Interest Groups (info)

 

Interest groups…. well first off, interest groups are political organizations comprised of Americans that have shared attitudes that seek government benefits or government relief. This covers three different issues:

1) a “political organization” is an association that makes claims on others behalf in society by attempting to influence government and law, 2) they are “comprised of Americans” that voluntarily join these organizations even though they are very well funded and very large because it gives them a voice and 3) they “seek government benefits”, these benefits are something of value given to citizens by the government at the expense of other citizens. In other words, some citizens receive things they value at the cost of some or all other citizens.

Currently there are over 40,000 interest groups in Washington D.C. These groups blanket virtually every interest, profession, cause and passion found in America. It is estimated that 57% of Americans belong to at least one interest group, 20% belong to four or more and 70% of these groups are of a business related interest. Some examples of these groups are the AARP, the NFIB, the NRA, the Sierra club and so on.

The government benefits these groups receive can be any form of benefit the government can provide. The most common type of benefit is the benefit of material items such as a real or tangible item of value such as money or welfare. There are also other kinds of benefits like regulatory benefits. Regulatory benefits are acts of favoritism in the laws the government creates in regards to business practices; these regulations help established businesses because they make it more difficult for newcomers to an industry because they create barriers to the entry of the industry. Then there are purposive benefits, these benefits are also called moral legislation; they are acts of favoritism in the law in regards to personal morality and values. One thing these groups must do though is look at the cost-benefit/ratio, they need to make sure they are getting their money’s worth out of there investment (whether it be money or time they invested).

Once these interest groups get what they were after it is very difficult to undo what they have created or enacted. The reason for this is these interests form a very strong relationship with the congress that enacts the programs or laws and the bureaucracies that run the programs. This close relationship protects the programs and the relationship is termed “the iron triangle”. It is called the iron triangle due to the fact that it is very hard to get through the “iron” guard these three create. On one side of the triangle you have the congress that guards the program because they want to make the interest groups happy that give congress donations to their campaigns. On the other side you have the interest group that protects the triangle because they have fought hard to get this program they wanted. And on the other side sits the bureaucrats that protect the program because it employs them. These three make it very hard to attack the program and this is why when a government program is created it is generally very difficult to dismantle the program.

There has been a very sharp increase in numbers of interest groups in the last 70 years or so. The number of interest groups exploded during the 20^th century, especially after Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. This rapid growth cannot be tied to the growth of population. The population of the United States in 1850 was 23 million and in 2010 the population was 305 million which is an increase of 14 times more the 1850 number. Also, the growth of these groups cannot be tied to economic growth. The average individual wealth of an American in 1850 was $1,888.00 (in constant dollars) and in 2008 the average wealth was $38,262.00 which is an increase of 21 times the 1850 number.

So, what is it then? What links this sharp increase of interest groups to the United States? Well, there are three primary reasons for the growth of interest groups in America. One of the reasons is the growth of the federal budget. The federal budget has grown over time, it has not just grown with inflation, and it has actually grown in the amount of money it takes in. In 1940, the federal budget was just over $10 billion and in 2010 it was near $3.6 trillion (an incredible and inconceivable amount of money for any individual). That $3.6 trillion is approximately 25% of the national wealth, so it’s a good chunk of change. This in turn promoted the growth of interest groups that try to influence to way those tax-dollars are spent or redistributed by the government.

Next, the number of agencies has grown over time too. The number of federal agencies has grown from 9 in 1890, 145 in 1940 to over 1300 in 2010. These government agencies are sometimes referred to as “alphabet soup” because they usually referred to by their acronyms. For example, some names are NATO, the EPA, the FBI, the CIA, the EPA and so on. There are so many today it would take hundreds or thousands of pages to name all of them. These two affect each other because the growth in the number of these agencies increases the number of interest groups because these interests groups want to influence the way these agencies enforce the laws written by congress. No, business interest can afford to let the federal laws be enforced without being involved in that process, especially when those laws are specific to that interest’s industry.

And now, probably the most popular reason or the most memorable reason for the growth of interest groups in America is because of “Tricky Dick” or Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. During the Nixon administration we had the Watergate scandal where it was said that president Richard Nixon was receiving “donations” in the form of briefcases filled with cash money. It later came out that Nixon paid the people that broke into the DNC in the Watergate building with those “donations” he was getting from constituents. In turn congress enacted the Campaign Finance Act in 1974 to regulate money in federal campaigns. The reason for the growth of interest groups is because when people get together and form groups they can make contributions that individual can’t. With an individual there is a limit to how much they can donate when it comes to political campaigns. Individual can only donate $2400 to an individual candidate and $45,600 total to all candidates, while they can only contribute $30,400 to the political parties and a total of $69,000 to all. That is a total of $115,500. When people get together in these interest groups they form what are called PACs (PACs can donate much more than individuals can at $5,000 per a candidate with no maximum and $15,000 to the parties with no maximum). This in turn influences people to join PACs especially people that make a lot of money because they are able to donate much more to the causes they support.

The existence of these interest groups has always posed a problem in the democratic theory- most observers have claimed that interest groups are “enormously destructive” to the democratic process. James Madison highlights in Federalist #10 the methods by which the constitution resolves the problem of interest groups, which he defines as;

“A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

There have been a few ideas about how to ensure that the influence of the interest groups do not corrupt the democratic process. In Federalist #10, Madison notes that there are two basic approaches that a political system may adopt in order to combat the destructive influence of interest groups. The groups themselves can be directly controlled or the groups can be indirectly controlled by addressing their negative effects. A way these groups can be directly controlled can be accomplished by two methods. One, the government could have an outright ban on interest groups, which is the most straightforward method of control. Madison is dismissive of this approach saying, “It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease”, meaning this approach is worse than the effects of the groups themselves. This is why the founders elected to not employ this approach as it will destroy liberty.

The other approach Madison thought of was an approach that would create a unity of interests. This method directly regulates interest groups by compelling citizens to join “official”, government-run groups to advocate their interests. Short of outright bans on political interest groups, this method permits advocacy but tightly regulates the institutions. Madison is equally dismissive of this approach is “impractical” while the first approach was “unwise”. The founders side with Madison on this approach also saying this approach simply doesn’t work.

The approach of indirectly controlling interest groups also has flaws with its two ideas of control, according to Madison. Controlling the effects of a minority interest (a faction that represents less than 50% of citizens) is unnecessary because any elected official that would support the “sinister views” of a minority will simply be voted out. While controlling the effects of a majorities interest (a faction that represents 50% or more of citizens) the elected official cannot be defeated. But Madison dismisses this because it is less than probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other individuals; there are just too many groups and ideas within the United States democracy.

So, what the founding fathers did is not try to control these groups but attempted to insulate or make the political system immune to most corrupting and undermining effects. Madison says, “It is impracticable and unwise to try to deal with the interest groups themselves – just as it would be to attempt to control the climate outside one’s house”. The founders, instead of control, constructed a system where Americans would compete with one another and check each other in effort to win influence with elected officials. This is an example of political “pluralism”- a system where a diverse and large number of groups of citizens exist and compete for political power, and with none forming a permanent majority. So, in essence without control these groups are abundant and of all forms. Since they all compete for political power they all balance each other out and no one ever truly gets a permanent majority.