Nicol Rae's Analysis

In the United States, public policy is shaped by multiple factors, from average citizens voices in elections to interest groups and organizations. In their study, “Testing theories of American politics”, scholars Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens explore the impact of average citizens, the economic elite and interest groups have on the passage of public policy. Additionally through their, Page and Gilens(2014) have found “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence” (Pg 535). This means that when it comes to the creation of public policies, rich people and groups

Limiting interest group is like cutting off the blood that flows through America’s vein. Interest groups plays a pivotal role in todays U.S society ranging from but not limited to; helping Congress and the administration to draft legislation and policy initiatives, provide information both to government and the public on a broad range of topical issues, and contribute significantly to political

Interest groups have a lot of influence over decision that the government makes and has made. These groups, when formed right, are highly organized and have a definite agenda they are trying to push that is important to them. Interest groups will lobby in congress as well as other levels of government to get new laws and regulations passed.

Moreover, the Schoolhouse Rock presentation identified the major committees that play a vast role within legislation, but furthermore failed to acknowledge the significant influence of interest groups, lobbyist, and campaign contributors. Interest groups are pertinent to the legislation process because of their vast influence. While interest groups strive to “influence public policy” to benefit its members, it accomplishes this task by using inside strategies that “pursue a narrow policy of change and directly influence legislation” and through its relationship within the iron triangle that works to “seal off” external influencers that are irrelevant to the groups view towards public policy; thus leaving a “closed

Personally, I disagree with Martin Wattenberg. I do not think that our political parties have been weakened at all in recent years. In fact, I believe that political parties are stronger and more a problem than ever before. The current state and strength of our political parties is causing and excess amount of partisanship among our citizens. People are becoming more and more one sided, more biased, and it’s causing problems in our legislation. I would much rather prefer citizens voting for an individual with his or her own agenda rather than someone attempting to please parties and interest groups.

The author, John H. Aldrich, argues that the contemporary political party are not in decline. John H. Aldrich want us to believe that contemporary political party are not in a decline but, instead in transformation. John H. Aldrich give cases for both the importance of political parties and for weak and weakening parties.

“Interest groups are no less a threat than they are an expression of freedom” (Berry, 1984).

One key debate among the authors is what is actually influenced by lawmaking. On one hand, Hansen (1991) takes the perspective that lobbying influences the relationship between interest groups and lawmakers. Hansen bases his argument on the belief that because legislators want to be reelected and they lack information about the “issue preferences of their constituents, the salience of issues to their constituents, and the effectiveness of various policy options,” they will seek information to reduce this uncertainty. The service that interest groups provide the, is this information. Certain interest groups, Hansen argues have “competitive advantage,” (p. 13) in the sense that they can provide certainty about constituent beliefs in an efficient and effective manner, in order to help lawmakers get reelected. Given that elections re-occur, an additional point Hansen makes is for interest groups to have some kind of influence over lawmakers, the conditions that provide this competitive advantage must be expected to recur. When these conditions are met, interest groups

Influence is the single-most important factor to consider when assessing the power of any organization; interest groups are no exception. It is difficult, however, to contextualize influence in terms that are easy to comprehend. While campaign contributions are certainly major factors to consider when assessing the influence of interest groups, it is not always the driving force of a large interest group’s influence. The NRA spends millions of dollars on candidate contributions, campaigning, and lobbying, according to a Pew Research Study (Brown, et al). The NRA has found that spending money on things like lobbying and, more importantly, campaign contributions provides a better return than giving money directly to legislators. In fact, Pew

Jeffery M. Berry obtained his doctorate from John Hopkins University. Berry now resides as a professor at Tuffs University teaching political behavior theory and American politics. In Doctor Berry’s novel titled, The Interest Group Society, Berry focuses on the interworking’s of indirect and direct lobbying in the United States. He analyzes the role of interest groups, pluralism, and PAC’s in order to dissect the complexities of interest group associations in the decision making process. Doctor Berry gathers information from the founding fathers, case studies, and legislative proceedings to analyze democratic theory. The Interest Group Society is directed towards an audience who seeks to obtain information on interest groups influence within

Skocpol (2007) shows that while as early as 1960 a number of national public interest groups were structured in a way that promoted grass-roots activism and required a number of local chapters. These membership groups gained the strength to engage in activism through the number of members they were able to mobilize. These interest groups, then, could claim to be representative of the general public’s interests because they were made up of members of the general public. However, Skocpol further argues that beginning in the 1970’s there was a shift toward more professionally run organizations. Instead of recruiting members to volunteer and mobilize, these new groups featured predominantly professional members and functioned through the use of lobbying. Instead of a high number of members, these new groups were primarily focused on raising money in order to lobby for more narrow interests. In 2001, only 12% of all Washington interest groups were associations of individuals (Schlozman et al.

There are some interest groups that are extremely powerful and exercise considerable influence over the formation of public policy, whereas others are ineffectual and weak. (101). There are various factors that make a group more powerful than the other. Financial resources determines the group’s power. Organizations representing large co-operations are at a much better position to raise funds. It is unfair for regular citizens because they would not be heard because of less collective power and less money for campaign contributions. Citizens need to be heard too, regardless of their financial capabilities. Powerful interest groups do not make it possible for the citizens’ voices to be heard. The same applies to the groups that represent low income people, they have it difficult raising the money required for lobbying.

Interest groups and advocacy groups have an undeniably strong influence in Washington, and while the results of lobbying efforts are not often touted, they sway policy in areas like energy, housing, public finance, education, gun control and many more. These interest groups may represent parochial interests, but there is surely an area of policy that matches most splintered-off factions. While they’ve been portrayed as shadowy forces in lawmaking, “Interest Group Influence on US Policy Change: An Assessment Based on Policy History” by Matt Grossmann attempts to quantify and

Political parties and pressure groups are dependent upon one another. Interest groups find the parties an important method of gaining access to those in public authority, and the parties need the support of groups to elect and maintain themselves in power. The loose party structure and the nature of the federal system foster a chain of continuous relationships between the two. Interest groups participate in both nonpartisan and partisan primaries and general elections through candidate endorsement, providing campaign funds, and general campaign activity. Interest groups are particularly interested in programs and seek to influence party platforms and may provide speech materials for candidates. There is some attempt on the part of both to infiltrate each other though rarely has an interest group been able to capture complete control of a party organization. The overlapping memberships help to educate the parties about the interests of the private groups and vice versa, and provide some cross-fertilization of ideas as well as manpower assistance. Political parties have a prime function of accommodating the demands of the private interests into the larger public interests (Bone. A, 1958).

     We elect politicians on the basis on the issues by which they stand, and these issues are either held up or weakened by the numerous interest groups that exist today. Interest groups target both major and minor issues, using all of their resources to sponsor or overpower the groups’ concern. Interest groups are composed of a limited range of the body of voters who have a great stake in the issues their group support. They make evident the issues their group supports. Their resources are used in an attempt to make their issue public policy. Interest groups are persistent; they do not give up until they succeed. They lobby congress, take legal action,