Special Interest Groups

Special Interest Groups (SIGs) have been of major concern since they were legitimized. Many question the constitutionality of SIGs, and Political Action Committees (PACs). I believe that is it a constitutional right to have SIGs, and that, although PACs can be the source of some conflict that they do not possess enough power to influence democracy in a detrimental way. My views are best supported in James Madison’s Federalist 10, Jeffrey Berry’s Madison’s Dilemma, and Larry Sabato’s The Misplaced Obsession with PACs.
In the Federalist 10, James Madison addresses his concerns with factions. He acknowledges that factions are natural in society. This is because it is human nature to have personal opinions and ideas, and for people who share similar opinions to group together. These groups he is referring to are more commonly called special interest groups today. Madison’s concern with these groups was whether individuals could ignore their own self-interests for the good of democracy; he also was concerned with whether it is constitution to regulate these interest groups involvement with government. Jeffery Berry expands on this conflict in Madison’s Dilemma. Berry feels that preventing people from perusing their interests, would be detrimental to maintaining political freedom, but the rise in the number of lobbyists and the influence of interests groups have begun to take a toll on the integrity of congressional elections, and policies. Berry ultimately concludes, “Interest groups are no less a threat then they are an expression of freedom”(Woll, Berry, 221). He goes on to conclude that, “Real world events and the philosophical musings of scholar that contributed to the movement toward increased participation by interest groups could not be selective in their influence”(Woll, Berry, 224). However, congress has attempted to create regulations concerning interest groups, and their amount of influence over candidates.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was a case brought to the Supreme Court in an attempted to regulate interest groups. The act would limit the finances interests groups and individuals could commit to candidates in campaigns. The act also put spending limits on the candidates as well. This law put the Federal Election Commission into action, which was a regulatory body that oversaw registration from candidates, that reported their contributions and spending. However, this act was amended in 1974 with Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court ruled that political spending was protected by the first amendment. Another attempt to set limitations for campaign expenditures. In 2002 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission was settled in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set indistinct federal limitations on campaign finance activities. This law disallowed corporations to finance critical advertisements about incumbents. National parties are also forbidden fund “issue adds” that the incumbent takes offense to.
Many saw this ruling as a direct threat to the First Amendment, while others say that special interest groups are unconstitutional. In Madison’s Dilemma, Berry says, “ If the government does not allow people to pursue their self-interest, it takes from their political freedom”(Woll, Berry, 220), which I agree with completely. There is no dought that the founding fathers had the intention to secure that the citizens of this nation would be able to voice their views and wants. I understand the downside of people being able to influence politics. I do agree that people are inherently selfish, and most are not capable of separating their personal concerns, from the concerns of the nation. However, is it not the responsibility of the representatives to decipher selfish endeavors and ones that will benefit the country? It is for these reasons that I do not agree with putting regulations on Interest Groups solely on the fact that the First Amendment protects them. My feelings on PACs are supportive as well, but for different reasons.
After PACs were legitimized in the 1970’s, the number and influence of them increased exponentially. As the cost for campaigns rise, the importance for candidates to get outside revenue to fund their campaign becomes more important as well. Although, the numbers of PACs have grown, the public opinion of them has soured. Sabato says, “In more and more recent campaigns, political action committees have been portrayed as the central corrupting evil in American politics”(Woll, Sabato, 245). The public’s distaste for these committees has caused candidates to make an effort to not associate with them. However, Sabato defends the marred reputation PACs, “PAC bashing in undeniably a popular campaign sport, but the “big PAC attack” is an opiate that obscures the more vital concerns and problems in campaign finance,”(Woll, Sabato, 245). She continues to prove how the power PACs have gained over time, is counteracted in some way. This keeps them from being as detrimental to democracy as general opinions leads one to believe. Although, PAC’s contributions to campaigns have grown since 1970’s, many people fail to realize that the money they provide is still only two-fifths of the funding that candidates use, making is a secondary revenue source. Sabato also recognizes that PACs do contribute to the rising cost of campaigning, but the costs for effective communication has risen as well, making the contributions necessary. Many people also feel that the incumbent is always the benefactor of the PAC’s contributions, and although they do dishearten some potential candidates, by making donations early in the election, PACs have been known to endow new candidates with funds later in the race as well. Sabato views this as a benefit to the receiver of the new candidate, because it may be the campaigning done closer to election day, that makes the turnaround. Corruption is another reasons why the general public fears PACs, mainly with buying votes. Sabato states two reasons why PACs do not make enough of a difference for them to be vilified. The first being that they only matter in policy making to a decisive degree and because most incumbents will choose party, or constituent loyalty over a PAC. The issues that PACs have the opportunity to have the most influence in are the lest important ones. They generally only devote their concern to very specialized issues. There is also concern with them supporting selfish policies, however, in the recent year labor interest groups and business interest groups seem to be in an agreement on most issues, which would lead most people to assume that the policy is generally good. Party loyalty is also a controlling factor in PACs influence. An incumbent is very unlikely to support a bill that would cause their constituents to not vote for them, or to vote for a bill that is unpopular with their party. For all of these reasons Sobato illustrates that PACs are not nearly as influential and corruptive as the general opinion leads many to believe.
It is for these reasons that constitutionality of SIGs, and PACs should not be questioned. Although these factions do cause some conflict in democracy, they are a necessary part of democracy, and a constitutional right.