The Role of Special Interest Groups in American Politics in government. However, at the same time there are marked differences in composition and function that define interest groups as entities distinct from major political parties. According to VO Key Jr. in a composition aptly titled Pressure Groups; pressure groups “Usually…concerned only with a narrow range of policies; " and contrary to the objectives of political parties, their intentions are "to influence the content of public policies rather than the results of elections". Nevertheless, it is a recognized fact that special interest groups with a mass membership are considered congregations with enough power to influence election results and "pressure party leaders, legislators and others." in an official position to act in accordance with their wishes..." Although it is accepted that pressure groups do lobby politics in certain directions, it is quite different to describe the way in which pressure groups pressure links public opinion to government action. Apparently, the driving force for action is not as simple as the image of the "lobbyist who speaks on behalf of a united public, determined in its objectives and ready to reward its friends and punish its enemies in elections." . In reality, it may seem that the spokespeople of mass pressure groups are “not representative of the views of their members.” This perception, however, does not take into account the wide potential for variability in political opinions that can occur within large groups. On the contrary, it is not a “cruel betrayal” or a “deliberate deviation from the mass mandate”; it is more likely that there are other theorems to explain this phenomenon. As with all other human groups, “opinions… are not divided between blacks and whites.” In Keys' essay, he attempts to hypothesize that there are naturally stratified layers of activism and pacifism within group membership. “It may be that the nature of mass groups means that attachment to the positions expressed by key spokespeople varies depending on attachment and involvement in the group.” When the functioning of these groups is considered in this way, it is logical to assume that special interest groups « invar...... middle of paper ......sp; On the other hand, there are those who defend the PAC system and profess that “contributions are an effect and not a cause” of political action; for these people, PACs are seen as a reward for support and not a method of purchasing support. PAC supporters also believe that allowing the “PAC channel keeps the process regulated and under public scrutiny.” Money from small donors can now be “pooled with like-minded voters.” Jack Webb of HouPAC agrees: “PACs involve people who otherwise would not. That's a damn good thing. » One thing that cannot be refuted by either side of the PAC argument, however, is the enormous influence that PACs have had on the American political scene since their conception and growth in the 1970s. With the continued volume of money flowing from PACs to candidates without major regulation, it is safe to say that PACs will continue to seriously influence the American legislative process...”

Essay / The Role of Special Interest Groups in American Politics in government. However, at the same time there are marked differences in composition and function that define interest groups as entities distinct from major political parties. According to VO Key Jr. in a composition aptly titled Pressure Groups; pressure groups “Usually…concerned only with a narrow range of policies; " and contrary to the objectives of political parties, their intentions are "to influence the content of public policies rather than the results of elections". Nevertheless, it is a recognized fact that special interest groups with a mass membership are considered congregations with enough power to influence election results and "pressure party leaders, legislators and others." in an official position to act in accordance with their wishes..." Although it is accepted that pressure groups do lobby politics in certain directions, it is quite different to describe the way in which pressure groups pressure links public opinion to government action. Apparently, the driving force for action is not as simple as the image of the "lobbyist who speaks on behalf of a united public, determined in its objectives and ready to reward its friends and punish its enemies in elections." . In reality, it may seem that the spokespeople of mass pressure groups are “not representative of the views of their members.” This perception, however, does not take into account the wide potential for variability in political opinions that can occur within large groups. On the contrary, it is not a “cruel betrayal” or a “deliberate deviation from the mass mandate”; it is more likely that there are other theorems to explain this phenomenon. As with all other human groups, “opinions… are not divided between blacks and whites.” In Keys' essay, he attempts to hypothesize that there are naturally stratified layers of activism and pacifism within group membership. “It may be that the nature of mass groups means that attachment to the positions expressed by key spokespeople varies depending on attachment and involvement in the group.” When the functioning of these groups is considered in this way, it is logical to assume that special interest groups « invar...... middle of paper ......sp; On the other hand, there are those who defend the PAC system and profess that “contributions are an effect and not a cause” of political action; for these people, PACs are seen as a reward for support and not a method of purchasing support. PAC supporters also believe that allowing the “PAC channel keeps the process regulated and under public scrutiny.” Money from small donors can now be “pooled with like-minded voters.” Jack Webb of HouPAC agrees: “PACs involve people who otherwise would not. That's a damn good thing. » One thing that cannot be refuted by either side of the PAC argument, however, is the enormous influence that PACs have had on the American political scene since their conception and growth in the 1970s. With the continued volume of money flowing from PACs to candidates without major regulation, it is safe to say that PACs will continue to seriously influence the American legislative process...”

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch