THE PLURALIST BATTLE A Theoretical Look at the Critiques and Defenses of Interest Group Power

1
THE PLURALIST BATTLEA Theoretical Look at the
Critiques and Defenses of Interest Group Power

• Jared N. Lyles
• Senior Capstone Political Science
• Dr. Jeremy Lewis

2
Outline

• I. Introduction
• II. Literature survey and the critiques of
  pluralism
• Madison, Marx, Weber, Olson, and
  Schattschneider
• III. Literature survey and the defense of
  pluralism
• Bentley, Truman, Berry, Dahl, Domhoff, and
  Mahood
• IV. The modern critique of the pluralist battle
• V. Conclusion

3
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 todays
  political society

4
Literature SurveyCritiques of pluralism
5
Literature SurveyDefending Pluralism
6
The Pluralist Battle TodayResearch

• 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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
Decrease in The Number of PAcs

• Number of PACs, 1990
• 4,193
• Number of PACs, 1995
• 3,982
• Number of PACs, 2000
• 3,706

11
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

12
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

13
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.

14
Campaign Finance Reform
15
Decline in Voter Turnout

• 1960 62.8
• 1992 55.2
• 2000 51.0
• Information from Committee for the Study of the
  American Electorate

16
Organizational Involvement-Education

• Perct. of people involved in organizations that
  take political stands
• 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

Source Crotty, Schwartz, and Green.
Representing Interests and Interest Group
Representation. University Press of America,
1991. P. 76.
17
Organizational Involvement - Income

• Percent of people involved in organizations that
  take political stands by income
• Less than 15,000 29
• 15,000-24,999 39
• 25,000-34,999 51
• 35,000-49,000 56
• 50,000-74,999 57
• 75,000-124,999 72
• 125,000 or more 77

Source Crotty, Schwartz, and Green.
Representing Interests and Interest Group
Representation. University Press of America,
1991. P. 76.
18
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