Special Interest Groups

The visit to the interest group provided real life experience and information that forced me to think critically about my view of interest groups and the role they play in American politics. I went into the meeting with a common view of corporate interest groups: a political entity that stops or promotes legislation in accordance with a corporation’s agenda. My perception certainly changed, but I still feel that interest groups, specifically corporate interest groups, are heavily problematic in pushing legislation that does not benefit the majority of people.

One of the most interesting things about the visit, was determining how the interest group was similar and different to the definitions and examples that were discussed within academic setting of our class discussions and literature. Most of the similarities I noticed between the group and the literature was the composition of client companies in the interest group. In class, we discussed that interest groups are started by those who have time, and more importantly, money. This was made evident by viewing the client list of the organization to find multiple well-off businesses seeking the advice of the interest group. The organization reaffirmed that interest groups who represent corporations and businesses can have a greater say in legislation. In the article, “What We Get Wrong About Lobbying and Corruption”, the author explains that 80% of lobbyist related spending comes from businesses. Businesses can then capitalize on this spending by hiring groups that know the legislature and the nuances of both the state and federal government to produce information, and if necessary use their connections to move legislation through a governing body.

An additional similarity I noticed between our class discussion and the visit was centered around federalism. In our class, the discussion of federalism focused on the important role that both the state and federal government plays in our lives in addition to providing multiple points of access for interest groups and legislators to meet and discuss pieces of legislation. I found it interesting that many of the client companies seeking help from the interest group were corporations that were not satisfied with the speed of Congress and thus chose to pursue lobbying options at the state level. I was especially intrigued at the idea of lobbying at the state level because of the complex relationship between states and companies. Companies, especially large corporations can have extremely large influence in state economies and can leverage business friendly legislation in return for bringing jobs to the local area. These are deals that cannot happen as frequently at the federal level because the issue and financial stake is no longer localized, instead it becomes an area of debate with the federal government.

In the speaker’s discussion of term limits, I noticed a similarity between his position and the Washington Post article, “The Solution to Lobbying is More Lobbying.” Although the speaker and the article were addressing different issues they both reached similar conclusions. The speaker explained that term limits would cause experienced politicians to age out of the political process, leaving younger, less experienced legislators at the mercy of interest groups. In the Washington Post article, the author, Lee Drutman, explained that the problem of excessive lobbying will not be remedied by simply limiting the funds that can be spent on lobbying or limiting the access that lobbyists will have to legislators. Drutman explains that lobbying can become more balanced by advocating for “citizen lobbying” that would have a fund matching program to prevent unlimited lobbying power from an organization. While the issues addressed are different, both our speaker and Drutman address putting limitations on the extent of lobbying by strengthening the voice of voters.

            Although there were many similarities between the speaker and the academic constructs of interest groups, one difference was the diversity of thought. In chapter 1 of “The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science,” the author mentioned that diversity of opinion within interest groups “can lead to incoherence” in message and result in “a low collective impact” (18). Contrary to this belief, the speaker explained that the office was extremely bipartisan. The office included two CEOs, one republican and one democrat, as well as having ideological counterparts work together on certain projects. This practice strictly contrasts the idea of forming a group with a narrow interest. In addition, the divided nature of republicans and democrats has made bipartisan work rare in our current political climate. I was further intrigued by the bipartisan approach of the group, not because there are no bipartisan issues, but rather, business and economic issues have become one of the most divisive subject matters in our politics, especially  policies that either cut or expand corporate tax rates or the altering of government intervention in business activity.

            Overall, I believe that visiting the interest group  and reading the academic literature provided similar views of special interest groups, specifically the way they are established and maneuver through the federal government. That being said, the interest group did have an interesting approach of having employees of different political ideologies work together to create a bipartisan atmosphere and allow for moderate policies to prevail. This one specific difference between literature and the actual practice of interest group does reveal that interest groups can be more complex than divisive political rhetoric would imply.