Rose-Mary Reynolds

Assess the view that pressure groups are becoming too powerful. Provide theory and
examples to illustrate. (45 marks)
Pressure groups can be seen as one of the main elements of the United States political system.
This is mainly because it performs numerous functions that allows for the enhancement of
democracy such as participation, influencing government policy and educating the public on
various issues. Influencing government is one of the main functions that pressure groups carry
out as they do not seek to gain political power however it is considered that by influencing
government has made them essentially too powerful. The argument on the basis that pressure
groups are too powerful is founded that as they are not accountable should not be able to be as
influential as they currently are. This argument can be supported by theories such as the
revolving door syndrome and the iron triangle that seek to explain how pressure groups are
greatly influential. On the other hand, the argument can be made that pressure groups are largely
subjected to factors that limit their success and their ability to be greatly successful, such as
membership size, funds, etc. Thus it is argued that pressure groups are relatively weak as they
have many obstacles to overcome in order to be deemed successful, which many groups within
the US, are not. Within this essay, a discussion will be held in order to determine whether
pressure groups are essentially too powerful or are relatively weak within the United States.
Pressure groups can be defined as a group of people who seek to exert pressure on legislators,
public opinion, etc, in order to promote their own ideas or welfare. As noted by Baker, there are a
plethora of pressure groups existing within the US today. This is largely due to factors such as
the increasing role of government and political parties becoming less representative as well as
the many benefits associated with joining a pressure group. The role of government has
considerably expanded in recent years therefore gives citizens more opportunities to pressure
groups to influence government. Additionally, pressure groups have also seen growth due to
political parties reducing their role in being representative to the public. Political parties do not
always adequately represent the interests of all members within society; therefore more pressure
groups were created as political parties kept failing to represent the publics interests. Lastly,
individuals are able to realize the many benefits when joins a pressure group such as material,
purposive and solidarity benefits. Bennett notes that material benefits refers to individuals
joining a pressure groups in order to gain the tangible rewards that individuals or companies get
in return for their donations to a particular pressure group. Purposive benefits refer to not joining
a pressure group to gain any benefits for themselves but to be a part of a movement or to make
society a better place. Members also join in order to gain solidarity benefits which are social
benefits brought about from interacting with individuals sharing the same views and interests.
Therefore it can be seen that there are many pressure groups within the US representing a vast
number of interests and views due to several factors encouraging this growth.
In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of whether pressure groups are too powerful, it
is important to discuss the distinctions of pressure groups, their relating functions and the
methods utilised in order to perform such functions. As mentioned previously, there are a vast

Rose-Mary Reynolds
number of pressure groups representing numerous interests. Therefore it is important to establish
the two broad categories or distinctions pressure groups within the US fall into which are
institutional and membership pressure groups. Institutional pressure groups refer to groups that
seek to represent other organisations and groups. These include business/trade groups such as the
US Chamber of Commerce, labour unions such as the Domestic Workers United, agriculture
groups such as Farmers Market Collation, professional groups which represent the economic
interests for members of various professions such as the American Medical Association and
intergovernmental groups representing the interests of government to other governments such as
the United Nations. Membership pressure groups, on the other hand, represent individual
Americans rather than other groups. Pressure groups within this category are ideological groups
which often work on a variety of specific issues, with their work driven by deeply held beliefs
such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Single-issue
groups are groups that focus all their energy on a single defining issue such as the National Rifle
Association (NRA). Other membership pressure groups include public interest groups such as
National Education Association and think tanks such as Analysis Group. The various distinctions
of pressure groups have been established, it is imperative to discuss the functions of these groups
and what methods do they employ to carry them out.
Pressure groups on a broad scale perform several functions such as representation, participation,
education, agenda setting and scrutiny. These pressure groups are able to provide representation
of certain issues and interests that are not reflected by political parties. Bennett notes that
pressure groups enable citizens to have their views represented and their grievances articulated.
Through pressure groups, they are also able to have their views represented at all three arms of
government. Pressure groups allow for an increase in citizen participation apart from elections
and in specific policy areas. Americans seek far greater and more often opportunities to
participate in the political process rather than elections which are only one day within the entire
year, every four years. Pressure groups also allows for participation in a specific policy area for
example pro-guns, anti-abortion. Additionally, pressure groups provide education to the public
on issues that the government do not want to directly address. They may make citizens aware of
the outcomes of decisions made by government or the possible dangers if certain issues are not
properly addressed. One of the most important functions pressure groups perform is agenda
building which is essentially influencing the agenda or policy of political parties, legislatures and
bureaucrats in order to give priority to their members interests. An example of agenda building
would be in the case of manufacturers and distributors of CDs, video cassettes and computer
software working together to get the governments attention to focus on the problem of piracy of
such goods. Bennett notes that as a result, China agreed to close down factories that were
illegally duplicating American goods. Lastly, pressure groups also perform the function of
scrutinizing and analysing government action and Supreme Court decisions.
The basic functions of pressure groups have been addressed however it is now imperative to
discuss the various strategies utilized in other to carry out their various functions. One of the

Rose-Mary Reynolds
most important functions pressure groups perform would be influencing the governments policy
and agenda. Pressure groups are able to do this through lobbying which according to Wayne, is
the behaviour of people who accost their elected representatives in the lobbies of legislatures and
other government buildings and try to persuade them how to vote on an issue. Baker notes that it
is the process of building relations with lawmakers to secure favourable policy outcomes and
influence the legislative agenda. Lobbying can take many forms as noted by Wayne which
includes a statement to a public official indicating a groups position on an issue, a trip by
influential constituents in order to plead a groups case. Lobbying can also be direct meaning
lobbyists themselves contact public officials or indirect where they would persuade and
encourage others to do so. Bennett notes that this may be the most effective method which can be
seen as it has been recorded that in 2010, there were 12,997 registered lobbyists, it has been
described as a persuasion industry. Many pressure groups have spent considerable amounts of
money on lobbying, for example the US Chamber of Commerce has spent over $75 million on
lobbying activities. Pressure groups also seek to influence policy by mobilising their members
and supporters to vote for a candidate. This method is known as endorsing and can be seen as a
very effective method especially when groups are single-issued or sufficient amount of members
(potential voters) are present in key states. An example of this would be the National Rifle
Association (NRA) who endorsed Mitt Romney as the presidential candidate and has its
members living disproportionately in 15 key battleground states and 40 battleground US House
districts, therefore candidates do not want to upset this important voting bloc as noted by Baker.
Endorsing also involves donations to political action committees (PACs). These groups seek to
influence how voters look at the candidates without instructing their members to vote by utilizing
funding vehicles. These are responsible for collecting and allocating money on the behalf of
these groups due to the introduction of electoral funding laws. Therefore pressure groups are still
able to exert influence by funding to individual candidates campaigns.
The issue can now be argued on whether or not pressure groups are too powerful within the
United States. Those that propose this argument, agree that it is due to the fact that pressure
groups are able to influence the three arms of the government as well as contributing to the
theories of revolving door syndrome and iron triangles, have essentially made pressure groups
too powerful. According to Wright, modern American government is deeply penetrated by
pressure groups, resulting in public policy-making to be a product of interactions between groups
and public officials. The First Amendment of the Constitution legitimizes lobbying of the
Legislatures, Executive and Courts by pressure or interest groups as it affirms the right of the
people to petition the government. These pressure groups are able to influence the three
branches of government and therefore manipulate government action and decisions made at
every level of federal government. Within the United States, as noted by Baker, Congress is the
chief law-making body and is therefore an obvious target for pressure group activity. They are
able to influence the way in which the House and Senate members vote by either making direct
contact with members of Congress or through contact with congressional committees. Pressure
groups are usually able to effectively influence the decision of government due to the divided

Rose-Mary Reynolds
government which refers to the situation where the two chambers of Congress being held by
different parties giving groups a greater chance of watering down legislation it disapproves of as
noted by Baker. Pressure groups also hold the power to influence presidential appointments to
many positions in the executive branch which is a responsibility of the Senate. This was seen in
1987, when Robert Bork was President Ronald Reagans nominee for the Supreme Court
however due to serious opposition from groups such as National Organisation for Women
(NOW), the Senate rejected his nomination. Pressure groups are also able to influence the
Executive as well as the Judiciary arms of government. When looking at the Executive branch of
government, pressure groups are able to influence the president and his team of advisers. The
presidents ability to mould the legislative direction can be used by pressure groups to achieve
their aims or they can encourage the president to use his executive orders to change the direction
of policy. The latter was evident in the constant reinstatement and reversal of the Mexico City
Policy which bans federal funding for family planning clinics that give abortion advice. Most
recently, President Obama reversed the policy to ensure these groups received federal funding.
Additionally, pressure groups are also able to influence the judiciary mainly through litigation
and amicus curiae. For those groups that wish to prevent a hostile majority from depriving them
of what they consider their basic right, the courts are a last resort. Essentially, groups who have
not garnered any success lobbying Congress or the Executive arms, are able to gain success
through litigation. The NRA is a notable example as in the past has used the courts to challenge
gun restriction laws in order to uphold the constitutional right to bear arms. Also, amicus
curiae, which Baker states it is a legal briefing which summarises a pressure groups standpoint
on the legal issue being considered. It can be seen that because pressure groups have ample
opportunity to easily influence government and its public policy making process. This is highly
undemocratic as pressure groups are unaccountable to the public and are only concerned with
their promoting their groups issues. Therefore due to the fact that unelected groups are able to
yield such power within the United States federal government essentially makes it too powerful.
Another argument in support of pressure groups being essentially too powerful is the revolvingdoor syndrome. One of the controversies surrounding pressure groups would have to be the fact
that many lobbyists are former politicians or their staff members. Baker defines it as the idea that
the same people dominate public policy making and pressure groups as many lobbyists are
former politicians or their aides. This theory contributes to the theory of elitism which means that
American politics is dominated by one group. Pressure groups essentially exist in order to ensure
that society is plural and allows for the diversity of groups and levels the playing field in which
all groups have the same opportunities. However, the revolving door theory shows that this is not
the case as the same individuals within government are also within these pressure groups,
making these groups dangerously powerful as they are very likely to meet little to no opposition
on gaining support from the different arms of government. Examples of the existence of the
revolving door syndrome can be seen with Darleen Druyan, a Pentagon official responsible for
overseeing the purchase of military equipment. She secured jobs at Boeing for her daughter and

Rose-Mary Reynolds
son-in-law just months after awarding them a $23.5 billion contract, then two years later took up
a lucrative job at Boeing with a salary of a quarter of a million dollars.
Iron triangles are also deemed as another factor that contributes to pressure groups being too
powerful within the United States. Baker defines an iron triangle as a political community
featuring three very powerful plays in the political process. This includes pressure groups,
congressional committees and the federal bureaucracy (groups not ideologically supported by the
president) sharing aims thus developing a strong relationship said to have given them an iron
grip on public policy. Iron triangles enable for these political players to effectively dictate and
attempts by Congress or the president for reform. The very existence of iron triangles allowing
pressure groups to yield such power is very undemocratic as it therefore once again allows
unelected and thus unaccountable groups to make key policy decisions. The most criticised iron
triangle has been the military industrial complex (MIC) which includes the relationship between
the Defense Department, the congressional armed forces committees and the leading weapons
manufacturers which many argue has contributed to the USAs huge defence budgets.
The argument can also be now held that the US is a healthy pluralist democratic society and
pressure groups are relatively weak within the political system as there are many checks and
balances that limit pressure group power and prevent them from dominating the system as stated
by Baker. These limitations include several acts such as the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act 2007 which attempted to eliminate the revolving door by specifying that
individuals leaving public office had a cooling-off period before they can lobby and also
banning lobbyists from extending gifts to members of government. However, the revolving door
syndrome remains a prevalent issue as many state officials now lobbyists will still have
important contact or friends in their previous work places that they can easily encourage and
influence. Additionally, the Federal Election Campaigns Act 1974 banned individual donation
and therefore established a system of federal funding for major party candidates. Though this
was in an attempt to prevent wealth of pressure groups, there have been many loopholes within
the system such as PACs and 527s that still allow pressure groups to make wealthy donations.
Other limitations exist in the form of regulatory agencies which are established in order to
oversee the affairs of many groups within the US. However, many of these watchdog agencies
have turned into lapdogs as pressure groups and many of these agencies have a close relationship
which is known as the regulatory capture theory. A notable example of this would be when the
Securities and Exchange Commission report in 2008 discovered that due to heavy lobbying by
five major investment banks, banks opted when to be in or out of supervision resulting in its
failure to regulate the financial sector.
It can also be argued that government, being the elected and accountable institution within the
United States political process still holds a considerable amount of power. Those public officials
and governmental bodies that pressure groups aim to influence may opt to neglect their views
which are a very common occurrence. That is why many smaller pressure groups would utilize

Rose-Mary Reynolds
different methods to garner attention towards their issue. However, it is mostly the groups with a
large membership and a great amount of funds that stand a better chance at influencing
government. However, it is still up to the government whether to entertain pressure groups, even
though it may be unwise as it may bring an unfavourable look, their bid or proposal for a specific
cause can be entirely overlooked.
Pressure groups do have a limiting role within the US as they cannot make any policy
making decisions themselves and are also subjected to the will of the three arms of government
that they aim to influence. However, pressure groups role within society should not be to the
extent that it is today. Due to the size and success of many groups, the influence that they yield
undermines the basis of democracy within society as individual candidates can be easily bought
through great donations and any serious opposition can lead to the withdrawal of the groups
members support and vote which can substantially harm a candidate. Therefore, pressure groups
are not subject to the many limiting factors that are put in place because society has created
several loopholes and corrupted alternatives. Therefore, it can be said that pressure are becoming
too powerful because they are able to directly and indirectly change public policy and agenda
when they are not elected and accountable members of the United States political system.