Interest Groups and the Governing Process

The student may inquire what all these activities of organized groups have to do with politics. Campaigns and elections, it may be repeated, are not the totality of politics. Our conception of the political process is broad enough to cover all sorts of efforts to guide, influence, or affect governmental action. The striving for power, for status, for privilege is never-ending and not restricted to campaigns and elections. Administrators take action every day. Legislators make laws. Organized groups incessantly seek to influence these decisions which are, in a sense, the pay off of the process of politics in which elections are but episodes, albeit significant episodes. The decisions taken between elections constitute the basic stuff of politics, the pelf and glory for which men and groups battle. And the stakes of between-elections politics are great. A conservative estimate, say, of the costs imposed on consumers by the public policies borne of the efforts of the sugar lobby would be $100,000,000 annually.

A working conception of the political process must take into account the interactions among groups, interests, and governmental institutions that produce such decisions. Moreover, a working conception of the political system must make a place for organized interest groups: they not only seek to exert influence; they are a part of the political system – elements quite as integral to the system as are political parties.

Representative Function of Private Groups

Obviously, organized groups, for good or ill, perform a function of representation in the political system. The characterization of the lobby as the "third house" puts the point vividly if somewhat exuberantly. The explanation of the development of this system of spokesmen for specialized segments of society probably rests in part on the shortcomings of geographical representation in a highly differentiated society. Legislators could speak authoritatively for the more or less homogeneous interests of their districts in a less complex society. The relative simplicity of legislative questions permitted easy accommodation of geographical representation to such necessity as existed for functional representation. The growth of the number of specialized interests in society and the increasing complexity of legislative questions created tasks beyond ready performance by spokesmen for geographical areas. No legislator could regularly be relied upon to look out for interests that spread across many districts. Organized groups supplement the system of geographical representation.

Representation does not consist solely in serving as a conduit for sentiments already in existence among the members of a group. Antecedent to the expression of group views is a process of creation of those views. Associations – or their committees – engage in extensive study and discussion in reaching decisions on their program for legislation. By this process differences are ironed out and the association can approach the public and the government with a united front. Reconciliation of differences within interest groups facilitates the work of legislatures and of Congress by reducing the number of conflicts with which they have to deal, as well as by giving the government an authoritative statement of the group position. Government is then left with the task of ironing out conflicts between opposing groups.

The hammering out within private groups of consensus on public policy often produces legislative proposals that both reflect the views of the group and take into account the angularities of the situation with which legislation deals. Legislators, to be sure, could work out the details of policy proposals. On major issues they may do so, but countless lesser legislative schemes evolve within the groups to be concerned, greatly to the relief of legislators and often by no means to the detriment of the public interest. In fact, the most efficacious statutes may well be those enacted at the behest of private groups which advocate measures to protect the group as a whole from the actions of its unethical fringe – or from its competitors.

Representation includes more than advocacy; it extends to the maintenance of close watch on the legislative process to spot threats to the interest of the constituency represented. The staffs of pressure groups perform this intelligence function, an operation that requires skill, for often hidden away in bills are clauses with the most untoward effects, at times not intended by anyone concerned. An alert lobbyist may prevent foolish or uninformed action. Whatever the portent of a bill may be, the group staff sounds the alarm to arouse the membership. One sometimes suspects that the staffs thrive on attempts to panic the members by horrendous accounts of what is in prospect in the way of public regulation. The group bureaucracy prospers as it succeeds in arousing fears, but individuals are likely to be much less well informed on what the legislative trend holds in store for them than are their lobbyists.

To say that pressure groups perform a representative function is not to assert that public officials should not be wary of them. Most groups do not include nearly all persons of the class they purport to represent. The National Association of Manufacturers includes only a small proportion of the manufacturers of the nation. Probably two-thirds of the farmers are not affiliated with any farm organization. Members of pressure groups tend to be the more aggressive, often the more prosperous, or the larger units of the potential membership. Thus, the larger farmers affiliate with farm groups in a higher degree than do others. This greater frequency of affiliation from the upper brackets appears to be common to nearly all organized groups. Even among the aged pensioners, it seems that those who are "slightly privileged" are the more active.

Resolutions, programs, and platforms may reflect the views of its leaders and bureaucracy rather than those of the association's membership. At times the controlling oligarchy may, of course, express sentiments widely held within the membership. On other occasions the leadership of a non-party group may be unfaithful to its trust or may misrepresent the views of the association. Still other situations may by no means be what they seem. An urbanization with an impressive letterhead and name purports to speak for thousands or hundreds of thousands of persons when it consists of nothing more than an energetic promoter financed by some interest not eager to make its identity known. Or the promoter may simply have seen an opportunity to make a killing by collecting contributions from the gullible. Or perfectly respectable organizations may be used as fronts. A recurring situation is illustrated by the remark of an official of the Association of American Railroads about a bill sponsored in the New Jersey Legislature by the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New Jersey: "Mr. Russell thinks it inadvisable to let it be known ... that this bill was prepared by railroad counsel or is in any sense sponsored by a committee of the Association." Or false-front organizations may be established for short-term tactical advantage.

These observations make clear that groups differ in their performance of the representative function. The spokesmen of some groups may be relied upon to present a case that has been preceded by extensive group deliberation. Others speak only for a small but active minority within the group. Some lobbyists gain reputations as men who will provide legislators with trustworthy information and advice; others follow hit-and-run tactics.