U.S. Politics: Special Interest Groups and Lobbyists

The fact that politically motivated organizations and the lobbyists who serve them continue to operate with enormous degrees of access to government is a testament to the notion that they serve an important purpose in the democratic political process. This paper will explore the dynamics of special interest groups and their efforts to advance their agendas within the government under which they exist.

Keywords ERA; GLBT; Home Party; Identity Politics; Lobbying

Sociology of Politics & Government > U.S. Politics: Special Interest Groups & Lobbyists

Overview

In 1215, a group of English barons grew tired of the abuse of power demonstrated by King John and the British monarchy. The feeling of disenfranchisement and a lack of access to the king's public policy had pushed a relative few English nobles to take action against the king. At Runnymede, in June 1215, King John was forced to sign a document which would curtail the extents of his power as it related to the barony and the rest of the population as well. The document is viewed by history as little more than a stalling tactic by the king and political posturing by the barons. In fact, once signed, the Magna Carta would stay in effect for no more than three months (Ibeji, 2002).

Despite the short period during which the Magna Carta was in effect, its significance was dramatic. For the first time in the history of the Western world, the monarchy was challenged not by a usurper but by private citizens who demanded that their government be responsive to their needs and, most importantly, limited in its power. In essence, the nobles were reining in those who reigned over them. By doing so, they also left open the door for future private citizens to solicit their leaders for assistance. Laws applied to British subjects were to become fluid—individuals could appeal for changes to them if they were unjust or otherwise overly offensive (Fordham University, 1995). In other words, the Magna Carta introduced the concept of lobbying the government.

Lobbying and the so-called special interest groups who engage in such endeavors have often received a cold reception by casual observers, who take to task the monies donated and access to leaders facilitated through lobbying activities. In 1869, a newspaper correspondent published a report about a monster; a "dazzling reptile" that was "trailing its slimy length from gallery to committee room" stretching across the floor of Congress. It was the "huge, scaly serpent of the lobby," the embodiment of corruptive elements that after the Civil War were, in his estimation, inappropriately infiltrating Congress (US Senate, 1989). Negative opinions about special interests and the lobby abound, not just in the US but in democratic systems around the globe as well.

The fact that politically motivated organizations and the lobbyists who serve them continue to operate with enormous degrees of access to government is a testament to the notion that they serve an important purpose in the democratic political process. This paper explores the dynamics of special interest groups and their efforts to advance their agendas within the government under which they exist.

A Natural Element of Democracy

President Harry Truman, when outlining the tenets of what would be known as the Truman Doctrine said, "No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected" (The Avalon Project, 1997).

Indeed, democracy, as a result of its nature as a government for, of, and by the people, is a fluid institution. The leaders, whether presidents or legislators, may have the legitimate authority to write and enforce the laws, but private citizens have always been able to seek corrections to existing laws they find unfavorable or to offer ideas for new laws that would be to their benefit. Public involvement and lobbying have always seemed to be concurrent with the development and maintenance of a democratic government. In the mid-18th century, even before the Revolution, the Williamsburg, Virginia colony had cobbled together an early democratic system that, while managed by politicians or the elite, got its energy outside of government buildings. Activism was to be found in the taverns, where carpenters, bakers, smiths, and even slaves would meet to discuss how the local government could make life better in this small city ("The historical background," 2008).

As was the case at Runnymede, the framers of the US Constitution believed that democracy needed flexibility. Therefore, it was essential for the public to have access to its modification, if so needed. The 1st Amendment to that document states this point clearly: "Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (qtd. in Emory Law School, 2006). The fact that this provision is contained within the same section that protects the rights to free speech, assembly, and freedom of religion speaks volumes to the significance of protecting and, where necessary, adjusting the law to advance the interests of all residents of the US.

The Battle for Equality

Given the Constitution's paramount status as the true definition of the law in the United States, it comes as no surprise that the Constitution has long been a battleground for those who represent social groups in seeking protections under the US legal code. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) provides an interesting example of this point. The pursuit of the ERA has been ongoing since its introduction in 1923. In their quest for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution, advocates have engaged in hunger strikes, sit-ins, marches, political boycotts, and other tactics to be heard on a national stage (Francis, 2008).

In 1972, their efforts paid off, as the Equal Rights Amendment was given national air. It passed overwhelmingly in both the US House and Senate, by votes of 354–23 and 84–8, respectively. Both major parties included it in their platforms, and the measure also received presidential support. The states jumped on the idea in 1972—22 states voted to ratify during that one year. However, momentum would slow considerably in the years that followed. By 1979, only 13 more states had voted in favor of the ERA. It never got closer to the 38 states needed to ratify.

What happened? The answer for many was a simple matter of organization. In the years leading up to the ERA effort in 1972, the women's movement was recognized as the platform of a disjointed group of women's groups, many of which did not communicate well with one another. However, by 1972, those groups had become interconnected. Thereafter, another lobbying effort began to coalesce in a similar manner, but this group was staunchly opposed to the ERA. With catchy names like Pro-America, the American Party, and Happiness of Womanhood (HOW), their organizational capabilities matched those of the pro-ERA groups. In 1980, the anti-ERA effort was successful, having kept the ratification process stagnant and, amazingly, even reversed it, as five states voted to rescind their original vote (Boles, 1980). Efforts to pass the ERA nevertheless continued, and in 2013, the bill was reintroduced in Congress.

Further Insights

The Importance of Organization

The ERA provides an important point to be made about the effectiveness of special interest groups in creating social change in a democracy. While special interest groups and the lobbying efforts they employ are a natural product of open democracies, their attempts to change the political landscape or the legal system are not guaranteed successes. Special interest groups abound, and they are in seemingly constant competition with one another. However, organization is a key element in whether an interest group is successful in lobbying its cause.

In the feminist movement that has given rise to the ERA, for example, there are a great many subgroups, including the National Organization for Women (NOW), and civil rights organizations whose causes run concurrently with other social causes. A 1970s study of these two components of the feminist movement reveals the extent to which organization is essential to special interest groups in terms of their lobbying abilities. NOW has created for itself an organizational structure complete with a leadership hierarchy, documented goals, and a strategic plan for reaching those goals. On the other hand, smaller and less organized groups, while effective in attracting attention to their driving ideology, have experienced little success in achieving social change due to an inability to effectively operate toward that goal (Freeman, 1975).

Identity Politics

Much of lobbying and the advancement of special interest groups centers on isolating the social groups involved for better visibility. Identity politics, as it is known, is a mode of activating social groups and organizations for the purpose of correcting perceived injustices and inequities that group has experienced. In other words, identity politics assumes that because of an individual's gender, race, ethnicity, political ideology, economic class, or sexual orientation, that individual is likely to be stereotyped or made the victim of alienation or violence (Heyes, 2007).

For example, as stated earlier, the feminist movement is composed of a variety of subgroups. Many of these groups, however, have a different perspective on how the overall movement might proceed. It is this divergence that can sometimes slow down the process of advancement. While such conflicts can create such problems, the collective identification of a social group (and its subgroups) can cast a much larger spotlight on the cause and, in turn, generate more sympathy toward the interest groups who represent it in a lobbying capacity.

The Gay Rights Movement

Perhaps one of the most visible social groups to benefit from the use of identity politics is the gay and lesbian community. The group's various factions have effectively jelled to gain visibility as a major organization. The 2004 legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, for example, was a watershed moment in the relatively short history of gay rights, sending shockwaves across the country and prompting a number of other states to follow suit over the next decade. Conservative elements within a large number of state governments, however, reacted to the news by introducing legislation seeking to amend their own constitutions to prevent gay marriages.

The backlash against gay marriage gave even greater legitimacy to the gay rights movement by giving it a mainstream look, particularly in more liberal environments. In the 2004 election, 24 states had ballot questions or legislative measures concerning gay rights and gay marriage. GLBT lobbyists worked overtime to help advance the rights of this disenfranchised group. The Human Rights Campaign gave more than $1 million to political candidates during the 2004 campaign, while the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund spent nearly $250,000 to put openly gay candidates into local, state and federal seats (Ghent, 2002).

Some gay rights groups are connecting to other civil rights movements in order to highlight the number of incidents of discrimination, hate crimes, and other legal violations that continue to occur. In Lexington, Kentucky, for example, the perceived anti-gay comments made in 2001 by conservative radio and television commentator Dr. Laura Schlesinger touched a nerve even with previously disinterested viewers. The result was a comprehensive and high-tech counter-campaign, in which websites and mass e-mail marketing were well-received by Americans. In particular, high-profile incidents of hate crimes against gay men and women generated sympathy among those who had previously shown no opinion about gay rights; one website that featured coverage of such hate crimes recorded 8,000 hits in only a few hours after one story aired (DiGiacomo, 2001).

There is, of course, a downside to the forward advancement of the gay rights movement. The fact remains that in the modern world, not every political leader will support GLBT rights. This point is important, as it illustrates the need for special interest groups to have a "home party" from which to launch their lobbying efforts. The home party is a political party that has members sympathetic to their cause. Those who oppose higher taxes, for example, find more supporters in the Republican party than they might in the Democratic party. In this case, gay rights advocates have found more sympathy among socially liberal Democrats than the GOP.

Viewpoints

The Benefits of Lobbying

Not everyone has a completely negative view of special interest groups and their lobbyists. For many legislators, lobbyists are critical figures in terms of their experience and understanding of the special interest groups they represent. President John F. Kennedy once summarized his opinion of lobbyists, one that no doubt is prevalent throughout Capitol Hill and in state capitols across the country (although it is doubtful some would admit it). "The lobbyists who speak for the various economic, commercial, and other functional interests of this country," he said, "serve a very useful purpose and have assumed an important role in the legislative process" ("John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 1989).

Despite the rhetorical unpopularity of lobbyists, legislators by and large do respect the perspectives of those who represent the special interests. There have been many legislative attempts to place limits on the often tight relationship between lobbyists and government officials. In 2006, for example, there was a flurry of bills designed to curtail gifts, increase reports on lobbyist contributions, and even create, within Congress, a new Office of Public Integrity (OPI). Few of these bills, including the OPI bill, survived the session (Kady, 2006).

From the days of Runnymede, democracy and lobbying have experienced a powerful, extensive relationship. Those who have installed democratic governments for themselves have done so with the fact in mind that such systems are fluid, dynamic, and under consistent revision. For special interest groups, this fact is of enormous benefit, as long-overdue changes in the way the law represents them can occur in a democratic system if those in power can be successfully approached in a lobbying capacity.

In a democratic system, there are a myriad of special interest groups, each with their own agendas and goals. Some might seek changes to the law or regulations. Some go farther, seeking protections under the highest power in a democratic system—the national constitution. As this paper has demonstrated, there are a number of situations that can arise which can either inhibit a special interest group's endeavors or aid them.

Perhaps the most important element to those who seek such change on their behalf must take into consideration is organization. For nearly half a century, women had made statement after statement in pursuit of equal protections under the Constitution. However, it was not until the early 1970s that the movement advanced in earnest, and it is no coincidence that such movement occurred at the same time that the special interest group leading the charge had forged a powerful organizational network that spanned the country. The movement slowed considerably a few years later, when comparably organized special interest groups, running counter to the ERA movement, were able to turn the tide.

Legislators and political cynics have spoken out against the "evils" of special interest groups and their lobbying efforts. To no small degree, the merits of their harangues have taken to task the often intimate relationship between government and special interest groups. Nevertheless, there remains a place in democratic governments for such organizations. After all, such groups have always proven vital for empowering people in a diverse society—it is on this freedom of organization that the Bill of Rights is based.

Terms & Concepts

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA): A proposed US Constitutional amendment preventing sex-based discrimination.

GLBT: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender

Home Party: Special interest group tactic whereby sympathy is obtained through major national political parties.

Identity Politics: Mode of activating social groups and organizations for the purpose of correcting injustices and inequities that group has experienced.

Lobbying: Practice of soliciting support of a political agenda to local, state, and national government.

Bibliography

Allen, V. (2007). Caught in the middle. Conference Papers - New England Political Science Association, 1.

The Avalon Project. (1997). Truman Doctrine. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from Yale Law School. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th%5fcentury/trudoc.asp

Boles, J.K. (1980). Feminists as agents of social change. Peace and Change, 6, 7–15. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4839666&site=ehost-live

Carty, V. (2011). Multi-issue, internet-mediated interest organizations and their implications for US politics: A case of MoveOn.org. Social Movement Studies, 10, 265–282. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86403329

DiGiacomo, R. (2001). The movement goes high tech. Front Page, 22, 1.

Emory School of Law. (2006). The Bill of Rights. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/ready-reference/us-federal l-law-and-documents/historical-documents-constitution-of-the-united-sta tes/amendments-to-the-constitution.html

Fordham University. (1995). The text of the Magna Carta. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html

Francis, R. (2008). The history behind the Equal Rights Amendment. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm

Freeman, J. (1975). Political organization in the feminist movement. Acta Sociologica, 18(2–3), 222–244. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.jofreeman.com/socialmovements/polorg.htm

Ghent, B. (2002). Ballot battlegrounds. Advocate, , 25–27. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7696680&site=ehost-live

Heyes, C. (2007). Identity politics. Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

The historic background of Williamsburg, Virginia. (2008). Retrieved June 4, 2008, from Williamsburg.com. http://www.williamsburg.com/history.cfm?subcategoryID=136&newUserLoc cation=1

Ibeji, M. (2002, January 1). King John and the Magna Carta. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from BBC British History: Middle Ages. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle%5fages/magna%5f01.shtml

John Fitzgerald Kennedy. (1989). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from Bartleby.com. http://www.bartleby.com/73/1128.html

Kady, II, M. (2006). Chambers in no rush on lobbying bills. CQ Weekly, 64, 605–606.

Lucas, J. C., & Hyde, M. S. (2012). Men and women lobbyists in the American states. Social Science Quarterly, 93, 394–414. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85974113

US Senate. (1989). Lobbyists. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Byrd%5fHistory%5fLobbying. .htm

Wingerter, R. (2011). What drives the development of US missile defense and space-based weapons? The role of US domestic interest groups. Asian Perspective, 35, 559–594. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78382019

Suggested Reading

Barney, D.K. & Flesher, T.K. (2008). A study of the impact of special interest groups on major tax reform: Agriculture and the 1913 income tax law. Accounting Historians Journal, 35, 71–100. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35287753&site=ehost-live

Berger, M.E. (2008). Federal program funnels charity donations to special interest groups. Christian Century, 126, 16–17. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36048963&site=ehost-live

Hoefer, R. & Ferguson, K. (2007). Controlling the levers of power. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 34, 83–108. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24095870&site=ehost-live

Huey, L., & Hryniewicz, D. (2012). 'We never refer to ourselves as a lobby group because 'lobby group' has a different connotation': Voluntary police associations and the framing of their interest group work. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 54, 287–308. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77496392

Orsini, A. (2011). Thinking transnationally, acting individually: Business lobby coalitions in international environmental negotiations. Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, 25, 311–329. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=74637819

VA-DoD federal wound care special interest group formed. (2009). Military Medicine, 5. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36160401&site=ehost-live