PLSC 083 Lobbying the Federal Government

Baumgartner

September 24, 2001

 

Reminders about next week:

Paper due in class October 3. Overview of the case you want to analyze. Think right away about your analysis, and begin taking notes on the case. Read not only the case summary on the web, if you choose one of those, but also the archived source material as well. Cases towards the top of the web page are the best documented.

 

Feedback about your Light papers:

Time management—clearly a big issue for many of you.

Activities and a social network. Not just for fun, but for learning from each other. Note how the wrong group can lead to trouble.

Whose responsibility: student’s or faculty/staff for your choices. Never rely on others. Take matters into your hands. Find out the rules, opportunities, etc. All the information is out there, but no one but you knows which applies to you.

Structured class assignments. Being forced to study seems to be what many of you want, but it will not happen in most cases. You will have plenty of leeway to make your own choices, or to procrastinate. Don’t do it.

 

Papers due on Wed. from Group 2 (A-G)

 

From last time:

Truman’s disturbance theory: all interests will be represented. Classic pluralism. Very positive assessment.

Olson’s problem of collective action. Free riders will cause many groups in society not to be mobilized to their full potential. This especially true where groups seek nonexcludable public goods.

Reasons for joining groups: selective material benefits, solidary (social) benefits, purposive (ideological, expressive) benefits. Which one’s are most likely to be most efficient in getting people to join?

These ideas make one question whether the group system will be as normatively benign as Truman believed.

This week’s readings: Browne Ch. 2 and 3.

 

Chapter 1 referred to interest groups; this chapter discusses other types of organizations that often act as interest groups, or at least advocates:

 

Businesses

§         Multiple trade associations for a company like Monsanto

§         Direct representation with their own public affairs department in Washington. Also the states.

§         An ideological preference for less government, and no lobbyists from business?

§         Or competitive advantage and being involved in all decisions?

§         Or the amount of money involved in some government regulations? Patent extension for Clariton, the allergy medecine, is worth billions of dollars to the company, per year. How active do you think they would be in trying to get that?

 

Table 1. Registered Lobbyists by Type.

 

 

Type of Registrant

Those Lobbying Directly

Those Only Hiring Lobbying Firms

 

Total

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

Business

696

    41

1,852

    44

2,548

     43

Trade Associations

370

     22

578

     14

948

     16

Professional Associations

156

       9

180

4

336

6

Unions

41

       2

19

       0

60

       1

Nonprofit and Citizen Groups

247

     14

305

       7

552

      9

Government Organizations

26

       2

680

    16

706

     12

Institutions

115

      7

335

      8

450

      8

Miscellaneous

60

      4

257

      6

317

5

 

Total

1,711

100

4,206

100

5,907

100

 

Source: 1996 Lobby Disclosure Reports. See Baumgartner and Leech 1999.

 

Table 5. The Most Active Washington Lobbing Organizations.

 

Name of Organization

Lobbying Expenditures

Number of Reports

Number of Issues

Philip Morris

$19.58 million

151

190

American Medical Association

$17.12 million

7

51

General Motors

$15.60 million

47

157

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

$14.88 million

59

143

Christian Coalition

$12.24 million

16

42

Citicorp

$9.00 million

14

39

General Electric Co.

$8.98 million

58

74

Bell Atlantic Corp.

$8.44 million

22

24

AT&T

$8.36 million

56

92

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

 

$8.26 million

 

4

 

12

Source: 1996 Lobby Disclosure Reports. See Baumgartner and Leech 1999.

 

 

Six of the 10 are individual corporations. Two are trade/professional associations. Just one is an “interest group/social movement”. And one is an ad hoc business trade group.

 

Social Institutions

 

Churches, universities, hospitals, charities, etc.

 

Direct ear-marked research grants v. peer review awards. Which is better?

 

How much effort should the American Lung Association spend on lobbying?

 

Governmental units

 

Cities, states, counties, school boards, water districts, foreign governments

 

Personalities

 

Individuals with great notoriety

 

Lobbyists for hire known for their contacts, staff with knowledge of government programs, and ability to mobilize grass-roots, tv, or other types of lobbying coalitions.

 

So what is the nature of the group system? On any given issue, can you be certain that the affected social groups are involved? How does this question relate to Schattschneider’s view of government by conflict expansion? We’ll return to these questions consistently. You should be reaching your own conclusion on the question of the normative basis of group representation.

 

Chapter 3: Techniques of lobbying

 

Long term relations and trust. Contacts, but also detailed information. People want to know about policy impacts. How do you get that information?

 

Gaining attention. Back to Schattschneider.

 

Maintaining relations. Doing favors. Reciprocating with others. Can public officials lobby lobbyists? Would they be successful?