Interest Groups in Campaign 2004

NOTE: This resource has been developed by APSA to provide media with information from notable political scientists on issues in American politics, including introductory essays, contact information for dozens of scholars around the country, and citations for recent research. For more information, contact Bahram Rajaee (brajaee@apsanet.org)

Susan Roberts, Davidson College

Experts

Allan Cigler University of Kansas 785-864-9050 Interest groups, political parties John C. Green University of Akron 330-972-5182 Elections, campaign finance, party politics Paul Herrnson University of Maryland- College Park 301-405-4123 Congress, campaign finance, political parties, elections, campaign ethics in congressional elections Burdett Loomis University of Kansas 785-864-9033 Profiles of various interest groups, their changing dynamics and strategies Michael Malbin Campaign Finance Institute/SUNY- Albany 202-969-8890 Legislative politics, elections, evolution of campaign finance Quin Monson Brigham Young University 801-422-8017 David Paul The Ohio State University 740-366-9472 Referendums and initiatives Steven Puro St. Louis University 314-977-3037 Electoral college Maya Rockeymoore  Congressional Black Caucus Foundation  202-263-2800 Kay Lehman Schlozman Boston College 617-552-4174 American politics, gender differences in political participation, elections, inequality and politics

The presidential and congressional elections of 2004 will undoubtedly be influenced by interest groups in terms of voter turnout, candidate endorsements, and campaign contributions. A brief history of interest groups and their activities will highlight this role.

The number of interest groups in American politics has multiplied in the last several decades, as have their strategies for influencing public policies and the policymaking process. Originally structured to represent a particular set of concerns and like-minded individuals, interest groups have broadened their lobbying techniques to include contributing to campaigns, get out the vote activities, and recruiting candidates.

Commonly termed "interest groups," these associations are also referred to as pressure groups, lobbies, special interests, and organized interests. While these terms are often used interchangeably, interest groups vary in form and focus. These include corporate groups, labor unions, public interest groups, ideological groups, and professional associations. Goals of interest groups are often not readily apparent by their names, and their names often belie an association with a particular political party. Interest groups became embedded in the lexicon of political science in the early 1950s and 1960s through the works of David Truman and Robert Dahl, who initially analyzed them in terms of pluralism, the broadening of the range of voices, and increasing the points of access in the policymaking process. However, interest groups are not as benign as originally assessed.

Underlying the evaluation of interest groups in the 2004 U.S. elections is a general understanding of the relationship between money and interests and an appreciation for federal regulation. Political Action Committees (PACs) were defined by the Federal Election Campaign Acts of the early 1970s. These regulations are the product of tortuous legislative battles and are subject to subsequent revisions by legislation and Supreme Court interpretations. Campaign finance laws are currently governed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 and its subsequent fine-tuning. These and following questions provide the foundation for evaluating the role of interest groups in the 2004 elections.

Contemporary analysis of interest groups includes questions of undue influence of certain groups and their new tactic of direct involvement in campaigns, or electioneering. The 2004 election will therefore prominently feature questions as to the relative influence of interest groups based on at least four components: size, wealth, issue relevance, and group representation.

Concerns with size and wealth are one indicator of interest group influence. Are groups with large numbers of members such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) effective because of their size or are interest groups such as the Trial Lawyers Association more influential because of their wealth? Given the focus on "values" in both campaigns, attempts by religious and activist social groups that lay claim to the tenets of American society must be closely observed. For example, it remains to be seen whether the issue of same-sex marriage will distinguish either campaign; it is an issue promised to galvanize particular groups, both liberal and conservative. Debate over Homeland Security provisions and the rationale for the war in Iraq will generate further interest group involvement in 2004. In addition, the symbolic representation of various groups, both demographic as well as ideological, is significant for assessing the 2004 election. For example, the recent choice by the Bush campaign to forgo an address to the NAACP but to address the Urban League reveals the question of which group best represents the African American voice and can deliver the most votes in November.

The overarching concern behind all of these questions remains whether financial contributions to campaigns constitute a reward or an inducement by interest groups. In general, political scientists have concluded that contributions are more of a reward than an inducement, especially given that the vast majority of PAC monies go to incumbents in both the House and the Senate.

Susan Roberts is associate professor of political science at Davidson College. She can be reached at suroberts@davidson.edu and 704-892-2458.

Recent Publications on Interest Groups in Campaign 2004

Lowry, David, and Virginia Gray. 2004. "A Neopluralist Perspective on Research on Organized Interests." Political Research Quarterly (March).

Apollonio, D. E., and Raymond J. La Raja. 2004. "Who Gave Soft Money? The Effect of Interest Group Resources on Political Contributions." Journal of Politics 66: 4 (November).

Hansford, T.G. 2004. "Lobbying Strategies, Venue Selection, and Organized Interest Involvement at the U.S. Supreme Court." American Politics Research 32:2 (March):170-197.

Lowry, Robert C. and Matthew Potoski. 2004. "Organized Interests and the Politics of Federal Discretionary Grants." Journal of Politics 66: 2 (May).

Berg, John C. 2003. Teamsters and Turtles: U.S. Progressive Movements in the 21st Century. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lowery, David, Virginia Gray, Jennifer Anderson and Adam J. Newmark. 2003. "Collective Action and the Mobilization of Institutions." Journal of Politics 66:3 (August).

Ainsworth, Scott. 2002. Analyzing Interest Groups. New York: W. W. Norton.

Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2002. "Self-Interest, Social Security, and the Distinctive Participation Patterns of Senior Citizens." American Political Science Review 96: 3 (September): 565-574.

Cigler, Allan, and Mark R. Joslyn. 2002. "The Extensiveness of Group Membership and Social Capital: The Impact on Political Tolerance Attitudes." Political Research Quarterly (March).

Loomis, Burdett, and Alan Cigler. 2002. Interest Group Politics, 6th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Schlozman, Kay. 2002. "Citizen Participation in America: What Do We Know? Why Do We Care?" Political Science: The State of the Discipline.Ira Katznelson and Helen Milner, eds. New York and Washington, D.C.: W. W. Norton and the American Political Science Association.

Tichenor, Daniel A. and Richard Harris. 2002. "Organized Interests and American Political Development." Political Science Quarterly 117:4 (Winter): 587-612.

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 2001. "Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics." Journal of Politics 63: 4 (November).

Rozell, Mark, and Clyde Wilcox. Interest Groups in American Campaigns. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Loomis, Burdett, and Darrell West. 1998. The Sound of Money: How Political Interests Get What They Want. New York: W. W. Norton.