Mitigating the Defects of Pluralism: Interest Group Coalitions Before the Supreme Court (original) (raw)
Related papers
From Genteel Pluralism to Hyper-Pluralism: Interest Groups and Supreme Court Nominations, 1930-2017
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017
We examine interest group involvement in Supreme Court nominations from 1930 to 2017. We present new data on the intensity of interest group mobilization, the identity and types of groups involved, the changing tactics of groups, and the timing of mobilization during the nomination process. The number of groups participating and the intensity of their mobilization has increased dramatically over time-in the modern period mobilization both in support of and opposition to nominees is now routine. We also find that the calculus of interest groups appears to have changed significantly over time-whereas earlier mobilization was based on a nominee's qualifications for the high court, mobilization since then is now equally influenced by the ideology of the nominee. In addition, the data reveal significant shifts in both the types of groups that routinely mobilize and the tactics employed. Whereas the earlier period was dominated by labor unions, "core" civil rights groups, and groups affiliated with the "old right," the modern period is dominated by public interest/citizen groups and "identity" groups. We also find a universal shift among all types of groups from more traditional "inside" tactics to the heavy use of "outside/grassroots" mobilization tactics. Thus, the overall density and scope of mobilization has changed significantly over the nine-decade period we study. Our paper both complements and extends in important ways the handful of other quantitative historical studies of broader interest group involvement over the 20th century, and contributes to our understanding of the changing roles and influence of interest groups in American politics.
Interest Group Participation, Competition, and Conflict in the US Supreme Court
Law & Social Inquiry, 2007
The authors extend their thanks to Tom Brunell, Wendy Martinek, and the anonymous reviewers for their lucid comments and critiques of earlier versions of this article, and Joseph Kearney and Thomas Merrill for generously sharing their data with us. Collins thanks the National Science Foundation for its financial support under grant SES-0350416. Naturally, we assume all responsibility for errors in fact and/or judgment. A previous version of this article was awarded the 2003 CQ Press Award from the Law and Courts section of the American Political Science Association. LAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY 956 1. In addition to these methods of participation in the judiciary, groups may also pursue planned litigation campaigns (e.g., Wasby 1995), act as intervenors (e.g., Lowman 1992), and seek to influence the Court by authoring law review articles favorable to their causes (e.g., Epstein 1985). 2. We use the term "organized interests" in a very broad sense. Included are businesses, trade and labor organizations, public interest law firms, governments, unions, and the like (Caldeira and Wright 1990). As such, we adopt Schlozman and Tierney's (1986, 11) view that organized interests are a "variety of organizations that seek joint ends through political action."
INTEREST GROUPS AS INTERSTATE ACTORS.docx
ABSTRACT Interest groups or pressure groups in their activity appear as strengthening element and as a major potential to cure or at least to improve the concept of democracy, due to the fact that democracy is something that grows in flow of the history a never finished task. Was supposed that influence is not simply a characteristic function of interest groups but that strongly shapes, depending from the issue. In time was understood that interest groups are important actors in decision-making and that their direct influence lies in drafting, organizing and exchange of interests including those based to the weight and their representing character. In many societies and political systems exist a big number of interest groups and having in consideration the number and their variety it is not simple to make their perfect classification but based to it do they base to the intercommunity or in the union; they can be classified in four groupings. Justification of groups of the interest as important interstate actors as well as their classification which enables to be understood easily the nature of their requests and the manner in which they try to get realized will be our main goal of this study. Keywords: Interest groups, interstate actors, pressure, influence, concept of democracy
Complexity, Patronage, and the Density of Interest Groups in the American States
Southeastern Political Review, 2008
This paper provides a system level analysis of interest group density. It contains two primary sections. Thejirst develops a supply side theory of the American state interest group system. The second uses state level data across three time periods to test several hypotheses generated by the theory. The theory of interest group density is based on a four-cell typology of government and economic capacity, which fmuses on how external and political environments determine the number of interest groups within states. The theory is unique because it emphasizes the role of resources and patrons in the micro level dynamic of interest group formation. This factor has been largely overlooked in the literature on state interest groups. M u c h of the criticism against interest groups has to do with increases in their numbers (Berry 1989). The debate on special interest politics centers on whether interest group pluralism approaches the ideal of representative and responsible government. Madison in Federalist No. I0 warned of the mischiefs of faction. Since then, scholars have debated the conflict between special interest and public interest. Dahl (I961) argues that a realistic definition of democracy includes the process by which group politics forces elites to be responsive to a broad range of constituencies rather than to a small, powerful group of individuals. Dahl, therefore, argues that for democracy to flourish, groups must be relatively unrestricted in advocating their interests and positions. The pluralist argument therefore encourages growth in the interest group system both in terms of overall numbers and diversity. While the pluralists are optimistic about interest group growth, an alternate view sees interest growth as the heart of our country's problems. Lowi (1 979) believes interest group liberalism contributes to governmental stalemate and reduced accountability. He contends interest group liberal
Journal of Government Information, 2001
Interest Groups and Public Opinion
Annals of the International Communication Association, 1988
ROFESSOR Edelstein's essay offers observations and insights about the relationships between interest groups and public opinion. For obvious reasons, his emphases are on the traditions and innovations of the communications perspective. In our commentary, therefore, we shall draw on the theoretical and case study literature to adumbrate, discuss, illustrate, and, of necessity, speculate about interest groups and public opinion in the United States. Starting with the nature of interest groups themselves, we then look at their relations with the public at large, the media, and government. To conclude, we raise the larger, disturbing issue that emerges from our discussion and analysis. INTEREST GROUPS Interest group is a slippery term, requiring definition. David Truman's (1951) is useful: "any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes" (p. 33). Explicitly or implicitly excluded by this definition are government agencies, even though they often strive mightily to influence public opinion, and unorganized political participation. So defined, interest groups abound. They can be variously categorized in terms of subjects of interest (agriculture, women's rights, business, morality, environment), types of people represented (dairy farmers, Vietnam veterans,