INFLUENCING PUBLIC POLICIES

1
INFLUENCING PUBLIC POLICIES
Textbook images of U.S. government gloss over the
impact of organizations in shaping local, state,
national public policies through lobbying on
issues important to their members
constituents interests. Political sociologists
and political scientists study the
institutionalized political structures and
processes, which may help to answer some
questions about Congress 9/11 response
Why does Republican Houses economic stimulus
bill return 21 billion in corporate minimum
taxes (paid since 1986!) to General Electric,
IBM, General Motors others? Why does Democratic
Senates bill propose personal tax rebates,
extended unemployment benefits, health-care for
out-of-work taxpayers? Why a 10 million
provision for bison-ranchers like Ted Turner but
no subsidy for depleted food pantries?
2
Power Structure Theories I
Three broad perspectives on U.S. national power
structures depict differential political
domination by business organizations.

• Marxist ruling class theory A unified upper
  class uses its economic power to dominate the
  political system
• Close social network ties create cohesive
  ideology (laissez faire market capitalism) and
  solidary political action
• Ruling class leaders decide what issues reach
  the public policy agenda via control of mass
  media, research institutes, elections
• Ruling class always wins on every major issue
  where its interests are at stake

QUEX What evidence that Rockefeller/Morgan-contro
lled banks and conservative think tanks make the
nations major policy decisions war, peace,
domestic affairs?
3
Power Structure Theories II

• Elite theories National power is concentrated in
  peak corporate, bureaucratic, nonprofit,
  educational military organizations controlled
  by power elite leaders (C.W. Mills)
• Primary task of an organizational elite is to
  advance their particular organizations interests
• Unified interests actions are always
  problematic (e.g., industry conflicts over
  foreign trade insurers vs the insured)
• Interlocking directorate is a major mechanism
  for elite communication and coordination, via
  multi-board directors
• Integration also by career moves of leaders
  across orgl sectors
• Business ideological PACs synchronize campaign
  finances

QUEX Do career paths of top business
government leaders such as George Bush, Colin
Powell, Dick Cheney, Bob Rubin reveal a
revolving door?
4
Power Structure Theories III

• Pluralist theories Power is fragmented among
  many socioeconomic groups temporary competing
  coalitions pursue diverse issues
• U.S. constitutional checks-and-balances divides
  power among many institutions, blocking
  domination by one group
• Career candidates interest groups trade public
  policies for campaign contributions election
  votes
• Competition for re-election compels politicians
  to appeal to centrist voter coalitions, not to
  policy extremists
• Coalitions of organized interest groups mobilize
  group resources pressure (lobby) officials to
  make policy decisions favorable to their members
  constituents

QUEX Does this idealistic pluralist image
disguise the behind-scenes manipulation by real
ruling class/elites?
5
Political Organizations
Are organized interest groups substantially
different from SMOs?
Conventional view that social movements represent
outside challengers trying to get their views
heard inside the polity e.g., feminist,
anti-war, gay-lesbian, civil rights. SMOs may
resort to illegitimate tactics such as street
protests violence. Interest groups are
legitimate insiders that pressure officials using
conventional political tactics, such as letters
meetings.
Alternative views deny any meaningful
distinctions Political orgs (Knoke) or interest
orgs (Burstein) deploy the entire range of
tactics to try influencing the political system

• Dual democratic functions of political orgs
• Aggregate represent some citizens policy
  preferences to elected appointed public
  officials
• Provide channel for officials to communicate
  about benefits to their electoral constituencies

6
Proliferating Political Orgs
Population ecology analysis of trade association
founding deaths rates reveals growth dynamics
during 20th century
Since 1960s, Washington and state capitals saw
rapidly rising numbers of business, professional,
labor, ethnic-racial, womens, environmental,
governmental, other political interest
orgs. Peak business assns NAM, BRT, Chamber of
Commerce reacted to increasing federal govt
intervention into the workplace economy.
7
PAC Man Eats Washington
Political organizations learned how to play the
complex power game created by an election
money-lobbying relationship.

• Enormous campaign costs for politicians in TV
  era
• Post-Watergate campaign financing reforms
  limited fat-cat contributors, increasing the
  importance of political groups able to bundle
  individual donations
• Lotsa loopholes (soft money) cynical public
  opinion
• Appearance of legalized bribery in exchange of
  campaign for legislative favors impact on
  falling voter turnout?
• Futile election-reform campaigns in 2000
  (McCain Nader)

Political Action Committee (PAC) independent
groups or affiliates of corporations, trade
assns, and unions that solicit campaign
contributions from members and donate to party
and candidate campaigns
8
Ideology or Access?
PACs allocations to candidates follow two basic
strategies Replacement strategy fund
supporters to defeat your opponents Access
strategy give to those in power so theyll
listen to you Divergent strategies after
Republicans took control of House in 1996
9
Lobbying Tactics
Political orgs deploy a range of lobbying tactics
to influence elected appointed officials. In
rough descending frequency

• Testimony at legislative or agency hearings
• Direct contacts with legislators or other
  officials
• Informal contacts with legislators or other
  officials
• Presenting research results
• Coalitions with other groups planning strategy
  with government officials
• Mass media talking to journalists paid
  advertising
• Policy formation drafting legislation,
  regulations shaping policy implementation
  serving on advisory commissions agenda-setting
• Constituent influence letter-writing or telegram
  campaigns working with influential citizens
  alerting legislators to district effects
• Litigation filing lawsuits or amici curiae
  (friend of the court) briefs
• Elections campaign contributions campaign work
  candidate endorsements
• Protests or demonstrations
• Other tactics monitoring influencing
  appointments doing personal favors for officials

10
Lobbying Strategy
Lobbying is NOT political bribery nor overt quid
pro quo dealing. Influence requires making the
most persuasive case Lobbyists give friendly
policy makers the information, substantive
analyses, politically accurate arguments about
why they should support the orgs preferred
solutions, instead of their opponents clearly
inferior indefensible proposals.
Successful political orgs mobilize their
resources to achieve three strategic goals
(Browne 1998). Winning attention outside game
keeping the publicity spotlight on the orgs
issue agenda, through the mass media in
legislative and regulatory arenas Making contact
inside game of schmoozing building close
network ties to officials, lobbyists, and other
brokers Reinforcement lobbyists keep coming
back, showing their issues are still alive,
reinforcing both their access and previously
discussed policy matters
11
Policy Domain Communication Networks
National policy domains orgs and institutions
engaged in efforts to create/change specific
policy proposals to solve substantive
problems EX health, energy, labor, agriculture,
defense Central orgs in a domain have numerous
communication ties, facilitating collaboration
policy information exchanges with potential
partners and with their opponents (political
intelligence gathering) Fig 9.6 (next slide)
shows 1988 core labor policy domain orgs at short
communication distances even though many took
opposing sides in labor policy fights (AFL-CIO vs
NAM, BRT, Chamber of Commerce)
12
Figure 9.6. Labor Policy Communication Network
1.5                                 0.0          
                    -1.5
 
NLRB
HD
ACLU
NEA
SD
UAW
SR
ABC
AARP
CHAM
NAM
BRT
DOL
HR
AFL-CIO
TEAM
ASCM
OSHA
NGA
WHO
-1.5
0.0
1.5
13
Lobbying Coalitions
When its interests are at stake in a
Congressional bill or regulatory ruling, a
political org can lobby alone or in coalition
Most political orgs work in coalitions a
division of labor Coalitions are short-lived
affairs for specific narrow goals EX impose or
lift restrictions on Persian rug imports Partners
in next coalition change with the specific
issues Politics makes strange bedfellows EX
Civil liberties Orgs that lobby together succeed
more often than soloists Broad cleavages emerge
within some policy domains EX Business vs
Unions in labor policy domain (next slide)
14
Fig 9.7 Lobbying Coalitions on 3 Labor Policy
Bills
 
Pro-Family Leave 1  
AARP, WE
AFT, ACT, ASCM, UE, NUL, NACP, NCSC, WLDF    
ACLU, AJC
NOW, NWPC, NWLC, WEAL
Pro-Family Leave 2  
AFL-CIO, UAW, USW, NEA, CWA, IAM, ILG, SEIU, UMW,
IUOE    
TEAM, ANA    
FCWU, LULAC
OCAW
Pro-Minimum Wage  
IAFF, ALA, MAN
Pro-Risk Board  
Anti-Risk Board  
NIOSH  
Ford, NAHB, NTMA, PIA    
AEA, GM, EEAC      
White House, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of
Justice Council of Econ Advrs
Anti-Family Leave  
ACLI, AMC, AGC, HIAA, NAII    
CHAM, NAM BRT, AFBF, ATA, ABC, NFIB, NSBU    
House Republicans  
ASFP    
Anti-Risk Board  
Anti-Family Leave Anti- Minimum Wage
Anti-Minimum Wage  
15
Who Wins?

• We know much less about the systematic influence
  of political orgs on the outcomes of public
  policy fights.
• No single political organization or enduring
  coalition prevails on every issue event of
  importance to it incrementalism prevails
• What implications for Ruling Class, Elite,
  Pluralist models?
• Biggest PAC contributors campaign workers may
  enjoy greater access, easier victories on
  uncontested policy pork proposals
• But why Big Tobaccos setbacks? Union failure to
  block NAFTA?
• Roll-call analyses of Congressional votes find
  small lobbying effects relative to other factors
• Lobbying impacts greatest in particular policy
  events, depending on strength of oppositions
  resources political arguments
• Elected officials also pay attention to
  unorganized voter opinions
• Shockingly, some even hold ideological
  principles hobby-horses!

16
EXERCISE The Lobbying Game

• Players are lobbyists for political organizations
  that have
• Interests in passing and defeating legislative
  bills
• Resources either dedicated to a specific bill or
  tradable with coalition partners (logrolling)
  then used to support a bill of interest

Lobbyists only goal is to win Acquire enough
resources by forming a coalition (trading
resources) to pass or defeat the bills of
interest Rules (a) Bills outcome determined
by a majority of PRO vs ANTI resources (b)
Nontradable resources must be applied as
designated (PRO/ ANTI) (c) Tradable resources
must be exchanged before they can be used on a
bill (orgs CANNOT use their own tradable
resources) (d) Acquired resources can be
applied to either the PRO or ANTI position
HINT Try to trade resources with partners who
share your interests or at least not with orgs
opposed to all your bills
17
Structure of the Lobbying Game
Three legislative bills Six orgl interest
profiles Every org has a PRO, ANTI, Neutral
interest All orgs have identical nontradable
resources Some orgs have more tradable resources
than others Potential partners vary in extent of
opposition Lobbyists must schmooze to discover
which resource trades (coalitions) will best
improve their preferred bill outcomes
18
Shorter Writing 12
Here are two contrasting views of lobbying -
Lobbying is the essence of grass-roots democracy.
Competing political organizations present their
best cases to elected appointed decision
makers. Then officials seek compromises and make
policy decisions that are most beneficial to the
entire society. - Lobbying just is another
mechanism used by powerful organization elites
and the ruling upper class to get their way
consistently on important public decisions.
Social groups have inherently unequal resources,
access, and political influence over public
officials.
Which perspective do you believe most accurately
depicts the 21st century United States political
system? Based on what evidence?