Thursday, February 20, 2014
Do Interest Groups Contribute to Democracy in Elections?
Hi, everyone! This blog assignment, worth 20 points and due by 7 am on Monday, March 3, will foreshadow one of the possible topics for the final paper assignment. This week's readings in Cigler and Loomis, as well as Wednesday's lecture, make it clear that interest groups have exploded as an influence in the US electoral process. Some argue that this is bad for democracy, that it's all about money, that campaigns have been degraded. Others argue that more interests are represented than ever before, and more people have a voice through interest groups than they would through the relatively weak and ineffective party system that our democracy provides. What do you think? Make use of the readings (perhaps including those from the week of February 24), the lectures, and class discussions, and do some research of your own as well. Don't be afraid to argue (politely) with your classmates; let's see a strong and spirited discussion, backed by solid evidence!--NB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Zevi Lowenberg
ReplyDeleteIn terms of interest groups and lobbying, I think that they overall do not work out for the majority of Americans. While more people are represented as a whole, the disparity between the large interest groups that have their voices heard, and the small ones, that while still able to organize and lobby, do not have their voice heard, is expanding. Companies like AARP, Koch Industries, and Monsanto are able to organize and lobby, and because of their extreme wealth and ability to doll out money left and right, their voices are heard much louder than the average American.
This issue stems from the breakdown of the American party system, with less focus on the issues and on the people, but more on the money provided and how expensive of a campaign can a candidate run. Because the average Senate seat costs about 9 million dollars, in terms of the average price tag on a winning campaign, a candidate that does not give the majority of their focus to big time companies with money is almost assuredly not going to win. Therefore, it unfairly represents those with money, leaving the small companies having to find other ways to get the ear of the politician.
Secondly, it corrupts politics. No longer are candidates focused on winning the votes of the majority of their constituents, but instead they want to make the big money companies happy in each region. Within PACs there is corruption as well. PACs are not allowed to work with candidates directly, but finding a loophole with a third party individual, someone that both sides know and talk to, and just happen to say things that then get reported, is seen as following the law. As more regulations come down on PACs, the harder they work to find loopholes to continue to coordinate with the politicians. The campaigns have lost their focus, and are simply interested in seeing dollar signs. In the dog-eat-dog world of politics, it is my conclusion that mainly due to the money and the corruption, interest groups are not good for our democracy.
I am of the opinion that interest groups have been bad influences in U.S. elections. In recent presidential elections, interest groups have run large numbers of ads. In the two preceding the Citizens United ruling (2004 and 2008), they ran 20% and 5% of ads in the largest 75 markets. This study looks at only groups that ran 100 or more ads and only in 75 markets, so it has a limited scope and the actual numbers are likely much higher.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that interest groups run such large numbers of ads does not bother me of itself. My problem is the fact that the ads seem to be overwhelmingly negative. Rarely during election season do I feel as if I have seen a positive campaign ad (although in fairness, this is not a problem limited to the ads run by interest groups). These ads feel as if they are all attack ads and hardly ever offer information about actual policy plans.
My largest problem stems from the fact that interest groups allow for so much anonymity for donors. Because of this anonymity, many groups and individuals are able to pour extravagant amounts of money into elections and never be identified. While I don’t necessarily feel the amount of money that can be donated should be limited (groups would likely find ways around this anyway), I do feel that the sources of the money should be more transparent. If they are willing to donate so much money, they should be willing to own up to this fact.
As stated in the textbook, 501(c)(4) groups are able to legally claim this anonymity as long as they do not spend more than 50% of their budgets on ads. I find this to be a ridiculous standard and I don’t see how it is enforceable in any way. The guidelines of where “social welfare” advocacy ends and campaign spending begins seems to be incredibly vague and should be eliminated.
I don’t deny that interest groups serve a legitimate purpose in our system. They allow people to pool resources and have an effect on elections they would not be able to have alone. They are also able to help fund get out the vote movements and get people to vote that otherwise would not. But in their current incarnation, I think they are disproportionately powerful and, on the whole, bad for our democracy.
i think that interest groups are in fact good for the American democracy for a few reasons. Interest groups help get done what individuals cant'. They work for the people involved in their group/s and get people more in touch with their government by lobbying and running ads. As in chapter ten , interest groups pay for and influence issue ads. Issue ads as stated in the reading are a clever instrument of political advocacy, which means they influence peoples decision during election times thus furthering democracy. Also, in chapter 11 of ciglar and loomis, interest groups are permanent players in the policy making decision. What this means they influence policy makers to get them to do what the people want which is another form of democracy. Also, in chapter eleven of ciglar and loomis it says that interest groups seek legislative outcomes and provide a means of representation for subsets of citizens. Thats what democracy is all about, getting the voice of the people heard by the government and the government acting to the requests of the people. Interest groups do in fact influence american democracy by giving people a way to connect to their government. I think that without interest groups democracy would not be as strong as it is today. As kyle says big companies like AARP have the money and resources to get peoples voices heard, without them individuals would have less of a voice and our democracy would be weaker.
ReplyDeleteIn the Cigler and Loomis readings, we found out what a major influence interest groups have on campaigns and elections. Many argue that these interest groups are damaging to U.S. democracy, and I would have to agree. Unfortunately only some interest groups have their interests heard because of their financial situation. For example, let’s say two interest groups are donating money to the same candidate. One group is The American Association for Justice which has 56,000 members worldwide and is currently donating $982,250 to the 2014 midterm elections. The other group is WVU’s own SALA with 100 members at most and almost no money to be allocated. As a political candidate you would only focus on the AAJ because of their expansive membership and their access to money, while SALA is left unheard and their interests are unrepresented on Capitol Hill.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why interest groups are damaging to democracy is because it greatly influences the congressional agenda. When groups like the NRA donate $68,173 to support candidates in the Republican Party, then their voice will surely be heard. With the power of money interest groups can threaten to withdrawal their donations and endorse another candidate who will support what they want to do. So it’s like the NRA has authority over what the candidate will and will not push for if they are elected. If issues are arising naturally and every candidate is pushing for legislation for their donators then nothing would get done efficiently. Congress is faced with each congressmen pushing legislation for their interest group donators and with a total of 535 congressmen then that is a lot of potential problems and potential legislation on the agenda, some of which is not a problem at all. So interests will be put on the forefront of the agenda while real problems are put on hold simply because an interest group like the NRA donated large amounts of money to candidates all across a party.
One last reason why interest groups have a negative effect on democracy is because Interest groups are prone to political mudslinging which are simply just negative campaign ads. Mudslinging is bad for democracy because it doesn’t make voters switch who they vote for, it simply makes them not want to vote. So mudslinging greatly reduces voter turnout. In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Act was passed and in that act it states that any ad a candidate runs, the candidate must declare who they are and that they support that ad. Originally it had a dramatic effect on the amount of mudslinging in campaigns. It dramatically dropped. Unfortunately there is a way around this that candidates and interest groups have discovered. The act only specifies that candidate run ads must have the official supporting tagline at the end, but interest group run ads had no restrictions. Therefore interest groups run negative campaign ads all the time so that the candidate they are supporting will look better in comparison and it will drop the voter turnout for the challenger. Mudslinging is bad for campaigns and bad for democracy because everyone should exercise their right to vote but mudslinging only discourages voters from coming to the polls.
Of course there are many other reasons why interest groups have a negative effect on democracy but these are just a few. Interest groups are just bad for campaigns and elections, it becomes less about the quality of the candidate, or the constituents of the candidate, or even the candidates own personal views, it’s all about the access to money for the candidate.
I feel as if interest groups are bad for democracy. I understand that it allows people to come together as one and try to have their voice heard. But depending on the size and resources the group has access to, they might not ever get noticed no matter what their supporting. It all has turned into who can get the most money. Interest groups that are legitimate concerns or causes may just get no attention from a politician because they don't have the money to donate.
ReplyDeleteMy main reason for thinking that interest groups are hurting democracy is that they are taking the attention away from actual issues on policy or economy for example that the public really should know about. The candidates are more concerned about keeping these companies and interest groups happy because they know how much they can be positively or negatively affected by them. As mentioned by other classmates, the rise in interest groups has led to an abundance of negative ads. It feels as if those are the only types of ads you see during election time. It seems like a rarity to see ads that are actually talking about why that candidate is the right man for the job and not all about why the opposition is so terrible for it. This only hurts voter turnout and peoples overall view on politics in general. So many citizens are disinterested in politics for this very reason.
With the two party system we have in place, citizens themselves and interest groups, feel as if they need to align with Democrats or Republicans. Certain groups will give to both parties just so they are with the winner either way. It shows that groups may just donate to you so they can ask for a favor in return down the road without ever really wanting you to win. As a whole, it just doesn't seem good for democracy or elections. It's not about any political issues anymore. It's just a race to see who can get more money.
When this country was established the easiest way for one to get their interests through to politicians was through the voting process. Without strong voter turnouts politicians are less likely to base there campaign on changing legislation. The majority of their ads go to bashing their opponent. In my opinion like many things that change over time in government, interest groups need to play a key part in allowing people to voice their opinion. With the emergence of interest groups this allows a group of people that have similar goals to influence a politician to create legislation for their cause.
ReplyDeleteCigler and Loomis even point out in the reading that legislatures do not have time to read all the letters wrote by constituents and even answer phone calls. If this collective voice of people is represented in an interest group then it can be expressed through issue ads that get the politicians attention on a subject matter. Majority of that raise concerns about a piece of proposed legislation do not give answers to the problem. By doing this it allows the lawmakers to use their expertise to develop a bill that supports the groups ideas. In chapter 10, it states that majority of these ads are geared toward members of Congress that are electorally vulnerable.
By casting a ballot during an election this will not guaranteed that person to have a vote. However that person can identify with an interest group that will push for policies that will support them. In chapter 11, the Legislation Spatial Model describes how lobbyists try to persuade legislatures to vote in the lobbyist best interest. If the bill is not in their favor then they will influence politicians so that it leads to policy gridlock. Phone calls to a Congressmen or women’s office would not to be able to influence their decision-making. According to Cigler and Loomis in elections these interest groups are more like to encourage politicians to develop legislation that follows their single issue. When interest groups are more involved in the election process more voices will be heard. If you are a blue or white-collar worker there is an interest group that supports your interests.
Grant Easterday
When it comes to evaluating the way we elect officials in the United States, it has become necessary to discuss interest groups. There are different opinions on rather or not these groups help or hurt the election system. I personally believe that interest groups are essential to the election process in the U.S. My main reason for this is because interests groups allow us to practice our right to the freedom of speech. The first amendment is what makes this country great and sets us apart. Interest groups are simply just another way for us to voice our opinions.
ReplyDeleteInterest groups also make it easier for citizens to prioritize their opinions and interests. In my research I came across a blog by Dr. Mathew Lynch entitled, “The Pros and Cons of Special Interest Groups.” This blog went back and forth on rather or not interest groups are good for a democracy. However, one valid point this author makes in the beginning of the writing is that interest groups are “very important” and “are probably one of the most effective ways of effecting political institutions.” Rather you agree with the pros or the cons of this argument it is important to note that these groups are necessary for the citizens to have a complete say in Washington. An entire group of people will influence a congressman much more then a single person. For example, if a citizen strongly believes in his guns right he has two options, writing his representative or joining the NRA. His one letter or phone call will not have nearly the same effect as the NRA does. With the backing and money of the NRA this citizens concerns are more likely to be heard.
On another note, what makes this system great is an even playing field. Sean makes a statement in his blog about how only some interest groups are heard because of their financial situation. This goes back to the free rider problem and how some interests aren’t able to form groups and when they do some are bigger then others. Well to that I just have to say that this is America. Every group had to overcome the same problems and had the same ability to start and grow.
In class and in our readings issue ads were discussed. Issue ads aim to simplify and persuade viewers on a particular controversial topic. They often attempt to get the citizens to take action and call there representative. While it is true not all these ads are accurate it is important to look at the questions these ads may be sparking within people. If viewers see ads like this on TV they may be inclined to look further into the issue. With the research they are becoming more knowledgeable in particular policies. These ads can drive people to act but not in the way you would think. In Cigler and Loomis on page 237 it is said, “That does not mean that the ads have a net effect on the behavior of lawmakers, much less the shape of the laws that get made.” These ads influence voters and citizens to be more engaged in policies and politics by researching specific issues, is that so bad?
In conclusion, interest groups are a good way for citizens to get their voice heard in American politics. When it comes to money not all of them have an equal amount but they all have the equal ability to start and succeed. Most importantly it is the easiest way for us as citizens to practice our 1st amendment rights.
In regards to interest groups, I think they are an imperative role in shaping a well-rounded democracy. First and foremost, in a modern-day democracy, the people's opinion should be the top priority for any elected official. Indeed most Congressional and government-influencing positions require some sort of oath like, "working for the people, of the people, and with the people" to make certain the integrity of the position is upheld to the highest standard. As a result, interest groups single-handily best represent the American population because the very essence of their existence lives within the American population.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, since interest groups do in fact, work directly for the people, a sort of bond generates between the two actors creating a connection that is not prevalent anywhere else in the democratic system. Interest groups contribute an overwhelming amount of money to political campaigns and candidates thru television advertisements, radio commercials and lobbying. These techniques ultimately help the voices of the American people to be heard. This idea can be traced back to Chapter 11 in Ciglar and Loomis's book, where they mention how interest groups resemble a permanent, yet decisive actor in affecting policy decisions. Since candidates rely on certain groups contributions and insight regarding particular bills, they find themselves trying to pass bills that specifically target or give benefits to those certain members of the group.
All in all, interest groups play a crucial part in influencing the outcome of government policies. By contributing to candidates, interest groups can secure the fact they have an easy access to the candidate for key legislation. In addition, interest groups also act as a representative or a single-member actor because they embody both the attitudes of all their members and determine the best possible outcome to enhance their field of research.
Interest groups have a lot of influence in American Democracy, they are the largest and most popular outlet for the average American to interact with government business. Interest groups work as a powerful check against both Congress and the Executive. For example the feminist interest groups as (NOW, NARAL) worked to gain women suffrage and Unions have increased worker´s right greatly.
ReplyDeleteThe interest groups have the ability to lobby congress, they are able to give important policy information to members of congress. This is so important to understand the niche they play in Washignton. The interest groups provide networks and building close personal relationships, lobbyist are able to exert their influence on legislation.
Lobbyist can perform task such as testifying before congress, emailing campaigns, writing letters/articles, and often times serving as a personal attorney to many congressmen.
Interest groups are important to democracy because they mobilize public opinion; it is possible that they are involved in different ways such as: Advertising, Grass Roots Campaigns, Protests, Campaign Activism, and Initiatives and Referendums...
As we can see in Cigler and Loomis readings interest groups are participants in the policy making process. In the United States, most if not all interest groups hire lobbyists to influence policy making in the US Congress. Lobbying is done by groups in order to directly influence government decisions on policies. Many Americans are not happy about the power that these lobbyists exert on their elected legislators. One source says that there are more than 40,000 lobbyists in Washington DC alone, making lobbying one of the highest-paying jobs there.
Pablo Visedo
Some people say interest groups destroyed the system with an overflow of cash, others say that some groups have monopolized our system. I don't think this is true. I believe that there are more benefits to having interest groups in our democratic society.One of the reasons why I believe is one which has been discussed by my fellow classmates: it gives the American people more opportunities to express their right to freedom of speech. The best way to express your support or opposition to a certain stance on a certain issue is through interest groups. Interest groups are organized, they know specifically what their goals are, and who they want to reach out to. If interest groups were to be removed from our political system it would be very difficult for the American people to get their views heard. A U.S. Congressman or Senator is more likely to listen to an organized group with set goals and an intelligent argument then to an unorganized blob or mass of people who might share a general opinion or stance on a certain issue but would almost definitely not agree on how to address legislators on their issues. They would also not necessarily share the same reasons for supporting a certain stance. For example, Israel is supported by many different groups of people for many different reasons. Some Jewish people support Israel because they believe they deserve a Jewish state, some Christians believe that the Jewish people need to control the holy land because of biblical reasons. Then there are also some gays who support Israel because it gives them much more rights than most Muslim countries in the Middle East. All of these groups, and others, support Israel for different reasons. There are people on the left, in the middle, and on the right who support Israel, but have different visions of how they want to support the Jewish state. When this happens the American people get a voice that is much louder than just going to the voter’s booth. This concept very much relates, in my opinion at least, to what we learned about the free rider problem. There are many unique interests in the United States that could be broken into the privileged, intermediate and latent groups. Each of those groups could use the 3 types of incentives Olson discussed. And if some of the groups are still too big even after the incentives, then federations could be formed. Without interest groups’ existence it would be very hard, if not impossible, to implement this possible solutions to the free rider problem. The free rider problem is one I think we all can agree is one that needs to be overridden as it is very much detrimental to the American voter and their ability to express their freedom of speech. Some specific ways on how the average person could utilize interest groups to express their freedom of speech could be by volunteering as grassroots activists, mobilizing with their respective group to campaign and vote on certain referendums and initiatives, and by joining in group sponsored protests. Another way interest groups help our political system would be through the form of lobbying. A few of my classmates above mentioned it, as did Cigler and Loomis. Lobbyists have a direct impact on legislators and public servants because of their expertise in their respective fields. Cigler and Loomis mentioned that not all members of Congress have the time to research every angle of every issue, so this is where lobbyists would come in. These lobbyists help draft bills, and help legislators get informed on specific issues. For example, AIPAC, the main Israeli lobbyist group, is known for informing legislators on issues that effect Israel, one of our closest allies. This not only gives a voice to American Jews and others who support Israel, but also informs Congress about an issue that might have otherwise fallen off the radar. On a more general basis, if one looks at lobbyists one can see they come from many different backgrounds bringing many different types of Americans to the lobbying circle.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the impact on democracy in elections across the United States, I personally believe that as a whole, interest groups do not have a very positive effect.
ReplyDeleteDue to the massive size, both physically and in population, of the United States, in many ways interest groups are necessary for getting the voice of the people heard. Unfortunately, it is not exactly a realistic scenario for an individual to be able to express their viewpoint. Sure, it is possible for people to call their Senate representatives and tell them how they would like them to vote, but this does not mean it will ever have a big effect. However, when you put these concerned citizens in a big group funded by large amounts of money, all of a sudden they have some say in things.
Many people would complain that the political system in America is already swayed too much by big businesses as it is, but the money being thrown around by interest groups is surely more impactful on the American democracy. These large interest groups have the financial wherewithal to run smear advertisements to impact elections how they see fit for their agenda. One example of this would be the NRA funding Republican candidates, who are generally more friendly towards gun owners.
Cigler and Loomis discuss in the text just how these interest groups can impact our democracy. None of these interest groups are foolish, and they are well aware of which candidates can be seen as beatable. This judgement allows the interest groups to decide which elections are worth pumping their money into. As a politician, if you are voting on an issue that is of particular concern to an interest group, you have to be wary of how you vote. Again, using gun control as an example, the NRA has the funding power to greatly assist the opponent in an election of a politician who tried to pass legislation that goes against their agenda.
Realistically, interest groups do not exactly increase the feeling of democracy in the United States. However, it is perhaps important to look at interest groups as a whole as a necessary evil. It is just not practical in a country like the United States for peoples' interests to not be streamlined and organized. There are plenty of negatives, but these must be taken along with the positives in their impact on American democracy.
Chris Cocuzza
With all the wealthy interest groups that help political parties to try to win campaigns, there is a large possibility that the interests of minority groups will not be campaigned for or represented by candidates.
ReplyDeleteIf the interests of small groups or individuals do not align with the interests of a large group who is backing a candidate then smaller groups will probably be overlooked due to their insignificant presence and lack of contribution to the politician in question.
When an interest group with a deep wallet helps fund the campaign of a candidate, that candidate is sort of wedded to that interest group because the group becomes a parent funder. Then the group can manipulate the candidate’s decisions since candidates rely so heavily on campaign donations.
I believe interest groups ultimately threaten democracy because they force politicians to sometimes abandon their ideals, and they make it harder for smaller groups to thrive, thus making the “American dream” unobtainable for some people.
Though I believe interest groups to have a negative effect on democracy, I would not wish for them to go away because I think their existence was inevitable. There will always be people who want a policy passed, essentially, to make their lives more pleasant. So long as certain policy pushers are wealthy, they will fund and possibly manipulate politicians to help them accomplish their political goals.
To ban interest groups from donating money to their favored politicians or political parties would be unconstitutional, since people in a free state must be allowed to give their money to any person or group they want.
Interest groups themselves reflect an idea of democracy that many Americans appreciate, and that is the freedom of speech and assembly. No matter how large or small, groups of people that feel passionately about a common topic or policy can congregate and lobby for change. However, I believe the impact that many interest groups have on U.S. elections is negative for democracy.
ReplyDeleteIt’s impossible to be elected and run for office without money - and lots of it. Large interest groups, especially ones with generous donors, will give money and endorse candidates who they know will win, and will in turn support their policies/issues. This hardly gives smaller and less profitable interest groups a chance. Members of groups such as AARP and Greenpeace have a much louder voice on Capitol Hill than the majority of Americans, and even smaller, "unheard of" interest groups. This also potentially causes politicians to turn their attention to the issues that fund them, rather than issues they would have addressed themselves.
Although there are spending/contribution limits during elections, they are almost impossible to monitor, and many PACs get around this problem, and do not have to report all of their independent contributions. This brings corruption and unfairness to political elections. As we discussed in class, nearly 95% of house incumbents are re-elected to Congress, despite general likeness. This is greatly due to the continued monetary support from interest groups. In fact, it takes at least $300,000 to challenge an incumbent. While this is possible, you also must take into account the contributions already received by the incumbent.
As Cigler and Loomis discussed in Chapter 10, interest groups participate in a range of grassroots activities to both support their beliefs and convey negative ideas about policies/views that oppose theirs. This is mostly done through issue advertising, and targets Americans through negative ads. According to the text, these ads are “intended to alter or intensify the viewers beliefs about a particular public policy and/or induce them to communicate those beliefs to elected officials that represent them.” The example used was the commercial with Harry and Louise during the proposed Clinton Health Care Reform in 1993. This negative ad is believed to have helped kill the reform, and shows just how much of an impact all those nasty and negative ads have on politics. This also shows a system of reward and punishment to politicians. Those candidates who support their issues will not be attacked, and those who do not will. This represents just how effective interest groups have on outcomes of policy, and can be with the correct use of money.
Interest groups may have good intentions and can have positive effects on democracy, but these are the reasons why I have concluded they do not play a positive role in our elections.
Interest groups have become far too influential in elections in this country. A president, congressman, senator, or even student governor is never going to value my lone opinion more than the opinion of an interest group. My one vote does not get them elected, but the interest group does, regardless of whether or not people in that group live in a congressmen’s district.
ReplyDeleteCigler and Loomis discuss a variety of ways that interest groups influence elections. One of their main ways to influence people is through advertising. The goal is to either strengthen your view on the issue or make you question if what you think is right. It worked for me during the 2012 election. I would see 3 commercials every hour talking about how Barack Obama was not a friend of coal. The ad was not paid for by the Obama or Romney campaign, but it had an impact on me. My grandfather and uncle were/are both coal miners. Why would I vote for someone who was going to put them out of a job? Those ads, paid for by interest groups, were a large reason why I voted the way I did in 2012.
Most people argue that interest groups corrupt politics with all the money they throw around at candidates and legislation. I agree, today’s politics are too much about who has more money to campaign and advertise. Elections become a bit of a popularity contest and less about actual issues.
Individuals can only donate a certain amount of money directly to a candidate, but with certain loopholes they can donate incredible amounts of money to interest groups who fund campaigns and candidates. If an interest group donates a lot of money to a candidate, they are going to expect something in return. This is where I feel interest groups corrupt the system. For example, if the NRA donates 10 million dollars to a candidate, when he/she is elected; the NRA is going to expect them to veto any bill on gun control, regardless of what the people in the candidate’s district believe. Instead of politicians representing the people, they represent interest groups, big businesses, and the 1%.
Christopher Cymny
Interest Groups have such an enormous role today in politics. Without them elections wouldn’t heat up as much as they do in my opinion. I believe that Interest groups are a necessity in the election process in today’s world, without their money and views/ideas the people’s word may never get heard.
ReplyDeleteThe creation of interest groups has given way to a new type of funding for a candidate. As time has progressed and with time the all mighty dollar has become more visibly important interest groups have stepped in as a way to fill the back pocket of a candidate. The interest groups becoming more important they give another way for people to donate money to a candidate. That candidate can be either the incumbent or the challenger, this opens up the door for a better election in my opinion. Some people may argue that this will always work out in the incumbents favor because that person has already been backed and have proven their selves. However, I find that this is not the case; with challengers having more funding it gives more opportunities to people that have better plans, or sometimes a third view point these factors lead to a better person for the job and after all isn’t that what we want, the best leaders representing us. Interest Groups also have a sort of pull with the particular candidate they are funding because with a large contribution the candidate will use his power to make the supporters happy. This is a way to keep the money coming as well as get Americans views shown in the government. As well as these contributors having an influence on what side of some issues these politicians side, they are also able to help candidates out by paying for the running of ads. These ads can be shown in two different aspects, one praising the candidate for all the reasons the Interest Group like him or her. Secondly, they can run ads that show how terrible the challenger may be. Either way the public is being educated on some points that they may not have known about previous to the ad running. This may not change the voter’s choice, but it still informs them, without Interest Groups some of these issues possibly would never be heard.
People that argue that Interest Groups are not good for elections in America might say that giving money to politicians will corrupt them; I say to this, if there was no money to be given to candidates then only wealthy people could run and this would automatically lead to corruption. Also these people will call upon the use of negative ads saying this is disrespectful and only causes a decline in voter turnout, but I look on the positive side of this argument by saying that one less vote may win the challenger the election. The argument weather Interest Groups are a good thing or a bad thing for American elections will probably continue forever, or as long as there’s a loop hole to jump through. Either way I think that it’s more visible now than ever that they are a very important thing to the election process. Without proper funding candidates would only be from rich backgrounds and that may not necessarily be the right choice for the face of this country.
Ideally, interest group involvement in legislation would provide the public with a direct and influential voice in government. Similarly, the positive consequences of interest groups’s increasing involvement prompted by the class discussion are only applicable in an ideal and uncorrupt government. Interest groups providing informative television ads regarding election candidates does not always hold true. Mud slinging is a growing practice in Washington. Additionally, most viewers are only receptive to information from what they perceive as a credible source or a source that supports the viewers views. Furthermore, interests groups helping to expose a third party candidate or under exposed view points and issues is an unlikely pro to interest group involvement. Studies show that incumbents are likely to receive the most financial support because they are the most likely to win. Most people are considered moderates, and candidates who identify as a moderate receive little support simply because the people identifying with their views are docile and unlikely to make a rallying cry. Regarding exposing the under exposed issues, even if interest groups can expose them to a slight degree, these issues will never take precedence over hot topics because the hot topics have more funding and can afford more exposure. Interest groups are bad for democracy because while the United States legally embodies a representative democracy, money talks. When candidates in a representative democracy are dependent on the funding of interest groups, the interest groups are talking rather than the candidates. Candidates are more likely to align their view points with those of their biggest monetary contributor. After all, a politicians number one goal is to get reelected and reelection requires campaign money. As campaigns become more money intensive, politicians become increasingly dependent on interest groups. The idea that politicians are able to act independently from their supporting interest groups is irrational. Coordination is nearly inevitable and exists in the corrupted government. Issue ads, funded by interest groups, more often than not just promote mudslinging. The success of outside lobbying is debatable. While I agree with colleague Joshua Dukes, that interest groups ideally give the people a voice and outlet to truly be represented in government, this is how they should work ideally. Were money not a factor, I would agree completely. However, money is a major factor that outweighs the positive effects of interest groups. Rather than work for the good on the people at large, politicians are likely to act for the benefit of their interest groups that provide their funding.
ReplyDeleteMegan Hobbs
In the grand scheme of things, I view the influence of interest groups as a positive aspect of our electoral process. Effectiveness of said groups aside, the mere fact that these groups are given an outlet to express what they deem as important to not only themselves but the country as a whole is extremely relevant in keeping the democratic process itself virtuous. To refer to the reading of Cigler and Loomis they established that interest groups influencing policy makers is, in fact, another form of democracy. The way this is proven true is due to the interest groups’ basic objective of providing representation to their appropriate subsets of citizens. In turn, the interest group acts as an extension of an individual’s voice to reach the necessary policy makers. I understand the contrarian point of views in which my classmates presented; however, I still think the benefits of interest groups’ increased influence in our electoral process outweigh the drawbacks. I feel that this increased influence provides voters with a bit more trust in the overall process in that their ideas and concerns hold more value than before. Whether that is 100% true or not is obviously still up for debate given this assignment. But to me, this is a formula for a healthier state in the long run because it can somewhat limit the ignorance and/or oppression of ideas/issues by, in a way, bringing everyone as close as possible to the forefront of political decisions.
ReplyDeleteBrett Custer
Regardless of how interest groups affect democratic elections, it is hard to argue that the fact that interest groups play a larger part, and can influence elections is bad for democracy. A democratic society where interest groups get silenced down is not a democratic society. So whether or not they are good for democracy, they need to be embraced if we want to call ourselves a democratic country.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I do believe that interest groups have some negative impact on elections, especially since their influence is so largely dependent on how much money they can contribute. Politicians running for office shouldn’t be forced to support a certain issue just because they have to in order to fund their campaigns. Another downside to it that Cigler and Loomis mention is that it is largely elite groups that contribute to these campaigns and get their voices heard. What’s good about interest groups in the election process is that they allow for non-traditional issues to get on the agenda, as well as hold politicians accountable for the promises they make.
If you look at European countries with several different parties represented in the national parliament, many, if not most of them, have their roots as an interest group. Examples of this are environmental parties, parties representing farmers’ interests and right wing extremist racist parties (maybe downside to it). In my opinion this allows for the opinions of the people to be voiced and I would like to see more of it in the U.S.
-Carl Bojesson
Interest groups play a pivotal role in American politics, and it seems that it may not be a beneficial role. Their is the notion that their are more interest groups than ever before and that more people have a voice than ever before. If we look into this we can see that it is not as good as it sounds. This is so because the large interest groups who back candidates with large campaign contributions are more likely to have their interests represented. We have a system in place that allows for large interest groups to have politicians "in their pockets" so to speak. Instead of the politician speaking on behalf of their respective constituents, they seem to cater to the ideals of the large interest groups that are backing them.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand it is important to realize the benefits of interest groups as well, and is important to see how they work as Hall and Anderson states "the two-step purpose of most ads is to influence the attitudes and/or behavior of citizens, who will then influence the behavior of their Washington, D.C., representatives"(Hall and Anderson 226). This of course is referring to issue advertising that interest groups use to influence the American public. It is important to understand how the relationship between the politician, interest group, and citizen works. From this perspective Interest groups play a pivotal role in nationwide and statewide elections. It is clear that interest groups do actually do some good, but plays a mostly negative role in our democracy, and whatever the opinion on them, they are here to stay.
Interest groups clearly effect democracy, but to pass judgement on whether it is positive or negative depends on your perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think that interest groups have a negative effect on democracy, but it would be impossible to eliminate them as it would probably be unconstitutional and even though they may effect the outcome of elections, they do have a useful purpose in society.
I think the effect of interest groups in democracy is negative because they have the effect of limiting our choices in democracy. Interest groups tend to fund people that are likely to win, such as incumbents. This overwhelmingly helps candidate A and puts candidate B at a significant disadvantage unless they can fund their own campaign. So even if B might have better ideas to the people, doesn't get exposure and therefore doesn't win because of the interest groups. Also, I think if you were to look at the proportion of donations to interest groups and take away donations by, for lack of a better word, "The 1%". the charts would show that they have more influence than other people, and I fundamentally disagree on the idea that having more money should increase your influence on the government.
That being said, interest groups aren't going away and they do serve useful purposes. They give people a way to represent their opinions or general attitudes. They fact that these interest groups exist and their power in some ways does show candidates how important they are at least on a national scale. They also give people a second way to influence the election, as their donation to an interest group does affect elections, depending on the amount.
Charles Clarke
Anthony Cicconi
ReplyDeleteThe political landscape in general has changed dramatically over the course of the last fifty or so years. I believe that, in general, interest groups are beneficial to the democratic process in that they help facilitate the proper representation of all interests in government. However, along with this does come the possibility of groups unfairly influencing and manipulating the process with money. For instance, recent research suggests that the average United States Senate seat costs in excess of nine million dollars. Most candidates would not nearly be able to raise this type of money without major companies or interest groups being on board (read – doing as they want) with their interests. These interest groups often pay for ads that often sway voters in their direction. However, interest groups provide the opportunity for each and every group to be represented in government. Having said that, that does not necessarily mean that every group does get represented, as some groups don't form for reasons previously discussed. Interest groups help provide individual citizens their freedom of speech when otherwise it would be much more difficult. Although not all groups have an equal amount, all do have the equal opportunity to be formed. Once formed, a group has almost infinitely more influence over congressmen than does a single person. It is in that essential fact, that I believe, that interest groups generally are more beneficial than not to American politics.
One could not deny that interest Groups play a key role on democracy for better or worse. However, in order to answer the question at hand in an honest and personal context, I'd have to be on the fence. There are numerous aspects regarding interest groups that one could argue are beneficial or detrimental to democracy on the whole. Their influence on campaigns and elections is a prime example. Some argue that with this campaign influence through sometimes extreme monetary contributions could result in political corruption and not truly standing for the peoples interests. However, on the other hand, without these contributions many potential political competitors would never have a shot on obtaining the funds from different PAC's who share their ideals or platform, and perhaps in turn the ideals of his/her constituency. So it could in fact, be for the benefit of the people that these contributions are a reality of the political game or a negative aspect because PAC's could hold politicians "in their pocket". I keep in mind that the majority of the time Interest Groups will only fund Candidates or Incumbents that they feel are Shoe-in's, or candidates they at least feel have a decent shot in victory. There could be some cases in which politicians are so dependent on contributions from these groups that they may oppose particular legislation or change their platforms in a negative for their respective constituency. This could be a very negative aspect of interest groups influence on democracy. On a good note, many in the campaign process would not be able to afford their ads in media with out the help from these groups. By generating ads, it could not only let the candidate be known, but have his/her ideals publicized. This could work against the candidates opposition through mud-slinging ads.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is safe to say, and I do believe my fellow classmates will agree, that interest groups most certainly contribute to democracy in elections. I suppose the better question would be, “Do the positive contributions made by interest groups outweigh the negative effects when it comes to democracy in elections?” and the answer to that question, in my opinion, is no. I am of the opinion that, overall, these large interest groups serve more to hinder the advancement of democratic societies than help.
ReplyDeleteInterest groups embody the mantra of “money talks,” and this can be seen in their ability to influence candidates through campaign contributions. We think of a democracy being a type of government where individuals have an equal say, but interest groups greatly change this proportion, making it so that groups with the most funding have the most say in what policy decisions candidates will make. In addition to creating unequal representation, there is another dark side to campaign contributions, and it lies in smear campaigns. As my peers have so kindly pointed out, interest groups tend to take the funds that they contribute to candidates and spend them on an underhanded attempt to demonize the candidates running against their own. This, however, does not encourage voters to change sides when it comes to voting; rather, it leads to an increase in voter apathy. When all of the choices look terrible, people sometimes feel like it is better to just not pick at all. Democracy can only thrive when people have faith in the system, and the campaigns that are created by interest groups tend to dissuade the public from participating in the political process.
Advocates of interest groups would say that they allow for people who are not typically represented to have a voice in policy decisions, but I believe this to be false. While it is true that it allows members to feel like they are making a contribution, in reality, they are just a small fraction of the group’s power, which is more concentrated towards the leaders of the group. Unless you are in the upper echelon of the interest group, it is more likely that you will have to bite your tongue and agree with the majority of the group. Also, while interest groups have the power to positively inform the public of key issues through their campaign advertising, it is all too clear that the majority of interest groups do not have that idea in mind. A well informed public is another essential component of a true democracy that interest groups fail to contribute to, despite their influence.
Interest groups are definitely key contributors to the electoral process in the United States, but as far as contributing to the advancement of democracy, I would say they fall short of the mark. A necessary evil, they help to make elections more interesting and heated, but at the same time, they hide the real issues behind monetary donations to candidates, who just so happen to ignore the policies that group finds undesirable. Elections would be much cleaner and civilized, but at the same time, a lot more boring. Interest groups don’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon though, so let the mud-slinging begin!
-Eric Johnston
According to pluralism, multiple interest groups compete to force balance in our democracy for the common good of the people. While contributing to interest groups is a form of free speech and allows us to play a part in democracy, this doesn't necessarily make interest groups a good thing. The idea behind interest groups was to give the majority an active voice in the governing process and to use this voice to in a way that the minority cannot impose its will on them. Unfortunately, money has a voice that comes into play louder than any majority. Whether it is the majority of people pulling their money together to go after a common cause, or one person with a bottomless jar of money going after a cause that only they and very few others care about, what is heard is determined by the bottom dollar. Instead of being about the common good of the majority, it's about who has the most money. Also, the idea of pluralism is that the government plays a neutral role. I would argue that the government is now in a central role and the side that they are on is determined by who is writing them the fattest check. In this sense, the idea of plurality that James Madison put forth is not at all how interest groups now work.
ReplyDeleteThis money, that is now central to interest group function, influences the political process from top to bottom. Interest groups, essentially, decide who will run for office by seeing the chance that a candidate has to win, and if this is a high chance, pumping loads of money into their campaign. While they are not supposed to, interest groups clearly coordinate with campaigns and put forward commercials and ideas on behalf of the candidate. This is usually in exchange for some type of pull for their interest. Also, the congressional agenda is heavily swayed by interest groups. Rather than focusing on an issue that the majority of the American people would like, interest groups provide money and in turn, get legislation that benefits their interest on the top of the priority list. Clearly, interest group dollars outweigh majority opinion in every aspect of society. They do this in the name of free speech and money talks. Unfortunately, this takes away from the idea of pluralism and gives the rich majority a huge advantage over the poor minority. Minority outweighing the majority takes away from the idea of democracy.
In my opinion, interest groups gaining influence in the US electoral process is more of a positive than a negative. While there are some negatives to having them, individual citizens would undoubtedly have a more difficult time getting the issues that genuinely concern them recognized by the people who are in a position to make the changes that they desire. Cigler and Loomis accurately explain the role interest groups play in furthering democracy. They finance the issue advertisements frequently seen by most people in various forms of media, and these advertisements are highly effective in influencing the decisions of citizens across the country. The ability to amass significant support for a singular cause amongst a large group of people allows interest groups to further democracy in a way that is exclusive to them because an individual would not be able to do that on their own. When citizens have grievances and their grievances are being brought to the forefront and dealt with, they feel more inclined to participate as they feel their participation will actually help towards solving an issue. Bringing about the participation of others who may not have participated otherwise also furthers democracy. Interest groups make this society a more legitimate democracy than it would have been had they never existed, and for that reason they are essential to this country and any democracy for that matter.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe interest groups are ultimately bad for democracy. While I do agree with the readings from Cigler and Loomis in that they are more effective than individuals in their ability to get the collective voice of the people heard and act in a democratic way by doing so, many people are still being left out in this process.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is a government by the majority, and I feel as though the majority should not consist of only those that have enough money to get their issues heard and then represented. Many issues of concern by smaller interest groups go unnoticed and unsolved because they cannot get enough financial support. One group's interest should not be favored just because of the amount of money they can raise for the candidate outweighs another group's contribution. Amount of money should also not determine the importance of an issue if its one the American people feel needs addressed. This seems to be a polar opposite of democracy's core conceptual framework.
As if the financial issue is not enough to show interest groups ever-increasing negative role on democracy, we must then consider just who does get their voices heard. Those under the impression that every person in the interest group gets their say in legislation and elections must realize this is an impossibility. Only those in power within the group will be recognized and given a voice. As many have pointed out, these people in power have typically been with the group for awhile and have more extreme viewpoints than others without the power to input. This lack of a middle-ground voice can be ultimately detrimental to democracy, because it can inaccurately represent the popular opinion if it is different than that of the extremists.
The ability to sling mud in a political setting at all is unsettling and becomes increasingly more so when we consider that the relationship between the amount of mudslinging interest groups can do and the amount of money they can contribute is a positive one. When (most likely) false information about candidates can be spread to the masses via television, radio, and social networking (which I would wager is how much of the world gets its information about said candidates), the people are obviously being misinformed. How can this be anything but a negative impact on democracy when the people cannot be sure of the information they are basing their opinions on.
The influence of interest groups on democracy is large and in charge, perhaps even too big to fail. One thing I know for sure though is that when I get up in the morning and ponder over my morning coffee whether or not my interests are being accurately represented, I feel as though interest groups in their role in democracy have failed me.
India Ross
The question of whether or not interest groups are bad or good for democracy is an interesting question. In recent elections, many interest groups have become heavily involved, running ads to advocate for certain policies and for particular candidates. These interest groups have generated a lot of money, and money essential talks and can empower candidates. My classmate Eric Johnston, drives my point home when he says money talks, and interest groups are able to persuade and influence potential candidates. I believe in an ideal society and in a perfect democracy, interest groups would benefit the majority of people. In an ideal world, the interests of all people would hold the same weight and mean the same equally; however, that is not the case here. Not every interest forms an interest group, and I am sure in a country of this size there are plenty of interests and views of citizens that are not being heard or even addressed. The way interest groups work in our political and electoral systems is reason for that.
ReplyDeleteIn class we discussed, some of the negative implications interest groups have on democracy and the electoral process. Interest groups like to give money to sure things such as incumbents, and rarely spend their time on other no name people who have no chance of being put into office. While this may not seem like it is a huge deal, it is when it comes to campaign funds and who has more money and an advantage while campaigning. If a challenger is a better fit for an office over an incumbent, yet has no money and stands on an opposite side of an issue of a large and powerful interest group he or she is at a disadvantage. The idea of interest groups financing mudslinging ads is one that holds a lot of merit. Candidates are not the ones, for the most part, running the negative ads that is what their interest group supporters are for. They have money to throw at running negative one sided ads that make a huge difference in the outcome of elections. We discussed in class how negative ads lead to a poor voter turnout, yet interest groups still advertise and run these types of ads because they do influence people.
One of my classmates stated earlier that interest groups seek legislative outcomes that represent a group of citizens, yes this is true. They then went on to say this is what democracy is all about, getting the voice the people heard by the government. I have a hard time buying that argument. While interest groups represent different groups of people, they are not representing the whole and the argument they were making, presented itself in a way that all people were being heard by the government. No, the voices being heard are the extreme in interest groups, the ones who have money and can pay others to listen. In a perfect society interest groups would benefit the public, but in all actuality, they hinder the political process by limiting the market place of ideas. If we could ever get to the place where the interests of all people were accepted and listened too, we would be in a better place and the idea of interest groups would allow the political and electoral process of this democracy to excel, reach maximum potential and success.
While some may claim that interest groups allow more voices to be represented in a bipartisan system, therefore helping the democratic American ideal, I admittedly disagree. As discussed in both the work of Cigler and Loomis, as well as our class discussions, interest groups rely heavily on the money at their disposal. The three ways interest groups influence legislators is in the form of direct lobbying, issue ads, and direct campaign contributions. As smaller groups, on the precipice of formation, or groups involving the interests of the disadvantaged, oppressed, or underrepresented attempt to be heard in elections, they will be squelched by larger groups. Groups connected to citizens, corporations, and congressmen of means will logically buy ad space, occupy the conversation, and play for the interests of the incumbent.
ReplyDeleteAs my fellow student, Michael Quillen suggested, “This idea can be traced back to Chapter 11 in Ciglar and Loomis's book, where they mention how interest groups resemble a permanent, yet decisive actor in affecting policy decisions. Since candidates rely on certain group contributions and insight regarding particular bills, they find themselves trying to pass bills that specifically target or give benefits to those certain members of the group.” While Michael argues that this permanent voice, bought by those interest groups with status, money, and power, motivated Congressmen to work for the people, advancing American ideals, I admittedly disagree. This creates a system that allows for no talk for compromise or American ideals, this creates a system in which the incumbent, the corporations, and the upper class working for their own interests. Think of “concentrated benefits/diffused cost” from the last unit. Apply that to the capitalism and privilege found here. The milk farmers work with the Congressmen to stay in a position of power, and the huddled masses remain in the dark, without representation.
In addition to the aforementioned negative repercussions, as described by Sean Weaver, the mudslinging found in campaign ads leads to weak bipartisan system we find in America today. These ads, fueled by the funding of interest group/superpac efforts, misrepresent and simplify the views of each candidate, focusing on the negative, squelching any discussion for compromise and progress, and frustrating the average American voter. While in theory, interest groups are the best way for multiple groups to voice their opinion and allow for discussions of special interest, individual issues, and representation, our current capitalistic climate as well as the systematic oppression found within American “democracy” makes this impossible. In sum, the voice and power of interest groups in modern elections perpetuates the competitive dichotomy of Republican v. Democrat.
Interest groups obviously have a significant impact on elections. Some argue that the involvement of interest groups in campaigns and elections is bad for democracy but I fee the good outweigh the bad. Interest groups have many different ways and reasons for showing their support for a specific candidate or their disapproval of another. Interest groups have to work with whoever is elected into office in order to push the interests of the large number of people so I personally have no problem with them donating money to campaigns. These groups are important players in policy making which is important and not bad for democracy. I can see however how some of these groups are corrupt since they do not have to tell who donated the money to the specific campaign. Although there may be some corruption problems in some areas with the donations and issue ads that interest groups put out there, I feel their role in elections and campaigns is good for democracy since they advocate for the needs of large groups of people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInterest groups greatly influence the US electoral process, but not always for the better. In chapter 7 of Cigler and Loomis, it is mentioned that funding from interest groups can create a third party which helps to offset the problems associated by bipartisanism; the problem, however, is that these third parties are very few and far between because the groups do not want to fund a candidate that is not (or extremely unlikely) going to win. It is also a problem when the groups that are better funded and larger are able to make contributions to a candidate and that candidate adds their interests to his platform. While all interests need to be heard, only the ones who can pay for the time will be able to impact the elections. An example would be Monsanto. Monsanto was backed by many wealthy corporations that would benefit from the industry, but the voices of farmers who would be put at a disadvantage due to Monsanto were barely heard at all. Now, Monsanto is able to take advantage of farmers because they contributed money to the elections; had the farmers been able to put the same amount of money into the election, it would have been much harder for Monsanto to be signed in, if it was even signed in at all.
ReplyDeleteIf all interest groups had the opportunity to be heard equally and were not able to contribute money towards the elections (or even if the contributions were limited) then I believe that interest groups would be an integral and helpful part of our democracy. Today, however, the interest groups’ downfall is money. The actual interests of the groups mean nothing in the electoral system if they can’t back it up with monetary contributions.
Interest groups being involved in elections have their pros and cons.
ReplyDeletePROS:
1. They help get done what individuals can’t do alone! They give the people a large group to back. As Joshua Dukes stated, They work for the people involved in their groups and get people more involved with their government by lobbying and running ads.
2. They pay for and influence ads.
3. They’re permanent players in policy decision making (they influence policy makers to do what the people want!)
4. They seek legislative outcomes.
5. Donors can remain anonymous.
CONS:
1. Most of those ads are negative.
2. Anonymity within donors can seem sketchy.
3. Small interest groups may not have their voices heard.
4. Politicians need the backing of certain interest groups to afford the candidacy which may lead to unfair bias.
In Cigler and Loomis, it was pointed out that legislatures do not have time to read all the letters wrote by constituents and even answer phone calls. While it would be awesome if politicians could care about every American’s wants and needs, I think interest groups are a great way to get specific issues addressed. I would argue interest groups are democratic because of the way they influence politicians… they form, they expand and they keep their issue relevant in politics. It’s unfortunate that smaller groups and individuals will have a harder time getting their points across. As Emily said, members of groups such as AARP and Greenpeace have a much louder voice on Capitol Hill than the majority of Americans, and even smaller, "unheard of" interest groups.
Perhaps, there should be stronger laws against larger PAC donations and less anonymity. However, a donors could form new interest group with similar views and it would be a way around that rule. All the negative ads are awful, but limiting them and stopping people from spending their money how they see fit would lead down a slippery slope of what we’re aloud to express and freedom of speech. I would completely agree that interest groups make elections more about money, but I also think that’s democratic because the interest groups are formed of people expressing an interest, which is inherently democratic. No matter what, there will always be corruption. Interest groups give individuals a platform and a way for a large group of people to directly speak to their politicians.
money always talks. If you trace the money through any interest group, especially those involved with politics you'll see that those interest groups have exceptional influence in how politics are played in government. Those same interests wield tremendous power since some even literally have the funds to elect candidates entirely on their own. Maybe in an ideal world everybody's interest would be treated equally, however what we live in is not such an ideal world, and the more money that gets funneled through a single interest group directly dictates the amount of power that the interest group has. In that same ideal world every interest would form an interest group however in a country of our size sometimes many interests are largely ignored. Incumbents are one way to make sure that interest groups get their needs met.
ReplyDeleteincumbents are a "sure thing" if an interest group can be certain that one person is going to win, then of course they'd put their money into supporting that particular candidate. Then down the line the incumbent would remember that the interest group was there to help, and would be more easily convinced to listen to the interest group after helping in his campaign. The same can be told for those running for the first time. A small timer with no name would never be able to run against an incumbent with a massive interest group behind him. The amount of funding through interest groups just makes the entire system lopsided in terms of the incumbent having not just name recognition, but also an extreme advantage in the amount of money they can raise, and the speed with which they can get their message out. one of my classmates earlier explained this perfectly. Megan Midcap explained that the regular interests aren't being heard instead its the radical and extreme interest groups on wither side which are heard, and these interest groups dictate most of the power. In any type of ideal world interest groups would do what they are supposed to do, and support the public, and the interest that they are designed to enforce, however many interest groups take that to the extreme and instead form their own little niche and start hunting their own power. What we would need is a place where all interest groups are listened to equally, no matter how much money and influence they have at their disposal. However, sadly that isn't the world we live in. As it is interest groups are suppressing ideas, and halting the political process.
It is without question that interest groups play an important role in the American political system. It is my belief that interest groups do more harm than good in America's democracy, especially during campaigns. While interest groups do give citizens an opportunity for their belief to be heard from a louder voice than standing alone and perhaps frame the citizenry with issue ads (it's up to the voter to figure out the validity of said interest ad), their disservice outweighs the good that they provide.
ReplyDeleteSoft money, money from undisclosed sources, is the biggest flaw in campaign finance law. Many state the reason that the PACs and 527 groups can donate so much money to campaigns is their protection of freedom of speech. If one is not disclosing the source of the money, there is no speech. Soft money allows groups to donate copious amounts of money without criticism.
527 groups have an advantage over other groups because they are tax exempt (donors do not pay taxes on donations overs $10,000). Why should a group that is purely geared towards influencing the selection of candidates be exempt from taxes? The IRS should review their tax exempt status. In the 2007-2008 election cycle 527 groups had an expenditure of $258 million.
With all of this money coming from groups that have an agenda, the average citizen's voice can be lost. Though money does not buy votes in Congress, it does give powerful corporations access to some of the most powerful people in the country. Also, the non-cooridnation between interest groups and candidates is ridiculous, it is quite obvious that they do coordinate through a third party.
I am pessimistic about campaign finance laws being changed because 1) the argument that people's (and corporations) freedom of speech (donations) must be protected and 2) those who are able to change the laws are the ones who benefit from the status quo.
I think interest groups do provide beneficial things to democracy in the US. As we discussed in class, there are many reasons why high spending by an interest group can be a good thing. They give everyone a chance to speak their mind and put their opinion, no matter what it is, on the table for consideration. It also allows a collective group of people to come together and push for a new piece of legislation or some kind of change in the law, etc. Interest groups are also crucial in providing money to non-incumbents and can let the non-wealthy have an easier chance at contributing to a campaign by way of bundling.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while I do think interest groups are effective, I feel like they currently possess too much unneeded power in our election system. With PACs and Super PACs finding new ways to bypass the laws that are supposed to restrict them, I think it would be wise to examine them more closely and put more restrictions on what they can and cannot do. They can also have a negative effect on the minds of the voters who may see nothing but attack ads and eventually start to believe these things they see (especially if they are not very educated), no matter if they are true or not.
So interest groups I would say are needed in modern society, and can be very helpful to our form of government, but right now they really need cut down with restrictions and laws.
I believe that interest groups hurt democracy but I believe that they do good things. From the book, issue ads can reach into millions of households in the US to influence the people. But while doing this it can take away from important issues. Interest groups bring people together and get there interests out to the public. They do this by advertising. Outside lobbyist tries to influence elected representatives indirectly. Interest groups are very active in American elections so they will have a big impact on elections. But this can be bad because of it hurting democracy.
ReplyDeleteLike I said they get there opinion out on the candidate and what they want to do. But the thing with issue ads is that they take away from the actual issues of the candidate. They use the ads to bash the competition but it does not do their candidate any justices. If the issue ads would focus more on the actual changes their candidate wants to do then they will be better off. Interest groups use the money they have for these advertisements and if one group has more money than they can influence people to vote for their candidate and not the other using issue ads. This is a problem because it could drive out the person who is technically the best person for the job. Interest groups hurt the other people running by using issue ads to say terrible things about them.
I believe that interest groups do help candidates get their opinions out and helps them stand a chance. So that is a good thing that interests groups are good and not bad. By using their money and power they can get a good person in the ballot and he/she could be the better person for the job. But they struggle because they don’t have the money unless interest groups help them.
So interest groups can be good and bad. They do things to help the smaller politicians by using money to get their opinion out. But they also hurt democracy because they have too much money and can influence elections too easily.
William Keefer
Interest groups do a good job of bringing people with similar ideals together, but that is about the extent of good they do for our political system. What should be something celebrated for making our nation more diplomatic, these groups are instead used to exploit funding for campaigns.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with these groups is that they all revolve around one main idea and it has become clear in the past few elections that whatever party claims their support for said groups will then receive a large portion of their votes. This is not diplomacy, but instead a form of political bribery that has taken a hold of our political system and is swaying our elections. Groups like the NAACP and NRA both played large roles in the last election, and looking ahead it could be a group like The Feminist Majority in 2016. The only thing these groups are good for is pumping questionably raised money into negative advertisements intended to hurt the opposing candidate. As was said in class negative ads deter voters more than they change their mind, and anything that deters voters cannot be good for our nation.
It is undeniable that interest groups have a huge impact on democracy. I do believe that interest group give a voice and power to the people, but I also believe that they bring a lot of negativity into democracy. When summing it all up, I believe that interest groups do more harm than good, and that the negativity they bring into democracy outweighs the positive aspects.
ReplyDeleteIn class we discussed how over time, what a candidate needed to win his or her election has changed. In the 70s you needed people, and in today's elections you need money. Interest groups often rely on money to make an impact on campaigns. In fact, they sometimes form just to get past the cap put on individual spending within campaigns. Though a cap is placed on individual spending, people can form together into a political action committee (or PAC) and use "bundling". As long as each member of the PAC donates the same amount, the spending is not considered "individual" and there is no limit on how much the interest group can donate. This means that even though the majority of a people may agree on one side and donate $10,000 for a cause, a few millionaires can get together and donate millions against it, regardless of how the majority feels. With campaigns being influenced so heavily by money in today's world, the money-power could potentially outweigh the people-power in this case.
Another way in which interest groups bring negativity into democracy is the way they oftentimes falsely inform the public. In chapter 10, Cigler and Loomis speak much about the way interest groups use targeting and issue advertising to affect the way certain groups pf people vote and view a candidate. For example, one of the things we as Americans hate most about election time is all the mudslinging we encounter. PACs can say whatever they want about a candidate, regardless of its validity. Anything goes! The only rule is that the PACs do not coordinate with the campaign or candidate. The idea that PACs actually follow this rule, however, is simply a joke. Coordination takes place all the time behind closed doors, yet no one has ever been punished for it. This is a form pf corruption. All this mudslinging done by interest groups is a voter turn-off. Discouraging people to vote is probably one of the last things that should EVER take place during a campaign.
After doing a little research on my own, I came across an article written by a political science professor from the University of Northern Iowa. On the topic of interest groups in democracy, he wrote, “One example of such influence was the use of certain conservative Web sites to circulate negative information about former President Bill Clinton, some of it accurate and some of it grossly distorted or fabricated. This probably helped keep the momentum for Clinton's impeachment going.” (Hayes, Allen). This is an example of how interest groups can have a negative influence in campaigns. The web sites mentioned had falsely informed the public with information about President Bill Clinton. Was this illegal? Absolutely not!
In addition, the leaders of interest groups are often very extremist in their views. For example, the leader of the NRA probably will not be a kind gentleman who wishes to keep a single pistol in his house locked away for life-or-death situations. You will however, see a leader that is powerful, one-sided, and stern in his or her views to own as many guns as he or she wants. No interest group will ever be lead by someone who seeks some sort of compromise or moderation. Interest groups try to make campaigns completely black and white. With extremist leaders, interest groups have the ability to make members seem to stand for more than they may actually want to.
Hayes, Allen.
2001. Democracy Papers: The Role of Interest Groups http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/docs/demopaper/dmpaper9.html
When referring to interest groups affecting the political process, I would have to say that overall they are bad for democracy. They put some candidates at a disadvantage due to the amount of money they are able to supply-chances are, if the person running isn't an incumbent, then they aren't likely to see any big bills from an interest group thrown their way. Therefore, they have a great influence over the congressional agenda, as they influence with money the issues they want to promote. Magnifying and concentrating on certain issues wouldn't be a problem if we all shared the same views, but obviously we do not, which is where the unfairness stems from. Also, probably one can assume that the more money an interest group has the more likely they are to be heard, subsequently pushing other interest groups into the back ground to fade out. Interest groups are good at creating opportunities for polarization by bringing forth issues that democrats or republicans will inevitably feel strongly about.
ReplyDeleteThe last aspect that gets out of hand with interest groups are the media ads bashing other candidates that are constantly being put out. I can see where these ads started-perhaps to be informative, logical, efficient, etc. Now, they really aren't any of the above. If anything, they probably keep people away from the polls. If someone is slightly leaning toward a candidate and one of these ads come on saying that said candidate started a forest fire fifteen years ago, the person listening to that ad will be less inclined to go vote. It is not necessarily that they would go vote for the other candidate, now they aren't motivated to go to the polls at all. A lose lose for everyone involved.
When looking back at elections pre-1970s and post-1970s, it is easy to see the ever-increasing role that interest groups have played in United States politics. Has the ever-increasing role of interest groups in the United States been positive or negative, though, is the question that we must now answer approximately 40 years after interest groups started to really gain influence and power. To answer that question, I do believe that interest groups have been both positive and negative for democracy in the United States. While my answer may seem contradictory, I think that you cannot discount valid arguments (and facts) made by each side.
ReplyDeletePositive: More interests are represented than ever before. This is more of a fact than and argument; for example, before the advent of interest groups, when would the interests of reptile keepers in the United States ever have been represented? Thanks to the advent of interest groups, reptile keepers formed a collective interest group, U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers (http://usark.org), that spent $20,000 in lobbying in 2012 to “preserve reptiles and amphibians for our future.” In this example, interest groups have “helped” democracy because their is an interest group for just about anything a person could feel passionate about.
Negative #1: Although there are hundreds, if not thousands of interest groups out there, some interests are much more heard than others. In our class discussion, we tend to use the same interest groups as examples: EMILY’s List, NRA, PETA, AARP, etc. Why do we use these interest groups as examples all the time? Mainly because these are some of the largest and most powerful interest groups in the nation; therefore, they are widely known. A major reason why we never use the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers as an example is because they are neither large nor powerful. In short, interest groups hurt democracy because even though there may be an interest group for whatever you may be passionate about, it is not a guarantee that your interest group will be powerful or influential (in essence, it won’t be equally heard).
Negative #2: As we have discussed in class, many of the nation’s largest and most powerful interest groups tend to represent the extremes of the interests on controversial issues. Take the abortion issue for example: on one side, EMILY’s List represents the liberal (left-wing) viewpoint, while National Right to Life represents the conservative (right-wing) viewpoint on the other side. The question then becomes, who represents the moderate (center) viewpoint? As Cigler and Loomis point out in Chapter 7, unconnected or independent interest groups (like these two examples) are ideologically driven; therefore, people join there groups because they feel very passionate ideologically one way or the other. Most people who tend to take moderate viewpoints on a certain issue, usually do not feel that passionate about that certain issue as their left and right-wing counterparts. In short, interest groups hurt democracy because moderate (center) viewpoints tend to be well under-represented if represented at all.
While there are some definite positives for democracy that come from interest groups, I do tend to believe that the negatives (as noted above) outweigh the positives.
Interest groups and their effect on democracy in America has been a widely debated topic now for some time. Though there are many solid arguments that can be made on both sides of the spectrum, many more can be made on the side of negative impact than positive.
ReplyDeleteAs many of my fellow classmates have said, interest groups allow an arena for practically any interest that someone could feel passionately about or affects their livelihood to have a voice on a national scale. In theory, this is excellent for the democratic process. The problem is, though, that very few groups actually have a strong presence in government because only a select few have what it takes to be relevant: money, and lots of it. Powerful groups using large capital contributions to congressmen's campaigns results in legislation drafted and supported in order to please the group, rather than that congressman's constituency or the overall good of the country. This creates an environment for corruption, where the upper class collude with policy makers for decisions that benefit each other, while the lower class majority/less funded interests are left by the wayside.
Additionally, when it comes to campaign funding, interest groups care little about a prospective congressman's ideals compared to how much they care about his chances of winning. Groups do not want to make a losing investment, so they often stack their chips to incumbents, who are reelected 95% of the time according to class lecture. This makes for an unlevel playing field in congress races, which can be considered against American ideals. The correlation between the reelection rate of incumbents and interest group support can be blamed for the trend of "career congressmen" and house stagnancy.
Looking at the argument in it's most simple of forms, to me, is the best way to analyze it. In theory, the purpose of a democracy is to elect officials to run society so not everyone has to do it. These officials are chosen by those in their areas to represent their best interests. Interest groups, though, don't represent anyone's interests but their own. By being persuaded by interest groups, politicians are often sacrificing varying interests for the benefit of one. Of course, this is not a perfect world and not all of that logic always holds true, but the modern use of interest groups goes against the success of democracy by definition. Moving forward, I would like to see more regulation of interest groups in American government.