Pressure groups define the issues that dominate US politics today
PG’s discipline parties and through endorsement
• Discipline
o Decide on the party platform and the selection of candidates
o They can define issues from the outset, but also vicariously through the selection of candidates
• Endorsement
o Capacity to bargain with and lobby parties by exploiting their electoral influence
o The threat of negative endorsement is sometimes enough
o Hence their presence is enough to shape issues
• Evaluation:
o Led to polarisation, which has increased party renewal
o PGs rarely define issues specifically, but rather values – it is down to the parties to define the
issues
o Endorsement doesn’t guarantee PAC success e.g. Republicans for Immigration
PGs utilise finance and PACs to define issues
• Can now define issues by influencing how members vote
o They define the issues from the outset, and then ensure that members vote accordingly
• Money has become the most dominant influence on voting in Congress
• Parties are dependent on donations
o Dependency creates inferiority, thus granting PGs increased influence and insider status
• Evaluation:
o Money isn’t a universal tool for PGs, and is only confined to those with or working with PACs
o There checks on preventing money from becoming the dominant definer of issues
o PAC money doesn’t guarantee success e.g. Right to Rise
Increased party renewal and nationalisation of campaigns
• Nationalisation of campaigns
• Super delegates
• Polarisation and ideological distinctness
o Growth in the Tea Party – it defines issues within the GOP
o The establishment and DLC define issues within the Democrats
o This distinctness within the parties means that homogenous policy and middle-way politics are no
longer evident, and thus the issues are now clearly defined by either faction of the party
• Evaluation:
o Parties have undermined their own ability to define legislation through gridlock and refusing to
compromise – ultimately, nothing is defined
o PGs still have input in the nationalisation of campaigns e.g. Heritage Foundation
o Regardless of how influential parties are becoming, they are becoming more unrepresentative and
thus apathy is increasing – low turnouts means low mandates and low public cooperation, and thus
parties are becoming a less legitimate source of issue definition
§ Instead, PGs provide a platform for representation in between elections, and fill in the
gaps left by dualism
Imperial president
• President defines issues abroad, and many domestically, regardless of the influence of PGs
o PGs have little influence over foreign policy e.g. Stop the War Coalition
• Evaluation:
o President isn’t imperial domestically
o Foreign policy can be checked by PGs during the election cycle – so the incumbent can’t be
checked, but the foreign policy of his successors can be shaped by PG endorsement etc.
Supreme court
• Ultimately the final arbitrator on ‘defining’ the issue through judicial review
• Evaluation:
o PGs can still influence the court
o No power of enforcement or initiation, and although it can define it, it can’t create the issue in the
first place, nor can it implement it after
PG’s discipline parties and through endorsement
• Discipline
o Decide on the party platform and the selection of candidates
o They can define issues from the outset, but also vicariously through the selection of candidates
• Endorsement
o Capacity to bargain with and lobby parties by exploiting their electoral influence
o The threat of negative endorsement is sometimes enough
o Hence their presence is enough to shape issues
• Evaluation:
o Led to polarisation, which has increased party renewal
o PGs rarely define issues specifically, but rather values – it is down to the parties to define the
issues
o Endorsement doesn’t guarantee PAC success e.g. Republicans for Immigration
PGs utilise finance and PACs to define issues
• Can now define issues by influencing how members vote
o They define the issues from the outset, and then ensure that members vote accordingly
• Money has become the most dominant influence on voting in Congress
• Parties are dependent on donations
o Dependency creates inferiority, thus granting PGs increased influence and insider status
• Evaluation:
o Money isn’t a universal tool for PGs, and is only confined to those with or working with PACs
o There checks on preventing money from becoming the dominant definer of issues
o PAC money doesn’t guarantee success e.g. Right to Rise
Increased party renewal and nationalisation of campaigns
• Nationalisation of campaigns
• Super delegates
• Polarisation and ideological distinctness
o Growth in the Tea Party – it defines issues within the GOP
o The establishment and DLC define issues within the Democrats
o This distinctness within the parties means that homogenous policy and middle-way politics are no
longer evident, and thus the issues are now clearly defined by either faction of the party
• Evaluation:
o Parties have undermined their own ability to define legislation through gridlock and refusing to
compromise – ultimately, nothing is defined
o PGs still have input in the nationalisation of campaigns e.g. Heritage Foundation
o Regardless of how influential parties are becoming, they are becoming more unrepresentative and
thus apathy is increasing – low turnouts means low mandates and low public cooperation, and thus
parties are becoming a less legitimate source of issue definition
§ Instead, PGs provide a platform for representation in between elections, and fill in the
gaps left by dualism
Imperial president
• President defines issues abroad, and many domestically, regardless of the influence of PGs
o PGs have little influence over foreign policy e.g. Stop the War Coalition
• Evaluation:
o President isn’t imperial domestically
o Foreign policy can be checked by PGs during the election cycle – so the incumbent can’t be
checked, but the foreign policy of his successors can be shaped by PG endorsement etc.
Supreme court
• Ultimately the final arbitrator on ‘defining’ the issue through judicial review
• Evaluation:
o PGs can still influence the court
o No power of enforcement or initiation, and although it can define it, it can’t create the issue in the
first place, nor can it implement it after
