Should PAC's and Interest Groups be regulated by our Government?

James Madison did not believe in factious politics, but believed that just the good of non-divided interest groups could not overhaul the uprising of faction. Fighting against the self-interests of political action committees would also take a factious group to overcome its competitors. The interest of a group that would benefit the common good could overcome anything. In his own words, Madison states that, “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction:  the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.” (Madison, James. Federalists 10) More than likely, the existence of interest groups and PAC’S will always exist for as long as opinion and contradiction can reside on any topic within American politics. The fight for compromise and equal representation are tremendous battles that have, and always will always be fought within our democratic society and way of American life.  Although the relations to interest groups and PAC’s are thoughts of corruption and distorted politicking, these aspects of politics leave opportunity for change, openness, and a wide range of opinion for policies soon to come. 

Stated by (Government in America), the term “interest group” is defined as an organization of people with shared policy goals that enter the policy process at several points, attempting to achieve their goals.  Interest groups support candidates for office, but do not run their own slate of candidates. Political parties are also considered policy generalists, but interest groups are often policy specialist, helping them to influence policy decisions with a rich background of information.

Three main theories summarize the debate of whether interest groups cause problems within out American government.  Many Americans believe that interest groups give representation to all, meaning the “pluralist theory”, which believes that  the competition and counterbalance of interest groups, fighting for policy breakthrough, gives equal chance to any to fight for their beliefs. 

In the elite theory, very few groups have the power. The class lines drawn by society provides for the upper class, leaving them to rule, no matter what.  The interlocking directorates of the elite and the government, makes their plans the most successful. Numerous groups hold power, but for their unequal representation, the largest corporations hold the most power. The minor parties win policy battles, while the corporate elite wins big decisions. 

For the hyper-pluralist theory, groups are so strong that they weaken government. This theory is simply an exaggeration of pluralism, displaying that too many interest groups causes a wide range of power, unwilling to compromise. Attempting to please everyone, interest groups and congressional subcommittees aggravate interest group liberalism.  Their roles pertain to protecting their own self-interests, while too many close-knit groups of sub governments hold the main power. The theory results in a group impact on public policy that is very contradictory and lacking in crucial direction. 

Historically, there has been four distinguished phases in the development of interest groups. The first phase, titled as the pre-industrial age (1830-1870), was dominantly formed by charitable organizations assisting the poor. Membership was mostly of the middle class level of the time period.

Phase two consists of industrialization (1860-1900) when the cross of class lines began. The establishment of economics groups arrived, which consisted of trade unions and employer’s organizations. The rise of agricultural needs during the time period also led interest groups to develop and fight to represent their interests.

The fourth and current phase is defined as the product of post-industrialization. The rise of groups promoting values, economic issues, and civil rights, all become present during this time period. For this phase, the exertion of pluralism is much higher than in any other previous phase (Interest Group History).

In 1974, the development of political action committees (PAC’s) provided a way for groups to participate in electioneering. Electioneering involves direct group involvement in the electoral process, allowing for groups to help fund campaigns, provide testimony, and get members to work for candidates. PAC’s are simply political funding vehicles created by the campaign finance reforms. Any corporation, union, or other interest group can create a PAC and register with the Federal Election Commission (FCC).

 In 1974, the number of political action committees was at a mere 608. In 2006, the number of PAC’s has exploded to registered 4, 210 groups (Government In America).  The great increase in the number of PAC’s over the past several decades have enabled far more groups to become involved in electioneering.  With more participation, the goal of political action committees has developed a positive outcome. With more opinions and representation, the founding ideas from our democratic representation would mean that the American politics are becoming more enriched.  With unequal representation by political action committees that might not have as much money, good organization, or biased support might find themselves without comparison to its competition.  Lobbying is open to all PAC’s, but only the strongest truly achieve their goals of influencing policy. The debate between corrupt PAC’s achieving their goals, and weaker political action committees unable to fulfill founding aspects both show the views from anti-Pac opinions. The pre-PAC opinion supports the idea of equal opportunity given to develop political action committees, and for a wide range of opinions to flow throughout the policy-making system to influence their opinions. 

A prominent battle between PAC’s is the topic of the legalization of abortion in America.  The pro-life PAC’s have battled the pro-choice PAC’s since Roe V. Wade continuing on to our current generation. Moralization and choice have been the main points stressed by both committees when working to influence policy decisions on the topic. 

The National Right to Life Political Action Committee was the largest and most effective single-issue pro-life political action committee in 1980 (NRLPAC).  Feeding their drive with religious morals, their membership entitles to many Catholics, religious practices, and men. They pride themselves on their successfulness through many past elections and generations. All though they are still fighting for their policies to become effective within the American lifestyle, they are still the biggest threat to the pro-choice PAC.

The NARAL is the Pro-Choice America Political Action Committee.  With very innovative motives, they entice supporters to embrace their multi-faceted campaigns, while boasting about paid advertising. They claim their successfulness on effective “get-out-the vote” Election Day efforts (NARAL).  Working on the offensive side against the pro-life political action, they reshape terms of debate, and are on the winning side of the policy agenda today. 

The ethics from both the pro-life and the pro-choice committees are very different, but do help to fire the debate between the two groups. Pro-Life, a more religiously sponsored side of the debate, takes a more conservative stride to achieving its policy agenda within the American political system. Compared to the very liberal and radical approach by the pro-choice political action committee, the fight from the pro-life side might not take an as aggressive approach, resulting in a failure to influence policy, just for lack of technique against stronger actions taken by the competition political action committee. 

While the debate for and against political action committees still exists, the resulting effects of the abortion policy agenda could be held accountable on the sole idea of smart policy tactics. Some think that the reason some PAC’s are not successful because of their beliefs, while some believe it’s just the stage they must share to make their voices heard to the policy makers.  Both sides, depending on how there policies are depicted within the policy-making agenda, make their decision about the system.  Bias within the system, and of those fighting the system, continue an ongoing battle that will always be effective as long as political action committees are lively active.

Lou Dobbs, a market-loving Republican and author of War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and HOW TO FIGHT BACK, writes on the bias that the American government has taken on the result of interest groups, corruption, and payoffs that he sees within the political system. As a former CNN political news broadcaster, he states that, “War is nothing less than an all-out assault on the middle class, waged by a government that has become the instrument of corporate and special interests, by a business culture that is driven by the profit motive above all other considerations, and by media that relies more on sensationalism than responsible reporting on the news.” With a first hand account of media relations to politics, and of the many current events by political actions committees, Dobbs shares his views of not only the corrupting of PAC’s and interest groups, but yet the government itself, siding with powerful corporations for payoffs and benefits to set policy agenda accordingly. He tells of the unrepresented middle class within the policy influencing system, but yet that they are the largest class of America. He condemns the “hand-in-hand” system of capitalism that has been engulfing the American system of politics.   Using the current events troubling America today, while also name-dropping on those he believes are active within the process, Dobbs releases his emotional connection to the loss of the American manufacturing sector, the outsourcing of oversea jobs, educational standards, and healthcare. 

Speaking on the raw side of interest groups and “big government”, Dobbs is speaking with the motive that James Madison had hoped to instill within his readers of the Federal 10 documents. By publishing such accounts, and publically informing, Lou Dobbs is fighting against the factious groups, just using a different method. Although no one may know if the goal of the author was to set policy agenda, he still remains in the fight to influence policy to change the system.  Allowing the general wide-spread of the American public to inform themselves of a political world they may not be as accustomed to as himself, he helps spread knowledge, motivation, and inspiration to those to continue to challenge their government and the actions of political action committees and interest groups. 

Democracy is the system of government made by its population. The debate concerning political action committees and interest groups within our American system will continue to present itself as beneficial, or cumbersome.  Some see interest groups are beneficial, because they offer a free stage and the freedom of speech to attempt to influence political agenda to fit its interest. With a vast amount of society members fighting to the top, the fight might not be fair, but the playing field is open to anyone that is strong enough to surpass its competition. There is no guarantee that every person attempting to influence will do so, but that opportunity does not solely rely in the fact that they might not have been as wealthy of a PAC as the rest, but that their policy just might not have been as spectacular as they might have thought of it to be.  Democracy is politics by people, and that the government entitles opportunity to challenge the government is democracy at its best. 

Allowing for over-regulation of political action committees and interest group behavior may protect those groups that are weaker, but still leaves room for corruption if the system was to change and rely solely on the discretion of the government for what group gets attention and room for agenda within American politics.  Although Americans do not like the idea of fending for themselves, the truth of life and politics is based on survival of the fittest. Motivation will drive those to the top if that is where they truly wish to lead. Without any more direction from the government, politics will become more democratic, and less corrupt.

Bibliography

Lineberry, Robert, Wattenberg, Martin P., Edwards III, George C., Government In America: People, Politics, and Policy 14^th Edition (2009), Longman, Pearson

National Right to Life Political Action Committee, http://www.nrlpac.org/NRLPAC%20Praised.htm, 24.May.2010

Dobbs, Lou.  War On The Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups are Waging War on the American Dream and How To Fight Back, 2006, Viking Publishing

NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC, http://www.proamerica.org/about-us/learn-about-us/more-information.html, 26.May.2010

Interest Group History, http://xraods.virginia.edu/~MA98/pollklas/thesis/history.html, 26.May.2010

Hamilton, James. Federalist Papers. “Federalist 10” (2009), Yale University Publishing