Proliferation of Interest Groups

Th concrn about spcial intrsts is non a nw on, as th framrs of th Constitution wr worrid about it too. Thy fard th powr that could b wildd by organizd intrsts, yt thy undrstood that th right to organiz was fundamental to th nonion of frdom. This dilmma of frdom vrsus powr was a tough on for thm. Thy knw that if th govrnmnt was given sight to restrain unionized provokes it would be the equivalent as the power to crucify freedom. This essay tries to answer whether proliferation of sp be-time activity groupings in recent decades a quality that the pluralist view of intimacy group internal representation is increasingly accurate or not.Interest group scholars began to note the proliferation of outsider groups at about the same time policy scholars began to capitulum the utility of sub giving medication opening. By the mid-1980s, it was widely hold that the flesh of entertain groups in the United States e finickyly public occupy groupshad exploded during the 1960s and 1970s (Walker, 1983). Pluralists had addressed the question of group mobilisation age before the advocacy explosion. For deterrent example, in his The Governmental Process, David Truman argued that pastime groups move up from two inter think processes.First, social change precipitates the take of new fills. Second, hindrances semi policy-making or economic upheavals disrupt stable patterns of interaction between individuals. In short, Truman argued that individuals with sh ard interests (reacting to social change and/or disturbances) band together (to alter relations among themselves, and between themselves and other societal interests) when these interests atomic number 18 threatened. By the late-1960s, Trumans disturbance theory had fallen into disrepute.Interest group scholars, spurred by Olson and drawing firmly upon Clark and Wilsons study of organizational incentives, began to examine how groups overcome the substantial barriers to mobilization. (Dine) While Olson emphasised material benefits, subsequent studies showed that solidary benefits (those derived from association in group activities) and purposive benefits (rewards associated with ideologic or issue-oriented goals) overly motivate group portionship (Cook). Salisburys exchange theory (which rests upon Olsons cost-benefit framework) is now the dominant paradigm for explaining group development (Cigler).Yet the basic exchange theory framework has a critical flaw It underestimates the map of external patrons in group studies of group formation hint that numerous groups e modifiedly public interest groups rely heavily upon patron rootage m geniusy. For example, Walker nominate that 89% of (sample) public interest groups received germ money from foundations, large donors, the federal disposal, or corporations. He also found that many a(prenominal) public interest groups rely heavily upon patrons for brinytenance income. In general, public interest group proliferation has cont ri notwith rackinged mogulily to the dissolution of sub politicss.There are number of factors that may help to explain both the proliferation of public interest groups and where public interest group activity is most likely. For example, pluralists argue that societal change and disturbances create conditions that foster group mobilization. In contrast, exchange theorists suggest that we examine group incentive structures and entrepreneurial activity to explain interest mobilization. In order to better recognise the interest groups representation, one essentialiness understand the way the American government runs.There are many diametrical strategys of government structure and organization representative democracy, pluralist democracy, elitist system, hyper pluralist, and anarchy. The United States is organized much like a characteristic representative democracy, provided in operation, with all factors considered, it is in reality much more of a hyper pluralist society. A st ate in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an main(a) participation in and development of their traditional culture or limited(prenominal) interest within the confines of a common civilization is pluralistic.When those special interests form large substantial right to pick out blocks, the pluralistic nature of the government becomes more focused on fewer interests, but represent in many areas by larger numbers of individuals. The other question you motive to ask is what do mean when you say big or special interest, who and what are you referring to specifically, industries, much(prenominal) as oil or pharmaceutical, ethnic groups such as Hispanic or African-American, social groups such as the senior(a) or woman, semi policy-making groups such as Democrats or Republicans or different religious groups.All of these are special interests, they just might not seem like a special interest group if you are part of them. (Ceaser) Probably the largest big interest group to consider is the political parties themselves. Political parties are the foundation of a representative democracy, acting as a crucial link between what citizens loss and what government does. The company is supposed to represent the needs of its members and use the party platform to declare these opinions. Through public elections, voters elect those muckle they feel pull up stakes outdo represent them.The Democratic Party and the Republican are the two main parties in the US though other smaller parties emerge on occasion to better represent those who do not feel that they are accurately represented by either of the major parties, usually because of special interests that they gravel such as environmental or other issues. This structure is typical of a representative democracy in which people are represented by parties and vote for leaders that they feel will work towards their go around interests. (Miroff) In reality, the party system is not fully representative or fully functional.On one hand, part of the democratic process al impoverisheds for the emergence of new parties to represent the people. On the other hand, if the existing parties accurately represented the people then other parties would not be needed. People until now do not believe completely in the process, which is evidenced by poor voter turnout and voter apathy. The United States has an passing low average voter turnout of only 55%. The Constitution guarantees one vote to each citizen over the age of 18, male or female, dim or white, etc.This is indicative of a representative democracy in which each adult citizen has an equal say in how the government should be run. If voters do not vote, then the level of representation becomes skewed and the system is not fully representational. (Dine) People associate with not the prospect but with groups that represent their thinking and a special interest. A perfect example of this would be the NRA. Voters might not extradite a lot of opinions but they might consecrate one on gun control.Instead of voting for the person who best reflects his ideas, he votes for the one that the NRA endorses, which in turn makes the NRA and highly powerful interest group, and can decide congressional votes. In elections, political parties frequently send out mailers to voters that show which candidates running for office, or which of the Senate and hold members receive financial support from the NRA. This suddenly reduces the value of every member of Congress to whether or not they have accepted money from the field Rifle Association.This is in turn translated into an assumed meaning on their stand on gun control, while all other issues and stands that they have on those issues are suddenly made unimportant. Their total worth relates to their assumed position on guns. The government in this case is reflecting the will of the big interest even though its a single issue. A politician who might refle ct very forgetful of his communities values, can be elected by that community by receiving the support of a single-issue influence group. (Berman, Murphy)So the question becomes is this single issue the interest of a big group or the common goal of the majority? Who is pressing the issue and which way is the government going. If large oil companies are buying officials with large contributions to campaigns, are they genuinely influencing the government or merely a handful of officials and do they actually dictate policy or just have a louder vowelise in the debates that effect their companies. Misinformation seems to be the guideline of all campaigns now so it becomes almost impossible to figure out just what the goal is of the candidate that you are voting for.Because of that, the elected officials sometimes dont have a sure feeling on what the voters wanted him to do. The power then slides back to the interior(a) circle, which includes advisors who have their own individual desires, and those who paid for his campaign and therefore have vast influence. (Muller) Special interest groups appear to have a dandy deal of influence in campaigns and in political activities. Campaigns are extremely expensive in 1992, the average winner of a House election spent $550,000 on his/her campaign the average Senator who won a speed up spent more than $4 million. Dine) Presidential campaigns run into the hundreds of millions. Eight years later those numbers are significantly higher. Major contributors to election campaigns are corporations and interest groups. While some people believe certain industries or interest groups buy candidates through election contributions, it is not that simple. Those candidates heavily funded by the Sierra Club or groups that are concerned with environmental protection, will vote in support of environmental conservation they will vote to reduce logging and not to save the jobs of the individual loggers who did not vote.This is a sort o f paradox because the elected leaders are representing those who voted for them and helped them into office, but this group is a large group of special interests rather than the individual citizens who credibly did not contribute and did not even vote. When viewed in this way, the US electoral system does not seem to be fully representative of the people and is again reflective of a more hyper pluralist society. A system of government labeled as hyper pluralist, means that there is a rapid proliferation of interest groups, all competing for influence over policy.The interest groups tend to overshadow the interest of individuals. The interest groups are powerful and influential, but there are also interest groups for both sides of most issues. In their battle to win the political coups they each seek, there develops a competition in which the interest groups get word to influence politicians to vote for their side. The result is that there are a number of politicians supporting each side of an issue, there are overlapping concerns that related to other interest groups, and the outcome is political gridlock.Usually at this point, for anything to happen, concessions must be made with the end result that if any law is passed, it has lower-ranking real effect one way or the other. The other mishap is that neither side will make concessions or give up any power in which case there is still nonentity accomplished. This is very much the system that we have today. Again, gun control laws are a very good example. Congress goes back and forth argument the pros and cons of gun control. The NRA is a very powerful interest group that does not want any form of gun control.There are many other interest groups that fight to ban assault weapons, others that want a total ban on guns of all types, some only want handguns banned. The feuding between the different groups is played out through the politicians and very little has been accomplished. Even when a bill is passed, it is oven later overturned. All special interest groups find this ying and yang to the system. There is no large interest that doesnt have a competing self-interest. Abortion has choice. Industry has the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.The NRA has anti-gun groups. some of all, Republicans have Democrats. There might be the illusion that the government has been taken over by the special interests and that they control everything, but as we have looked into it we see that the basis of the questions revolves around who exactly is the special interests. It seems to me that they are us. (Peters) And therefore we come to the contradictory conclusion that pluralist view of interest group representation is not increasingly accurate.While the publics perception might be that special interest groups are robbing them of their rights, and in a narrow sense, when it comes to a contingent interest that effects them, they may be justified, what the public doesnt usually understand is that the activity of interest groups is in fact acting out in the interest of them or their fellow citizens. The public further misconceives that special interests influence government, overlooking the fact that special interests are formed, as often as not, as a response to government and not in foretelling of it.