Pressure Groups: How Deep Pockets are Choking American Democracy

Recent months have seen the National Rifle Association (NRA) dominate much of the political conversation in the United States. Whether revelling in the compliments of the President or weathering the storm of anti-gun activism, the organisation has gained traction and attention in measures it hasn’t enjoyed in much of the last decade. This heated social climate, in which unelected superpowers engage in a war of wallets, provides an important opportunity to question the influence of pressure groups in American politics.

Dictionaries will commonly define pressure groups as “non-profit and usually voluntary organization[s] whose members have a common cause”. Though true in principle, such a definition lacks the necessary specificity required of the groups who are, in reality, the most covertly-significant pillars of the political system. Two primary forms of pressure group exist in the United States. Interest groups are those that seek to represent organisations and collective entities, whilst promotional groups endeavour to cater to the wishes of individual citizens. Despite operating under the façade of pluralism, contemporary American society experiences predominantly elitist politics, whereby power and influence are often gained through wealth and status, rather than worthy causes and good intentions alone. As a result, it has become uncomfortably clear that some pressure groups in the U.S. have become excessively powerful, dominating the political scene in ways frequently overlooked by the general public – undermining the democracy upon which the country prides itself.

Some pressure groups in the US have become excessively powerful, dominating the political scene in ways frequently overlooked by the general public…

Traditionally, pressure groups have held a variety of functions, the most important of which being their capacity to represent the minority. They are a means by which regular citizens can have their individual views taken seriously and their grievances articulated; they serve the individual while the government serves the collective electorate. Pressure groups act as an important link between the public and the politician, providing a channel of easy access otherwise limited to bureaucrats and executives – and for these purposes their existence remains important. While positive in theory, substantial inequality between such groups has led to the disproportionate representation of certain points of view. Organisations have become ranked by their financial offering and political affiliations, with their causes side-lined until the cameras start rolling. This isn’t a new revelation, but the extent of the gulf in influence needs to be put into perspective.

The financial disparity between, for example, the spending tendencies of The National Organisation for Women and The Sierra Club reaches into the millions of dollars, with the latter benefiting from billionaire donors such as Michael Bloomberg, despite the morally-reputable causes of both.

With few legal obstacles to gargantuan donations, though, such disparity is inevitable. The dangerous imbalance becomes clear when observing even the ten biggest groups in the U.S. According to figures published by U.S. money-tracker The Centre for Responsive Politics, the third largest, the American Medical Association (AMA), spent an estimated $380 million in lobbying from 1998 to 2018. In the same period, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the second largest group, spent a grand total of $1.4 billion – equivalent to the GDP of countries like Gibraltar and Belize.

In the same period, the US Chamber of Commerce, the second largest group, spent a grand total of $1.4 billion – equivalent to the GDP of countries like Gibraltar and Belize…

Not only do a minority of pressure groups hold a greater influence over others of their kind, they possess an uncomfortable degree of leverage over Congress and government, too. It’s important to note that the aforementioned Chamber has supported almost exclusively-Republican candidates since its foundation, a trait it shares with the NRA, which sits as the largest group in the U.S. by combination of membership and financial assets. Pressure groups seek to influence the way House and Senate members vote by gaining direct contact with congressmen and their staff, often through websites and social media.

They also seek to contact relevant congressional committees, aware of their ability to directly amend legislation relevant to their cause. Some groups even publicise the voting records of congressman and actively oppose or endorse incumbents through fundraising and media advertising. The NRA, for example, publicly grades members of Congress on their perceived degree of ‘friendliness’ towards gun-rights, and with a following of almost 5 million people, this can prove incredibly damaging to an election campaign. In this way, politicians often seek to please the pressure groups rather than pursuing their own genuine interests, in both fear of the threat of a derailed campaign and the hope of a financially-glowing endorsement.

Politicians often seek to please the pressure groups rather than pursuing their own genuine interests…

To an outsider looking in, pressure groups appear to act to gain the support of politicians through lobbying and direct action – as is their purpose – but reality suggests that job-security often prevails and the reverse occurs.

The most-Herculean of groups also seek to maintain a foothold within the executive branch itself by creating strong ties with relevant executive departments, especially concerning the federal government’s regulatory work. This is known as ‘regulatory capture’, a theory coined by Nobel laureate economist George Stigler, and poses the question of whether federal regulators are watchdogs or lapdogs towards pressure groups – the latter suggesting that the federal government, much like Congress, acts to keep in good relations with the groups they are under literal ‘pressure’ from.

Some groups even find themselves courted by the White House for their support; the executive is well-aware of the damaging consequences of pressure group disapproval. For example, in 2005, George Bush’s political director Karl Rose had frequent contact with Christian Rights groups in an effort to reassure them of the suitability of Republican Supreme Court judge nominee Harriet Miers. Problems emerge when these federal bodies are thought to have too-tight a relationship with the groups they are supposedly regulating, posing the threat of an ‘iron triangle’ situation, wherein pressure groups, Congress, and the government share the same agenda, so as to guarantee policy outcomes.

While this might seem an initially-convenient notion, in that decision-making would be swift and frequent, it would isolate most people from political decisions, primarily those who do not share the ideologies of the groups involved. In this way, the relationships between some pressure groups and executive departments make these organisations a genuine threat to democracy if the poor regulation of their activity continues.  While the likelihood of an iron triangle situation occurring is minimal, since it is rare for the legislative and executive branches to share the same goals (let alone a consensus between both them and the pressure groups in question), it’s very potential poses a dangerous risk to America’s concepts of both democracy and federalism, and the unpredictable nature of politics means it could become a reality sooner than we think.

The relationships between some pressure groups and executive departments make these organisations a genuine threat to democracy if the poor regulation of their activity continues….

What becomes clear, then, is that despite their necessity to both represent the views of the minority and provide transparency to a too-often hoodwinked electorate, the influence of pressure groups over the branches of power in the U.S. has become disproportionately excessive, especially when considering their un-elected and essentially un-regulated nature. In any case, the close analysis of pressure groups, just one part of the extensive American political framework, reveals the inadequacy and inequality of the system as a whole. It remains to be seen whether the NRA can maintain its foothold in U.S. politics amongst the seemingly unrelenting increase in gun-control advocacy, but regardless, Washington’s elite have become the lapdogs of the pressure group equivalent, and Trump should choose his next move wisely if he hopes to retain their influence.