Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
US PRESSURE GROUPS - Coggle Diagram
US PRESSURE GROUPS
political pluralism in the usa:
- pressure groups reflect the country's pluralism.
- range and importance of these groups stem from first amendment rights and guaranteed freedom of political expression.
- pressure groups do not seek political election but seek to influence policy makers and voters.
- many groups face strong opposition from countervailing groups - e.g. NARAL faces Susan B. Anthony List.
- critics argue the us has an elitist system as certain groups are much more likely to wield influence than others.
TYPES OF PRESSURE GROUP
outsider:
- smaller, less well funded and less well-connected.
- aims are often anti-establishment and seeking radical change.
- many use direct action.
- BLM.
insider:
- well funded.
- strong ties to political establishment - incl links to both main parties.
- often use lower profile methods to achieve aims - incls use of lobbyists.
- many raise considerable sums via political action committees to spend on election campaigns to support or oppose selected candidates.
- some spend money on just one group and others split money more equally between both main candidates.
cause (promotional):
- more altruistic in their aims.
- seeking policy outcomes that will not personally benefit supporters but are, from their perspective, morally right.
- groups campaigning for animal rights (PETA) or the environment (League of Conservation Voters) fall into this.
-
sectional (or interest):
- seek to defend interests of their members.
- American Association of Retired Persons has 37 mill members and seeks to uphold rights of retired/older americans.
- Labour unions incl in this category.
- as do employers organisations like the us chamber of commerce.
some groups are hybrid. the NRA both seeks to defend the second amendment right and represents the interests of gun owners.
-
FACTORS AFFECTING SUCCESS:
- resources: money and size of membership.
- status: insider or outsider.
- strength of groups with opposing objectives.
- political climate: white party controls congress and occupies the white house.
- public mood: e.g. support for gun control increases after school shootings - although so do donations to the pro-gun lobby.
- links with legislators and bureaucrats.
- ability to organise at grassroots level and to organise large-scale events such as marches and protests.
- endorsement and support from politicians and celebrities - e.g. Ariana Grande for BLM.
ELECTION FUNDING
pressure group involvement:
- most donations follow predictable party patterns with labour unions and pro-choice groups overwhelmingly backing democrat candidates - e.g. in 2020 the labour sector more than $27 mill to bidens campaign whilst 84% of donations from the oil and gas sector went to republican candidates.
- a disproportionate amount of PG funding goes to incumbent candidates as many less ideological groups prefer to above all back winners.
- PGs could be said to enforce the incumbent advantage.
- being supported or targeted doesn't always reflect results on election night thought.
- in 2016, only 3 out of 12 of the League of Conservation Voters 'dirty dozen' list were defeated.
- PACs and Super PACs are principle and legal way of donation in election cycles.
PACs:
- a political committee that raises and spends 'hard money'.
- contributions are for the specific purpose of electing or defeating candidates.
- legal limits on how pacs can receive and donate to parties and candidates.
- they ca give up to $5000 to a candidate per election cycle and up to $15,000 annual to a national political party.
- PACs may receive up to $5000 from individuals and each donor must be formally recorded and made public.
- PAC must be formally registered with the Federal Election Commission.
- many PGs have pacs - e.g. NRA has the Political Victory Fund which spent just under $20mill in the 2020 election races.
Super PACs:
- emerged after 2010 Citizens United Case.
- this essentially granted first amendment rights of political expression to corporations, labour groups and pressure groups.
- means they can effectively raise and spend unlimited amounts on election campaigning, provided expenditure is independent and unco-ordinated with candidates official campaigns and political parties.
- they spend 'soft' money.
- their growth has significantly increased the amount of political donations.
- most leading candidates have Super PACs supporting their campaigns - Bidens main one was Priorities USA Action.
-
-
ARE US PGS TOO POWERFUL?
:check: potential for corruption and undue influence as many lobbyists are former congress members or bureaucrats - revolving doors.
:check: legislators are often afraid of upsetting key pressure groups - e.g. republicans and the NRA.
:check: advice from pressure groups is one sided and can harm wider public interest - iron triangle.
:check: undermine and weaken political parties.
:check: not all groups and interests are equally powerful and well organised - e.g. drug companies vs. patient groups.
:check: can lead to accusations of influence being bought by the best-funded groups and legislation being partly written by corporate groups.
:red_cross: lobbyists are regulated to an extent - e.g. 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Govt Act.
:red_cross:represent and reflect the vast array of groups, beliefs and causes in an increasingly diverse USA.
:red_cross: provide legislators and bureaucrats with useful technical information and advice when it comes to drawing up bills and regulations.
:red_cross: political parties in the su are already weak and 'big tents'.
:red_cross: many pressure groups simply pitch up under an appropriate tent so consolidating and shaping the internal coalitions that constitute us parties.
:red_cross: they enable participation outside elections and enhance the fundamental freedoms of speech and association.
:red_cross: can increase levels of scrutiny on both congress and the executive.