Transcript Document

THE PLURALIST BATTLE
A Theoretical Look at the Critiques and
Defenses of Interest Group Power
Jared N. Lyles
Senior Capstone – Political Science
Dr. Jeremy Lewis
Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Introduction
Literature survey and the critiques of pluralism
Madison, Marx, Weber, Olson, and
Schattschneider
Literature survey and the defense of pluralism
Bentley, Truman, Berry, Dahl, Domhoff, and
Mahood
The modern critique of the pluralist battle
Conclusion
Introduction
 The
pluralist battle began with Federalist
#10 by James Madison
 The debate consists of two highly polarized
sides: defenders and critics of pluralism
 Evolution of the pluralist battle into today’s
political society
Literature Survey
Critiques of pluralism
James Madison
Federalist #10
The famous paper warning of the
“mischiefs of factions.”
Karl Marx
The Communist
Manifesto
Critique of capitalism and
alienation of labor
Max Weber
Theory of Social
and Economic
Organization
The rational behavior which leads
to individual need satisfaction
Mancur Olson
The Logic of
Collective Action
The “logic” behind people’s
unwillingness to organize
E.E. Schattschneider Scope and Bias of
The importance of a common
the Pressure System interest and the lack of
representation by special interest
Literature Survey
Defending Pluralism
Arthur
Bentley
The Process of
Government
The necessity of groups in
governmental problem solving
David
Truman
The Governmental
Process
Groups at heart of democratic
process and attack of critiques
Jeffrey Berry The Interest Group
Society
The growth, resources, and
origins of interest groups
Robert Dahl
Dilemmas in Pluralist
Democracy
Functions of groups in securing
an ideal democracy
G. William
Domhoff
Who Rules America
Now? (1983 & 2000)
A look at the changes in
political society over 20 years
H.R. Mahood Interest Groups in
American Nat’l Politics
Affiliation can obtain benefits
not generally available
The Pluralist
Battle Today
Research
Citizen.Org Reports
Two case studies of interest group power
Federal Election Commission Studies:
PAC and party fundraising
The Candidate as a Campaign Spectator:
How the candidate has lost power to the special
interest groups
Buying Time: Moneyed Interest and Mobilization
of Bias:
The effects of special interests during the committee
stage
Auto Industry
Case Study
 Auto
safety legislation born out of the
Ford/Firestone rollover crashes
 Would require companies to recall defective
vehicles and alert government about defects
 5 senators, who were recipients of auto industry
money, put a freeze on the legislation
 Auto Industry pushed through much weaker bill
that gave even more secrecy and protection to the
auto industry
Asbestos Legislation
Case Study Overview
 Samuel
Heyman and the GAF Corporation
 “Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act”
 What the bill would do and how GAF would gain
from the passage
 How the bill would effectively achieve this end
 Examples
of the relationship between the money
contributions and the support of the bill
Asbestos Legislation
Case Study
 13
House sponsors received $1,000 within 2
days to 4 months of sponsoring the bill
 50% of Heyman contributions went to
individuals with access to influence on bill
 Gave $40,000 to DSCC, which is chaired by
the ranking Democrat on the committee
 In total, $110,000 went to members of the
committee handling the bill
Decrease in The
Number of PAcs
Number of PACs, 1990:
4,193
Number of PACs, 1995:
3,982
Number of PACs, 2000:
3,706
4,200
4,100
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,700
3,600
3,500
3,400
7/1/1990
7/1/1995
7/1/2000
Number of
PACs
Rise of Pac
fundraising
Contributions to Individ.:
167 million, up from
134.3 million
Total Disbursements:
357.7 million, up from
279 million
Total Receipts:
430.6 million, up from
344.5 million
Data from 9/00 FEC Study
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Individ.
Contribut
ions
Disburse
ments
Total
Receipts
1/99 6/00
1/97 6/98
Rise of party
fundraising
1992 Election Cycle:
Dem.- 191.8, Rep.- 316.1
1994 Election Cycle:
Dem.- 170.2, Rep.- 276.2
1996 Election Cycle:
Dem.- 332.3, Rep.- 548.7
1998 Election Cycle:
Dem.- 244.9, Rep.- 404.6
2000 Election Cycle:
Dem.- 513.0, Rep.- 691.8
Data from 1/01 FEC Study
700
600
500
Rep.
Party
Dem.
Party
400
300
200
100
0
1992
1996
2000
The Power of Money
Candidate as a
Campaign Spectator

Money from large
interest groups has
begun to have several
affects on the
campaigns and the
candidates.
Buying Time: The
Mobilization of Bias

An alternative look at
the impact and
importance of money
in the political
process.
Campaign Finance
Reform
Data from
Gallup
Poll
3/9/2001
Strongly
Favor
Much
Better
Moderate
In Favor
A Little
Better
Moderate
Against
About the
Same
Strongly
Oppose
A Little
Worse
No
Opinion
Much
Worse
Favor new
laws that
limit the
amount of
contribution
51%
25%
10%
9%
5%
How much
would this
type of law
help?
22%
37%
32%
3%
2%
Decline in Voter
Turnout
70
1960 – 62.8%
1992 – 55.2%
2000 – 51.0%
60
50
40
Turnout
30
20
10
Information from Committee for
the Study of the American
Electorate
0
1960
1992
2000
Organizational
Involvement-Education
Perct. of people involved
in organizations that
take political stands:
90
80
70
8th Grade or Less: 10%
Some High School: 24%
H.S. Graduate:
42%
Some College:
51%
College Graduate: 65%
Some Grad School: 70%
Grad. School Degree: 82%
8th & Less
Some HS
HS Grad.
Some Coll.
Coll. Grad.
Some GS
GS Deg.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
% Involved
Source: Crotty, Schwartz, and Green. Representing Interests and Interest Group
Representation. University Press of America, 1991. P. 76.
Organizational
Involvement - Income
Percent of people involved in
organizations that take
political stands by income:
>15,000
80
70
60
Less than 15,000:
15,000-24,999:
25,000-34,999:
35,000-49,000:
50,000-74,999:
75,000-124,999:
125,000 or more:
29%
39%
51%
56%
57%
72%
77%
50
40
30
20
10
0
% Involved
Source: Crotty, Schwartz, and Green. Representing Interests and Interest Group
Representation. University Press of America, 1991. P. 76.
15,00024,999
25,00034,999
35,00049,999
50,00074,999
75,000124,999
125,000
+
Conclusion
 Most
of the current state of the American
political system lends support to the
arguments of the pluralist critics
 Some still argue that interest groups serve to
educate and activate the public
 The Madisonian Dilemma still exists