1.
Email me
at the address on the syllabus (berchnorto@msn.com). I will respond emailed questions until 1 pm
on the day of the exam.
2.
You may post a question in the comments section
of this blog post (this has been very effective in other classes). I will answer any questions posted on the
blog before 11 am on the day of the exam (technical reasons for the earlier
deadline). I urge you to take a look at
the comments on Wednesday before the exam, so you can take advantage of the
questions asked by your colleagues.
3.
I will have office hours on the day of the exam(as
well as on Monday, March 31) from 1:45 to 3:20.
The format of the exam is simple. There will be three essay questions chosen
from the list below. You will be
required to answer two of those questions.
Given that you have the questions ahead of time, I will expect
high-quality answers that make use of the readings, lectures, discussions, and
blog assignments where appropriate.
1.
Many
believe that the 2010 Citizens United decision has dramatically changed the
landscape of campaigns and elections.
Describe the major provisions in that decision, as well as its impact on
court cases that followed it. Using
evidence and reasoning from the Interest Groups Unleashed book, our
lectures and class discussions, and any other information you wish, assess the
impact of the decision on campaigns and elections. Be as specific as possible.
2.
There is little doubt that interest groups in
the US are strong and growing stronger.
Some say this is good for democracy; others say it is bad. What are the major arguments on each
side? Who is right, and why? Be as specific as possible.
3.
Some argue that shifting to a parliamentary
system (specifically, a Westminster system like that in England or Canada)
would curb the power of interest groups in the United States. Others say it will not have much of an impact
(or will even increase interest group power).
Taking into account the readings, lectures, discussions, and especially
the blog assignment on this topic, what are the major arguments on each
side? Who is right, and why? Be as specific as possible.
4.
While a great deal of attention has been focused
on the role of interest groups in elections, some say that their lobbying
efforts are at least as important (and don’t receive enough attention). Making particular use of chapters 10-15 of
the Cigler and Loomis book, what are some major recent developments in
lobbying? In your view, is lobbying as
important as the electoral activities of interest groups? Explain, using reasons and evidence.
Hi Dr. Berch,
ReplyDeleteCan you explain what the spatial model in chapter 11 of Cigler and Loomis tells us about interests groups' influence in policy making? Thanks!
Let me start by saying that I don't necessarily agree with Victor. She argues that you can use a one-dimensional (liberal-conservative) spatial model to analyze interest group lobbying behavior. She notes that institutional structures that inhibit change (the filibuster and the veto) mean that there will often be gridlock. She further claims that interest groups will attempt to get what they want by providing information that will influence key Senators to either end gridlock, get a bill passed, or produce gridlock. And she uses a couple of examples (tobacco and abortion legislation) to support her contentions. However, considering politics to be one-dimensional is problematic (on tobacco, for instance, geography is at least as important as ideology), and Victor fails to consider that not every Senator has equal power. Also, each issue is not separate from all others; how you vote on one issue may influence how I vote on another. Victor's model fails to account for that as well. She's got a good point in theory, I think, but the model has limited practical application.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat were some later court decisions affected by Citizens United? How were they affected?
ReplyDeleteI found SpeechNow.org v. FEC, but is that the only main one? Can you explain its provisions?
DeleteThat is the main case. It's an extension of Citizens United, which only ruled that corporations could spend as much of their own money as they wanted to support or defeat candidates. Using the same reasoning as in Citizens United, an appellate court ruled in SpeechNow.org that organizations that get contributions from individuals (SuperPacs) could use as much money as they wanted to support or defeat candidates. Once Citizens United was decided early in 2010, this decision (later that year) was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
Delete