow this definition, then technically every group in society, including the government, is an interest group because all members share common feelings about a certain issue. Therefore, it is easy to say that the governmental process is a combination of interactions between political interest groups. All legislation pertains to a certain issue, which for the most part, has support from at least one special interest group. I believe that in the context of the entire United States, all groups can be deemed special interest groups because they are striving to protect their main issue; however, this does not mean that all special interest groups are attempting to affect policy. Political special interest groups are indeed groups that strive to protect their main issue and also strive to affect policy through lobbying and financial gifts to Congressional members. From now on the term “interest groups” will pertain to political interest groups unless otherwise stated.
Today, interest groups and political action committees (PACs) have a large affect on the legislature that is created, as well as, the political candidates that are elected. In Interest Groups and the American Political System, Rozell and Wilcox explain the roles that interest groups have in the elections today. They begin by stating that involvement in American government elections is high because of the distinct characteristics that are included. First, it offers “opportunities for influencing policy;” second, “the major U.S. parties are permeable to outside interest, enabling interest group activists to obtain powerful positions;” and third, “American elections are unique” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 241). Rozell and Wilcox continue on to describe the ways that interest groups have to mold their actions in order to influence policy. Interest groups have to affect all three levels of government (federal, state, local) because policy can be created at all levels. It is especially important for the interest groups to be involved in the state and local levels, because many potential Congress candidates come out of the state and local governments. Interest groups also have to “access both the president and Congress” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 242). Overall, the main goal of interest groups, says Rozell and Wilcox, is “to establish relationships with senators and representative and to get some return on their investment in the form of public policy” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 242). I don’ think that their can be any dispute of whether or not this is true. I know from first hand experience, with AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee), that our main goal is to build relationships with our representatives in order to make sure that they support positive policy for Israel. AIPAC is well-known in both the House and the Senate as being very influential; we have the support of the majority of Congressional representatives. Another objective of interest groups is to elect candidates that support their group: “Through party primaries, caucuses, and conventions, interest groups can help to determine which candidates win nomination and can even work to nominate activists and members from their own groups” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 243). Although this is true, I think that it is unfair for the common people. Even though it is a citizen’s choice to join an interest group, I think it is undemocratic that interest groups can strongly affect candidate nominations. The only way to undo this would be to regulate the role of interest groups and forbid them to basically cheat and nominate candidates in their interest groups. Similar to this, I think that the notion of political action committees is undemocratic.
Although both special interest groups and political action committees are supported in the Constitution by the First Amendment, I feel that the amount of power they hold in influencing policy and elections is unjustifiable. In elections, “interest groups can recruit candidates and encourage them to run, help finance their campaigns, and assist them in selecting campaign themes” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 244). It makes sense that interest groups want to help candidates’ campaign so that they can also achieve their support for policy, but I still think that the amount of power interest groups hold is unjustifiable. Interest groups are supported in the Constitution; however, there are no real regulations on them. Technically, because the government is democratic and encourages civil participation, interest groups are only a way of citizens portraying their necessities to representatives. This does not mean that it’s okay, it merely is fact. Political action committees are a whole different ball game.
Political action committees have “enhanced the influence of private money and interest group power in the political process” and “are a major source of campaign funds” (Woll, 244-245). Today, PACs represent the “factions” Madison attacked in Federalist 10: “a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer government in person can admit of no cure from the mischiefs of faction” (Woll, Madison, 176). Madison believes that factions are evil and if too powerful, will dictate society. Madison concluded that instead of eliminating factions, they must be controlled. Like Madison, Sabato in The Misplaced Obsessions with PACs states that “in more and more recent campaigns, political actions committees have been portrayed as the central corrupting evil in American politics” (Woll, Sabato, 245). The reason that PACs have grown into this reputation is because they “have been fueling the use of new campaign techniques” (Woll, Sabato, 247). Quickly said, PACs provide financial support to candidate campaigns in order to help them become reelected in the hope of gaining support for policy. There is a dispute about whether or not PACs money in elections is positive for campaigns. Some believe that it is helping because the money helps to streamline information to uneducated and undecided (not connected) voters. Many also believe that PACs, for the most part, only support incumbents. This is because the rate of reelection for incumbents is extremely high and PACs wouldn’t want to waste their money on new candidates that would probably not be elected. I think it is important to note, however, that when Congressional members consider voting in support of PACs or in support of their constituents (which could potentially be different), members would most likely vote in favor of their constituents to guarantee reelection.
In Madison’s Dilemna, Berry asks the question: “Are the sheer number of interest groups and their collective power undermining American democracy?” (Woll, Berry, 220). I would definitely argue that yes, interest groups are undermining American democracy. I think that interest groups take the definition of democracy too far. Yes, democracy includes civic participation, but I think that highly influential participation is unfair to other citizens. Congressional representatives are elected by their constituents, not interest groups (at least I hope not). Therefore, it is the duty of the elected representatives to represent the beliefs of their constituents. Unfortunately, because there are so many interest groups today, I do not think there is any way to eliminate their influence in government. Yes, interest groups are a form of freedom of expression, but to what extent do we allow freedom of expression to affect governmental policy? It all lies the interpretations of the Constitution…
Today, interest groups and political action committees (PACs) have a large affect on the legislature that is created, as well as, the political candidates that are elected. In Interest Groups and the American Political System, Rozell and Wilcox explain the roles that interest groups have in the elections today. They begin by stating that involvement in American government elections is high because of the distinct characteristics that are included. First, it offers “opportunities for influencing policy;” second, “the major U.S. parties are permeable to outside interest, enabling interest group activists to obtain powerful positions;” and third, “American elections are unique” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 241). Rozell and Wilcox continue on to describe the ways that interest groups have to mold their actions in order to influence policy. Interest groups have to affect all three levels of government (federal, state, local) because policy can be created at all levels. It is especially important for the interest groups to be involved in the state and local levels, because many potential Congress candidates come out of the state and local governments. Interest groups also have to “access both the president and Congress” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 242). Overall, the main goal of interest groups, says Rozell and Wilcox, is “to establish relationships with senators and representative and to get some return on their investment in the form of public policy” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 242). I don’ think that their can be any dispute of whether or not this is true. I know from first hand experience, with AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee), that our main goal is to build relationships with our representatives in order to make sure that they support positive policy for Israel. AIPAC is well-known in both the House and the Senate as being very influential; we have the support of the majority of Congressional representatives. Another objective of interest groups is to elect candidates that support their group: “Through party primaries, caucuses, and conventions, interest groups can help to determine which candidates win nomination and can even work to nominate activists and members from their own groups” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 243). Although this is true, I think that it is unfair for the common people. Even though it is a citizen’s choice to join an interest group, I think it is undemocratic that interest groups can strongly affect candidate nominations. The only way to undo this would be to regulate the role of interest groups and forbid them to basically cheat and nominate candidates in their interest groups. Similar to this, I think that the notion of political action committees is undemocratic.
Although both special interest groups and political action committees are supported in the Constitution by the First Amendment, I feel that the amount of power they hold in influencing policy and elections is unjustifiable. In elections, “interest groups can recruit candidates and encourage them to run, help finance their campaigns, and assist them in selecting campaign themes” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 244). It makes sense that interest groups want to help candidates’ campaign so that they can also achieve their support for policy, but I still think that the amount of power interest groups hold is unjustifiable. Interest groups are supported in the Constitution; however, there are no real regulations on them. Technically, because the government is democratic and encourages civil participation, interest groups are only a way of citizens portraying their necessities to representatives. This does not mean that it’s okay, it merely is fact. Political action committees are a whole different ball game.
Political action committees have “enhanced the influence of private money and interest group power in the political process” and “are a major source of campaign funds” (Woll, 244-245). Today, PACs represent the “factions” Madison attacked in Federalist 10: “a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer government in person can admit of no cure from the mischiefs of faction” (Woll, Madison, 176). Madison believes that factions are evil and if too powerful, will dictate society. Madison concluded that instead of eliminating factions, they must be controlled. Like Madison, Sabato in The Misplaced Obsessions with PACs states that “in more and more recent campaigns, political actions committees have been portrayed as the central corrupting evil in American politics” (Woll, Sabato, 245). The reason that PACs have grown into this reputation is because they “have been fueling the use of new campaign techniques” (Woll, Sabato, 247). Quickly said, PACs provide financial support to candidate campaigns in order to help them become reelected in the hope of gaining support for policy. There is a dispute about whether or not PACs money in elections is positive for campaigns. Some believe that it is helping because the money helps to streamline information to uneducated and undecided (not connected) voters. Many also believe that PACs, for the most part, only support incumbents. This is because the rate of reelection for incumbents is extremely high and PACs wouldn’t want to waste their money on new candidates that would probably not be elected. I think it is important to note, however, that when Congressional members consider voting in support of PACs or in support of their constituents (which could potentially be different), members would most likely vote in favor of their constituents to guarantee reelection.
In Madison’s Dilemna, Berry asks the question: “Are the sheer number of interest groups and their collective power undermining American democracy?” (Woll, Berry, 220). I would definitely argue that yes, interest groups are undermining American democracy. I think that interest groups take the definition of democracy too far. Yes, democracy includes civic participation, but I think that highly influential participation is unfair to other citizens. Congressional representatives are elected by their constituents, not interest groups (at least I hope not). Therefore, it is the duty of the elected representatives to represent the beliefs of their constituents. Unfortunately, because there are so many interest groups today, I do not think there is any way to eliminate their influence in government. Yes, interest groups are a form of freedom of expression, but to what extent do we allow freedom of expression to affect governmental policy? It all lies the interpretations of the Constitution…
1 comment:
Nice blog Ariella! This is well written and your guiding question "are SIGs okay for democracy or not" is a good one. I'd like to have heard more completely why you answered in the negative.
Dr. Berry
Post a Comment