Module 2 - Chapter Nine

Interest Groups: Getting Their Share and More

• In the Online Lecture section, explore the instructor's discussion of the points raised in the first chapter.
• Ask yourself: how do these points compare to those found in the text?
• Make a note of the major concepts as listed in the text and as highlighted below.
• You may want to follow some of the current events hyperlinks to find examples of issues mention at the end of the online lecture.
• Go to the Dye textbook publisher site to look at the chapter overview and to test yourself as required (see below).

 

Dye Textbook: Overview

• Look at the Dye overview to assure yourself that you have absorbed the main points.  Only look at the overview after you have read the chapter!

Dye’s chapter on interest groups makes a clear and fundamental point about interest groups and how they affect the political process: they act as supplements to the electoral system of representation. While this characterization seems benign; critics have often asked to what extent do interest groups subvert the political process, undermining the will of the majority?  These issues will be explored below.

First, let’s be clear about what we mean by interest groups.

Interest Groups Defined

Interest groups are constituted by aggregates of individuals or organizations sharing a common attitude or characteristic. They are usually understood as organized (more later), but might not be.

Interest groups composed of individuals might be based on any shared characteristics of individuals: racial origins, religion, gender, income, profession.

Interest groups composed of organizations are frequently found in the business world such as the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, which represents members businesses in Maryland, rather than specific individuals.

When an interest group is organized, scholars often refer to them as "formal" or "manifest" interest groups. What does it mean to be organized? Typically it means that they:

• Have officers who represent the group in public settings – a "President" or an "executive director;
• Have clearly recognized members who help contribute resources so that the organization may endure. This typically means that they pay dues on a regular basis.
• Have a staff that maintains an office, keeps up communications with members, and provides leadership with vital information.
• Have a lobbying presence. This means that whenever an issue affecting their membership is being discussed by elected officials, the organization mobilizes resources including its leadership, staff and members to try to shape legislation in a manner favorable to itself. Thus, the National Rifle Association mobilizes to prevent gun control laws from being passed; trade unions try to prevent "right to work" laws from being passed; HMO’s try to prevent more "mandated benefits" from being passed. As Dye puts it, interest groups "originated to protect economic interests, to advance social movements, to seek government benefits, and to respond to government activity." In sum, organized interest groups do this in a systematic manner (more below).

Informal or "latent" interest groups are typically composed of organizations or individuals who do not think (or realize) that they have a common political purpose.

Thus, individuals with shared characteristics or attitudes may still not organize themselves in the ways mentioned above. This is especially the case when the group has characteristics that are very widespread.

One example would be "consumers" as a group. We are all consumers, and upon reflection you might discover that, yes, we do have certain common characteristics: poorly made, hazardous, or misrepresented products or services can negatively impact us all. We therefore all have an interest in protecting ourselves from avaricious producers who would exploit us.

The problem with consumers as a group is that they are very hard to organize. They are divided by all sorts of other general, widespread, characteristics of the type such as race, gender, income, profession, etc.

Free Rider Problem

Mancur Olson, a famous economist at the University of Maryland, once pointed out that large groups are notorious in having a free-rider problem.

What is this free rider problem? It means that when a group is very large, the contribution of any single individual is unlikely to be noticed. Each individual feels that someone else will inevitably carry the burden of lobbying, paying dues, etc.

Moreover, since the benefits of lobbying, paying dues, etc. are typically indivisible (and thus cannot only be obtained for those who do the work, to the exclusion of those who sit passively on the sidelines), there is a strong inducement to allow to others to carry the burden. 

Think about that: can the benefits of consumer group actions (e.g., safer products, clearer labeling) only be obtained by those who did the work to bring these happy consequences about? Of course not! We all share in the benefits, but only a few do the work! The same is true for environmental groups (clearer air for all, but lobbying only for the organized subsection of those who benefit).

Think about the ways in which you are a free-rider. Have you ever watched public television (such as MPT in Maryland)? I hope so. Have you ever paid dues to MPT? I bet not!

Just think about government services. If we paid for them on a voluntary basis (voluntary taxes), how many actually would? Very few I am sure. We would all expect someone else to carry the burden (the "rich," the "actual users of services," "workers").  That is why Olson suggested that the free-rider problem could best be overcome by making group membership mandatory (thus we are taxpayers whether we like it or not, or risk going to jail!).

Formal groups are typically smaller. Their free-rider problem is less severe for that reason: should any element within the group opt out, they might not be able to obtain common benefits at all. There is less expectation that somehow, interests will be protected by someone (else).

How Interest Groups Affect Legislation

Formal interest groups have several ways in which they seek to affect legislation. They can:

• Bring information to decision-makers bearing upon the issue at hand. Thus, they can point out the number of jobs lost, children helped, families kept intact, or slums eradicated by the proposed legislation. 
  Politicians may or may not believe them, but clearly it is vital that both (or more!) sides be represented. Remember, politicians need information about the likely consequences of their actions. Interest groups bring them such information, but obviously it is slanted to reflect their own biases. Without a balance of interest groups, there might be a strong bias of, say, the highly organized and wealthier groups over others.

• Try to influence decision-makers indirectly, by helping them get votes or money for their campaigns, or even promising future jobs or benefits in exchange for a favorable vote. This is often perceived as a corrupting of the political process, an attempt to thwart the will of the electorate through insider actions.  An interesting web site which monitors the funding going to legislators from lobbyists is www.publicintegrity.org - check it out and see who the big spenders are...

• By trying to shape public opinion, and thus put pressure on politicians to act in a way that conforms to the interest group’s viewpoint. This might be done through a variety of means, depending upon the kind of interest group and issue. Thus, insurance companies would probably use the mass media to argue against a "single-payer" nationalized healthcare system, while the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) might rely upon public demonstrations and civil disobedience.

Most of the time, politicians will systematically claim that "they cannot be bought" and that interest groups support them because they simply agree with their stands. Thus, they argue that their stands came first, and the money (etc.) came second.

Scholars are divided on this point. Some, perhaps the majority, have argued that politicians’ votes are based on ideology, rather than a narrow "purchasing" of their votes. But naturally, since the ideology and money may often become indistinguishable, it is hard to discern cause and effect.

Criticism of the Role of Interest Groups, Reforms

Critiques of the interest group role have focused on:

• Differential access to the well organized and resource laden interests
• Difficulties of access of poor, resource-deprived groups and causes
• Corrupting of the political process and the will of the electorate

As a result, various efforts have been made to curb the non-information providing influence of interest groups.

• Registration of all lobbyists;
• Disclosure of contributors;
• Reporting requirements, so that even small contributions of e.g., free dinners or tickets are reported
• Passage of ethics laws (as happened recently in Maryland) to prevent conflicts of interests
• Changes in election laws, to provide for smaller maximum contributions, limits on how lobbyists can "bundle" funds, or even public financing to further narrow the influence of affluent interest groups.

In Defense of the Role of Interest Groups

Those who have argued against clamping down too hard on organized interest groups have often said:

• The US is a land of freedom: interest groups should be free to try to influence politicians, since anyone can form an interest group, the playing field is level;
• Interest groups provide a vital function of providing needed information to politicians and should not be constrained;
• Interest groups provide opinions on many topics where the public as a whole is ignorant, thus serving a public purpose;
• Interest groups save the public money. By helping disproportionately to finance elections, they save regular voters from having to do so, and furthermore save taxpayers from having to fund public financing.

What do you think? Do interest groups do more good than bad? Can we live with them? Can we live without them?

Try going to the http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/ site for some additional information or examples of how interest group affect national events.  Local events are covered in several newspapers such as the Annapolis Capital, the Baltimore Sun or the Washington Post.