Jess
“Special interests dominate at the extent of pluralism” discuss. (45)
Pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the
framework of government, but that many pressure groups use their resources to exert
influence. Special interests pressure in the USA certainly have a great deal of influence
and this is because there are so many different access points in which they can exert
their power. It is possible for pressure groups to lobby at a state level as well as a
federal level, including congress, the executive and the judiciary. Many pressure groups
have nation wide memberships and are very wealthy which inevitably leads to the
pressure groups becoming very powerful. Many people would argue that these special
interests of pressure groups dominate at the extent of pluralism.
The first issue to mention when it comes to pressure groups dominating is the idea of
iron triangles. The term refers to the relationship, which often forms between the
bureaucracy, congress and interest groups. Due to there being a weak party structure in
the USA, it is pressure groups who are increasingly behind the funding of political
campaigns. In 1994, the figure for the Democrats in Congress was 43%. Because
pressure groups fund most of the campaigns of Congressman, they are then owed
favours. There is then the problem of pressure groups potentially having
disproportionately more influence than they should.
However an argument to suggest this Is not such a bad thing is that the reason that
certain elected officials are chosen by the pressure groups is because the pressure
groups' ideology is similar to the congress members. So when the member of congress
member wins on these policies where he was influenced by a special interest pressure
group, he wins on the basis of the pressure groups interest and pressure groups can
represent large proportions of the nations interest. So, the pressure group owed favours
to by the member of congress, does indeed have similar interests to the nation's. On the
other hand though, because not all of a candidate's views may be the same as its
electorate, special interest groups still have undemocratic access points.
Another issue when it comes to pressure groups dominating is the idea of pressure
groups bribe members of congress with future job prospects. This is called the revolving
door syndrome. Government officials can office and enter an extremely well payed job
working for a pressure group. This could mean that federal officials use their position to
do favours in exchange for an attractive post when they leave office. A former governor
Marc F Racinot, who chaired the Republican National Committee, collected an annual
salary of over $1 million as American Insurance Association. Although there was an
attempt to reduce this through the honest leadership and open government act in 2007,
which included rulings such as a one-year cool off period, this hardly prevented the
revolving door syndrome at all. Furthermore, the law fails to apply to all government
officials, particularly the ones at the top and therefore most wanted. Also there are
examples of pressure group members securing official positions. Michelle Obama's Chief
of Staff used to be a member of EMILY's list before quitting and taking office. Both the
revolving door and iron triangle cause elitism because those in power stay in power,
just in a different role. Pressure groups, for example, the source of funding of political
campaigns will almost never back or even attack candidates who are not incumbent
and, as a result, the rate of re-elected incumbents in the US is very high. Dick Cheney, for
example, as a vice president was one of the most influential people in America, would
“Special interests dominate at the extent of pluralism” discuss. (45)
Pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the
framework of government, but that many pressure groups use their resources to exert
influence. Special interests pressure in the USA certainly have a great deal of influence
and this is because there are so many different access points in which they can exert
their power. It is possible for pressure groups to lobby at a state level as well as a
federal level, including congress, the executive and the judiciary. Many pressure groups
have nation wide memberships and are very wealthy which inevitably leads to the
pressure groups becoming very powerful. Many people would argue that these special
interests of pressure groups dominate at the extent of pluralism.
The first issue to mention when it comes to pressure groups dominating is the idea of
iron triangles. The term refers to the relationship, which often forms between the
bureaucracy, congress and interest groups. Due to there being a weak party structure in
the USA, it is pressure groups who are increasingly behind the funding of political
campaigns. In 1994, the figure for the Democrats in Congress was 43%. Because
pressure groups fund most of the campaigns of Congressman, they are then owed
favours. There is then the problem of pressure groups potentially having
disproportionately more influence than they should.
However an argument to suggest this Is not such a bad thing is that the reason that
certain elected officials are chosen by the pressure groups is because the pressure
groups' ideology is similar to the congress members. So when the member of congress
member wins on these policies where he was influenced by a special interest pressure
group, he wins on the basis of the pressure groups interest and pressure groups can
represent large proportions of the nations interest. So, the pressure group owed favours
to by the member of congress, does indeed have similar interests to the nation's. On the
other hand though, because not all of a candidate's views may be the same as its
electorate, special interest groups still have undemocratic access points.
Another issue when it comes to pressure groups dominating is the idea of pressure
groups bribe members of congress with future job prospects. This is called the revolving
door syndrome. Government officials can office and enter an extremely well payed job
working for a pressure group. This could mean that federal officials use their position to
do favours in exchange for an attractive post when they leave office. A former governor
Marc F Racinot, who chaired the Republican National Committee, collected an annual
salary of over $1 million as American Insurance Association. Although there was an
attempt to reduce this through the honest leadership and open government act in 2007,
which included rulings such as a one-year cool off period, this hardly prevented the
revolving door syndrome at all. Furthermore, the law fails to apply to all government
officials, particularly the ones at the top and therefore most wanted. Also there are
examples of pressure group members securing official positions. Michelle Obama's Chief
of Staff used to be a member of EMILY's list before quitting and taking office. Both the
revolving door and iron triangle cause elitism because those in power stay in power,
just in a different role. Pressure groups, for example, the source of funding of political
campaigns will almost never back or even attack candidates who are not incumbent
and, as a result, the rate of re-elected incumbents in the US is very high. Dick Cheney, for
example, as a vice president was one of the most influential people in America, would
