The Role of Special Interest Groups in American Politics

THE ROLE OF SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS IN AMERICAN POLITICS

Like political parties, pressure groups can be considered another system that connects the citizen more directly to government. However, at the same instant there are marked differences in both composition and function that define interest groups as different entities from larger political parties. According to V.O. Key Jr. in a composition appropriately entitled Pressure Groups; pressure groups “Ordinarily… concern themselves with only a narrow range of policies;” and unlike the goals of political parties, their intentions are to “influence the content of public policy rather than the results of elections.” Nevertheless, it is a realized fact that special interest groups with a mass membership are considered to be congregations with enough power to affect election results and “pressure party leaders, legislators, and others in official position to act in accord with their wishes…”

Although it is accepted that pressure groups indeed pressure politics in certain directions, it is quite a different task to describe how pressure groups link public opinion to government action. Apparently the driving force behind action is not as cut and dry as the image of “the lobbyist who speaks for a united following, determined in its aims and prepared to reward its friends and punish its enemies at the polls.” In reality, it may appear that spokesmen of mass-membership pressure groups are “unrepresentative of the opinions of their members.” This perception, however, does not take into account the wide potential for variability in policy opinion that can occur within large groups. On the contrary, it is not a “wicked betrayal” or a “deliberate departure from the mass mandate;” it is more likely that there are other theorems with which to explain this phenomenon. Alike to all other human groups, “opinions…do not fall into blacks and whites.” In Keys’ essay, he attempts to hypothesize that there are naturally stratified layers of activism and pacifism within group membership. “It may be nature of mass groups that attachment to the positions voiced by the peak spokesmen varies with the attachment to and involvement in the group.” When the functioning of these groups are looked upon in this manner, it is logical to assume that special interest groups “invar...

... middle of paper ...

...sp; Then again, there are those who defend the PAC system and profess that “contributions are an effect, not a cause” of political action; for these people, PACs are seen as a reward for support, not a method of buying support. PAC backers also feel the authorization of “the PAC channel keeps the process regulated and under public scrutiny. Money from smaller donors can now be “pooled with like-minded voters.” Jack Webb of HouPAC concurs with this stance, “PACs get people involved who otherwise might not be. They’re a damned good thing.”

One thing that cannot be refuted by either side of the PAC argument, however, is the tremendous influence PACs have had on the American Political stage since their conception and growth during the 1970s. With the continued volume of money moving from PACs to candidates without major regulation, it is safe to say that PACs will continue to seriously influence the path of the American legislative process.

Just as Michael Malbin, a political analyst for the American Enterprise Institute states, “unless you repeal the First Amendment, people with private interests in legislation will continue be active.”