Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Are Pressure Groups good or bad
for democracy?
- Good
- Participation
- Channel of opinion between elections
- Allows
involvement
on more
local issues
- Single issues which cannot be
covered by 'catch all' parties
- Low turnout of 33.8%
Midterms shows
disengagement with
political process
- Bring cases to the courts
- Amicus Curaie Briefings
- Plaintiff v Clapper
- Amnersty v Clapper (2013)
- Education
- Awareness of
key issues
- Improve knowledge of
the electorate
- Provide specialist knowledge for
the government
- "Education from
pressure groups
makes people
better aware of
policy problems
and proposed
solutions"
- Pressure group
Branches of
government educates
on the federalist
system
- Agenda building
- Set the agenda in
the
legislative/executive
- Propose
ideas/influence
policy
- Influence of Cue cards
- Democrats
often adhere to
voting cards
from ACLU
- Program Monitoring
- Scrutinice
the work of
the
government
- Hold government
to account
- Protection of
rights/group
interests
- Bring cases to the
courts - District of
Columbia v Heller
- NOW - Weeks v Southern Bell
- Representation
- Minorities -
NAACP/NOW
- Represent the
diverse views -
heterogonous
nature of US
electorate
- Keep politicians in
touch with the needs
of the people
- Bad
- Domination of special interest groups
- Power lies with the few
'elitist' groups - "The US is
governed by a small elite"
- Mills theory
- The largest cooperations
hold the most power
- Most influential
sector is "Finance,
insurance and real
estate" with an
expenditure of over
46 million in the
last 12 year
- Multiple
access points
allow
pressure
groups access
to all levels of
government
- Honest Leadership and Open government Act, 2007
has led to some regulation although limited in the long
term
- Since the two year 'cooling off'
period lobbying is now stronger than
ever
- The energy industry
spent more than $721
million on lobbying in
the recent midterms
- Iron traingles
- Relates to the "iron" - cosy
relationship that exists between
agencies, congressional committees
and pressure groups
- AIPAC, the defence
department and the
foreign relations
committee
- Military complex
- No concept of
national interest but
rather the focus on
larger defence
expenditures
- Agricultural groups
dominate despite
makes up 2% of
Americans
- Interests with such
insider relations
have constant
access to the
decision making
process
unreachable by
most pressure
groups
- Undemocratic methods
- Direct action
- Civil disobedience
- John Crow sit ins
- Occupy Wall street movement
- Million man march
- Attempt to shut down abortion clinics
- Lobbying
- K Street Corridor
- Duberstein Group
- Raegan's ex Chief of Staff
- Allows pressure groups to gain access to key
Congressmen/Committees which could
potentially provide insider influence into the
decision making process
- Ex-Senator Chriss Dodd is now in Motion Picture Association of America
- Ex Senator Abraham
- Revolving Door syndrome
- The idea that ex-Pentagon
members leave the political
arena and venture into the
lobbying industry with
significant connections
- Aldridge confirmed the propsal of 20 new
Lockheed Martin planes before leaving for
the Lockheed Martin board under Bush
- Clientelism
- Power is vested in Washington Elite
- Corruption
- Jonothan
Rauch
describes
the lobbying
industry as
'parasitical'
- Wealthy pressure groups spend
excessive amounts on professional
lobbyists
- NRA spent $4.4 million lobbying Congress in 2012
- Fuel industry spent $500 million on lobbying in the 2014 midterms
- Money
- Money yields victory as opposed to the cause
- Raises the image o the pressure group
- Campaign
- AARO
mounted a TV
campaign
against Bush's
proposals on
social Security
- America for Prosperity ran
ads against Obamacare in
2014
- Advertisements
- Endorsements
- NARAL (pro choice) annual budget of 1.1 million
- National RIght to Life
- Annual budget of over 9 million
- Lack of countervailing groups makes pressure groups undemocratic
- Interest groups are unfairly represented
- NRA annual budget of 250 million
- NRA v Handgun Control - 4.3 million v 28,000
- Allows groups led by money to dominate
- Deregulation of soft money
since the Citizens United
ruling/Speech NOW v FEC
has made pressure groups
ever more prominent
- Pressure groups can donate on behalf of candidates
- 2012 - $547 million was spent on PACs, 78%
spent opposing candidates
- 80% of
donations goes
to incumbunts
who have 90%
chance of
re-election
- National Association
of Realtors donated
3.8 million to federal
candidates
- 20% of PAC donations go to chairpersons
- David Camp - Pac receipt of
3 million, successful
re-elected Congressman
- Endorsements/Donations
- NRA endorsed Mitt Romney
- Bill Burton and Sean
Sweeney spent $66
million on ads
against Romney in
2012
- NAARAL endorsed Obama in 2012