|
|
|
|
Interest groups exist to make demands on government. The dominant interest groups in the United States are economic or occupational, but a variety of other groups--ideological, public interest, foreign policy, government itself, and ethnic, religious, and racial--have memberships that cut across the big economic groupings; thus, their influence is both reduced and stabilized. Movements of large numbers of people who are frustrated with government policies have always been with us in the United States. Blacks, women, Native Americans, and the economic underdogs have, at various times, organized themselves into movements. Elements in interest-group power include size, resources, cohesiveness, leadership, and techniques, especially the ability to contribute to candidates and political parties, as well as the ability to fund lobbyists. But the actual power of an interest group stems from the manner in which these elements relate to the political and governmental environment in which the interest group operates. For many decades interest groups have engaged in lobbying, but these efforts have become far more significant as groups become more deeply involved in the electoral process, especially through the expanded use of political action committees (PACs). Interest groups also take their messages directly to the public through mass mailings, advertising campaigns, and cooperative lobbying. Lobbying is any activity aimed at influencing public officials, especially legislators, and the policies they enact. The term "lobbying" was not generally used in the United States until the middle of the nineteenth century. The word not only refers to the lobby or hallway outside the House and Senate chambers but also to the hotel lobbies in Washington where petitioners and agents of influence congregated. A Senator or member of Congress coming out of his chamber of hotel might be accosted politely by several lobbyists seeking to influence his vote on some decision. Despite their negative image, lobbyists perform useful functions for government, such as providing information pertinent to decision-making, educating and mobilizing public opinion, and even preparing and testifying about legislation. Concern for PACs centers on their ability to raise money and spend it on elections on behalf of endorsed candidates, typically incumbents. This concern has led to proposals to ban PACs or to more strictly limit their authority. Yet their existence and rights are protected by our First Amendment. By law, PACs are limited in the amount of money they can contribute to any single candidate in an election cycle. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 limits PACs to $5,000 per election and $10,000 per election cycle (primary and general elections). PACs can host fund-raisers attended by other PACs to boost their reputation with the candidate, or they can collect money from several persons and give them to the candidate as a packet in a practice called "bundling." The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 banned most forms of soft money, leaving individuals and PACs free to contribute $10,000 to state or local party committees for voter registration or mobilization. The law also restricted issue advocacy in the periods before primary and general elections. Political Parties: Essential to Democracy Political parties are essential to democracy--simplifying voting choices, organizing the competition, unifying the electorate, bridging the separation of powers and fostering cooperation among branches of government, translating public preferences into policy, and providing loyal opposition. Political parties help structure voting choice by nominating candidates to run for office. Before the advent of direct primaries, in which voters determine the party nominees, the parties had more control of who ran under their label. States determine the nomination rules. While most states employ the direct primary, some use a caucus or mixed caucus system where more committed partisans have a larger role in the decision of who gets nominated. American parties are moderate. Bringing factions and interests together, they are broad enough to win the presidency and other elections. Third parties have been notably less successful. One reason for this is our single-member district, winner-take-all election rules. In systems with proportional representation or multimember districts, there is a greater tendency for more parties and the need to assemble governing coalitions across parties. American parties have experienced critical elections and realignments. Most political scientists agree the last realignment occurred in 1932. In recent years, there has been divided government and an increase in the number of persons who call themselves Independents. This trend is sometimes called dealignment, but most Independents are closet partisans who vote for the party toward which they lean. For the last 50 years it has been routine to have divided government, with one party in control of the presidency and the other in control of one or both houses of Congress. Because of the partisan shift in the South toward Republicans, Republicans won control of the White House, often with Democrats controlling one or both houses of Congress. Successful presidents have found ways to cope with divided government and enact important parts of their agenda. Parties are governed by their national and state committees, and the focal point of party organization is the national and state party chairs. When the party controls the executive branch of government, the executive (governor or president) usually has a determining say in selecting the party chair. With the rise of soft money in recent elections, parties now have more resources to spend on politics.
|