'Evaluate the view that US IGs are now more powerful than political parties'

Question 1

intro

Answer 1

US parties have always been perceived as relatively weak, they are decentralised and fragmented. This creates an opportunity for pressure groups to have considerable influence. Indeed, in the 1970s Broder (the party’s over) highlighted the rise of pressure group influence ads one of the key factors explaining party decline. Most academics agree that recent years have witnessed a period of party renewal.
LOA - interest groups are more powerful

Question 2

para 1 theme

Answer 2

fulfilment of representation and participation

Question 3

para 2 theme

Answer 3

elections

Question 4

para 3 theme

Answer 4

influencing policy and legislation

Question 5

para 1 - fulfilment of representation

Answer 5

• Parties are by nature broader and catch all - PGs have a narrower focus and can therefore provide excellent representation e.g. through PGs like the NRA and league of conservation voters the passionate gun owner / environmentalist can have their views represented). A pro life stance is just one of the many policies of the GOP - whereas IGs like the National Right to Life have a clear focus on one issue and target the 3 branches of federal government plus the states accordingly (lobbying, using the courts, grassroots activities such as the annual March for Life, etc.)
  There is evidence that the public are disillusioned with the party system (over 40% of voters registered as independent in 2020 and overall support for 3rd parties remains low). But PG activity remains popular - a recent poll suggested that over 80% claim to be a member of at least one US interest group. There is a large number of IGs representing a diverse range of interests (including typically under-represented minority groups)

Question 6

para 1 - however

Answer 6

• In the era of party renewal the two main parties are clearly representing two distinct ideological positions, party platforms differ greatly through differing views on abortion, healthcare, minority rights and gay marriage.
  Parties seek election so they are more accountable and politicians will be under more pressure to accurately represent the folks back home. IGs on the other hand often represent a relatively narrow group and may not necessarily be working in the public interest (elite theory)

Question 7

para 1 - rebuttal

Answer 7

The parties can be perceived as remote and out of touch, particularly between election, not always accurately representing the issues that really matter to people.

Question 8

para 2 - elections

Answer 8

• The 2002 BCRA banned soft money which to some extent reduced the role of parties in fundraising at election time. Parties do still contribute to election campaigns however the role of PGs in fundraising/donations should not be underestimated; note in particular the orle of Super PACs since 2010
  
  • Since the 1968 McG-F reforms, parties have lost control of candidate selection - not the NRA’s influence on the 2012 Indiana Senate primary (defeat of moderate Richard Lugar)
    IGs play an important role in education / GOTV strategies / endorsements (voter guides, adverts, ratings systems, etc)

Question 9

para 2 - however

Answer 9

• The era of so-called party renewal the parties do play a significant role at election time. Both the RNC and the DNC have been modernised and help to coordinate party campaigns and fundraising

Question 10

para 2 - rebuttal

Answer 10

So much election campaigning in the USA is candidate-centred rather than party-centred. The lack of a leader and the absence of a UK-style manifesto add weight to this argument that the role of US parties in election campaigns is relatively weak. In this respect some of Broder’s “party decline” ideas are still relevant

Question 11

para 3 - influencing policy and legislation

Answer 11

• There is little compromise between the two parties at the moment. E.g. during the passage of Obamacare, the GOP struggle to have much influence as the Bill passed through a Democrat-controlled Congress. Yet interest groups like the AMA and PhRMA did manage to influence the final bill (PhRMA lobbied hard and succeeded in amending a clause that would have allowed cheaper import of drugs from Canada)
  Gun control is another good example: even when the Democrats were in full / partial control of Congress during the Obama years, no gun control measure was passed. This was almost certainly due to NRA pressure

Question 12

para 3 - however

Answer 12

• There are various legal limits on the power and influence of IGs. Congress has passed laws to control lobbying and to limit campaign donations.
  Constitutional factors such as the Separation of powers and federalism (creating lots of access points) should, in theory, make it difficult for any single IG to be come too powerful

Question 13

para 3 - rebuttal

Answer 13

• The weakness of this argument is that these laws are relatively weak and, in the case of campaign finance, contain loopholes.
  You could argue that the US constitution allows Ifs to thrive, rather than restricting them. The 1st amendment, for instance, is in effect an open invitation for groups to petitoins and influence decision-maker