Pressure Groups Flashcards
E+A 3 ways in which pressure groups contribute to political pluralism in the US
pluralism (democratic politics involving numerous groups competing for power on a equal basis)
- promotional pressure groups
Allow politicians to take account of a broad range of causes from across society.
These causes may put different pressure groups against each other. For example, Americans United for Life campaigns against abortion, in opposition to pro-choice Planned Parenthood, but this is seen healthy for democracy, as it provides the executive with a range of different views.
pressure groups provide broader opportunities for political participation than joining a political party
elitist theory argue that the system unfairly favours well-funded pressure groups. However, significant victories have been won by pressure groups such as the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) for the benefit of disadvantaged groups, including immigrants and ethnic minorities, suggesting that cause groups have a net benefit to political pluralism. - interest groups
such as trade unions, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Christian Coalition of America, represent the interests of specific sections of society.
This is important for pluralism because it allows a range of voices to be heard.
Wealthy interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), can influence many members of Congress by donating to their campaigns and electioneering for them. The use of paid lobbyists and the formation of iron triangles also favour wealthy interest groups and corporations. This suggests that interest groups do not always make a positive contribution to political pluralism. - pressure groups can support social movements. For example, the National Organization for Women (NOW) supports the objectives of the #MeToo Movement,
and the National Association NAACP is a partner of Black Lives Matter.
Social movements are a highly democratic form of political participation, as unlike pressure groups, people do not need to formally become members so they engage a broader range of people, exposing the executive to a greater number of different voices, especially those of the young and those without the resources or inclination to pay membership fees. This suggests that social movements make a very positive contribution to political pluralism, as they are much less elitist than many interest groups.
E+A 3 ways in which pressure group funding of elections affects politics in the USA
- pressure groups can spend unlimited amounts on electoral campaigning, which gives wealthy pressure groups huge influence in US politics. They focus their resources on key figures, including presidential candidates and influential individuals within Congress, including high-profile party members, important committee chairs or rising stars within the party leadership hierarchy, as they hope to achieve maximum influence for their
investment.
electoral funding has the effect of making it difficult for outsiders to break into US politics and favours a certain type of candidate who is
pro-business and generally supportive of the ‘establishment’. Outsiders who do manage to break past the fundraising power of establishment figures generally have their own financial resources, e.g. billionaire Trump, suggesting that pressure group funding of elections makes US politics more elitist. - They fund Washington insiders to reinforce the incumbency advantage in elections. Incumbents find it easier to attract campaign donations from pressure groups, which makes it easier for them to win elections. More than 90% of Congressmen are typically returned and nearly as many senators.
The incumbency advantage makes districts and states less electorally competitive,
which in turn can lead to members of Congress feeling less need to appeal to moderate voters in their constituencies. This can contribute to the polarisation of US politics. - Pressure group funding of elections contributes to the formation of ‘iron triangles’. These are close relationships between the three key participants in the policy-making process – interest groups, Congress and the executive. Interest groups can influence members of Congress by making donations to their election campaigns, and they may focus particularly on members of key congressional committees that affect their policy area. Interest groups can also use this influence over Congress to put pressure on the executive, which needs Congress to vote for its legislation.
iron triangles have a very significant impact on US politics, particularly in areas such as defence and big pharma, which see a small number of wealthy interest groups receiving
lucrative government contracts. Proponents of elitist theory argue that this is damaging to US democracy.
E+A 3 methods used by pressure groups to influence the executive branch of government
- electoral campaigning
Endorse candidates and make campaign donations. NRA donated $30 million to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. They may also release voting ‘scorecards’, such as
the League of Conservation Voters’ ‘dirty dozen list’.
pressure groups’ intervention in presidential (and state gubernatorial) elections is an attempt to directly influence the executive, congressional and state legislature elections that give them greater influence over the legislature rather than the executive (which is the focus of this question). However, pressure groups can use this influence over Congress to put pressure on the executive, which needs
Congress to vote for its legislation and will also want to ensure that representatives from its own party are elected.
2.lobbying
meet with members of the executive to share information about their policy area and try to convince the executive to adopt positions that favour them. Wealthy pressure groups often hire professional lobbyists to lobby the executive on their behalf. Many professional lobbying firms are based on the ‘K-Street corridor of influence’ in Washington, DC. Lobbyists have close connections to
Washington insiders. Many have previously worked in the executive branch or Congress before moving through the ‘revolving door’ into lobbying.
Lobbying is big business. In 2019, more than $3.47 billion was spent on federal lobbying.
vast sums spent on professional lobbying suggest pressure groups are confident that it is a valuable means of influencing.
This method of influence favours wealthy pressure groups, some of which are able to form powerful ‘iron triangles’ with the executive and the legislature.
- direct action to influence the executive.
summer of 2020, two very different forms of direct action protests, the Black Lives Matter protests and the anti-lockdown protests, spread across the USA. They form part of a long tradition of direct action in US politics that includes the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
Outsider groups often use direct action when
they are unable to influence the executive using insider group methods to put public pressure on the executive to change policy, but if protests turn violent, they can allow the executive to portray the direct action as a danger to society, as Trump did during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. However, direct action generally also aims to win public support for a cause, and in the long term
this can have a profound influence on the executive, as it is ultimately elected by the people, so is under pressure to reflect their priorities
E+A 3 ways that structural theory could be used to study the similarities and differences between US and UK pressure groups
- More access points in the USA because it is a federal system.
There are 50 state legislatures, 50 governors elected and an elected president as opposed to the UK’s system of general elections and elections to the three devolved nations’ legislatures. UK elections also tend to occur less frequently, and the UK does not use direct democracy in the same way that the USA does.
This is an important structural difference between the two systems. It allows US pressure groups to mount campaigns at different levels of the federal system simultaneously, whereas UK pressure groups tend to focus more narrowly on Westminster, particularly following Brexit. Although, some lobby the devolved national governments on areas in which they have jurisdiction. - election spending
In the US, pressure groups can spend unlimited amounts on election campaigning, whereas the UK has restrictive campaign finance and political advertising rules.
A very significant structural difference as it means that US pressure groups tend to have more influence on members of the legislature than UK pressure groups do. It contributes to the formation of ‘iron triangles’ in the USA. Pressure groups and corporations can play an important role in UK party funding (particularly trade unions for the Labour Party and big business for the Conservative Party), but this is on an entirely different scale to that of the US because of campaign finance rules.
3 sovereignty
USA, the Constitution is sovereign, so
the Supreme Court has much more power than the UK’s Supreme Court. Parliament is sovereign in the UK, so pressure groups tend to focus on influencing government and Parliament, whereas in the USA pressure
groups use legal challenges more frequently. Legal challenges have been used more frequently by UK pressure groups, particularly in relation to the HRA and Gina Miller’s challenges to the government over Brexit. Nevertheless, the structural difference in
sovereignty between the two countries means that these challenge
E+A 3 ways that rational theory could be used to study the methods used by pressure groups in the US and UK
- lobbying is used in both countries but for rational reasons is likely to have more impact with US legislators.
Members of Congress may hope for the
support of pressure groups during elections. Tight UK electoral finance laws and a stronger party whip system mean that MPs are less likely to be influenced by lobbying.
Resulted in a larger professional lobbying industry in the USA. However, the
revolving door exists in both countries, a similarity which helps to explain why the UK lobbying industry has grown in recent years, as did the rational desire of pressure groups and corporations to influence the government during the Brexit process.
2.US rationally use the courts more
than pressure groups in the UK because they may achieve a landmark change to the law. The ACLU is particularly focused on legal challenges at both state and national level. In the UK Legal challenges are expensive, as
is the preparation of amicus curiae briefs, but ultimately worthwhile if they produce a landmark ruling, e.g. Obergefell v Hodges
The HRA has provided a rational reason for UK pressure groups to mount more legal challenges. The UK’s exit from the EU also motivated pressure groups to focus legal challenges on the Supreme Court rather than the European Court of Justice. The fact that Parliament can ultimately change the law means that pressure groups rationally continue to focus primarily on influencing MPs and the government. The Miller cases were an example of a highly rational legal challenge. Gina Miller brought the case in order to defend the rights of Parliament against the
government, knowing that a Parliament heavily divided over Brexit would welcome the judgement.
- direct action used as a rational means of putting pressure on the government and winning public support. Movements such as
Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion have used direct action in both countries as part of a long tradition of direct action, including the US civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and the UK’s Bristol Bus Boycott.
Direct action is generally used by outsider groups who are unable to influence the government via conventional means. However, it can also be a rational strategy employed by insider groups who are unable to convince the government, like in 2016
when the BMA called a junior doctors’ strike over government changes to UK junior doctors’ contracts and again in April 2022.
Most pressure groups in the USA and the UK avoid violent direct action for the rational reason that it can alienate the government and may result in public opinion turning against their cause.
E+A 3 ways that cultural theory could be used to study the influence of pressure groups in the US and UK
- Both countries have a culture of pluralism which results in pressure groups being afforded a good deal of influence.
The First Amendment protects the right to
political free speech in the USA and the right of the people ‘peaceably to assemble’.
The culture of lobbying government stems from the right of the people to ‘petition the government for a redress of grievances’. UK
In the USA and the UK, pressure groups of different types and sizes are given insider status and are consulted by the government as part of the decision-making process.
There is an acceptance in both political cultures that pressure group influence
can be positive if it allows a broader range of voices to be heard by the government, or it gives the government the specialist knowledge or expertise to inform decisions. - Both political cultures have been criticised for elitism, because wealthy pressure groups have disproportionate influence. Wealthy and well-connected pressure groups are more likely to achieve insider status, more able to hire professional lobbyists, and more able to
make expensive legal challenges and political donations. In the USA, this is exacerbated by pressure groups’ right to spend an unlimited amount on election campaigns.
Culture of elitism applies not only to the financial resources of pressure groups but also to their personnel. The ‘revolving door’ provides pressure groups with an opportunity to hire professional lobbyists who are part of the political elite, allowing them to take advantage of the connections gained from their previous work in government. Pressure groups who have connections within the political elite are likely to have much more influence. - Both cultures have a tradition of protest and direct action.
US civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and the UK’s Bristol Bus Boycott
movements. More recently, seen in the Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion mass protests.
Direct action has allowed outsider groups and social movements to influence government and public opinion by generating media attention and creating a sense of urgency. It
is notable that this culture of direct action applies to the left and the right of both societies, as shown by the anti-lockdown and Black Lives Matter protests that both took place during the summer of 2020. The spread of the Black Lives Matter protests from the USA to the UK also demonstrates that the culture of protest is an international one, allowing pressure groups and social movements to influence events beyond
their own country’s borders.
