Search results

Interest groups representing the marginalized regularly neglect advocacy on behalf of their most vulnerable constituents—those with intersectional disadvantage. Yet, they claim that such advocacy is central to their missions. I argue that interest groups representing women, people of color, Native nations, and the poor strategically conduct intersectional advocacy through coalitional lobbying. I test this claim using a new dataset of cosignature patterns within public comments on proposed federal agency rules submitted by a set of such groups between 2004 and 2014. I find that these groups are significantly more likely to pursue intersectional advocacy in coalitions but that coalition work, alone, does not relate to influential intersectional advocacy. Rather, it is particular coalition characteristics, including organizational diversity and financial capacity, that predict such influence. I conclude that collaborative lobbying is an effective tactic for mediating representational bias in interest group advocacy and promoting more pluralistic administrative policy making.

Many studies have identified a line of influence between interest group lobbying and the federal bureaucracy's implementation of public policy. These works, however, have often focused on the influence of individual groups rather than coalitional efforts, which compose the majority of lobbying. Assessing this activity is critical to understanding the role of public participants in administrative policymaking. I test the influence of diverse coalitions of interest groups on bureaucratic policy outputs by analyzing a new dataset of organizations' co‐signed public comments across nearly 350 federal agency rules proposed between 2005 and 2015. I find that agencies favor recommendations from organizationally diverse coalitions, and not coalitions that are bipartisan or dominated by business interests. Further, I find that coalition influence is heightened when lobbying in coalitions that are larger in size and more well‐resourced, and when policy salience is low. I conclude that diverse lobbying coalitions help bureaucrats to shape the direction and content of regulatory law. This conclusion further establishes the role of organizational participants in bureaucratic policymaking and contributes to the debate over democratic legitimacy in the administrative state.

AbstractAmerican Indians are among the most underrepresented, yet heavily regulated, groups in national politics. While Indian nations maintain statuses as sovereign nations, they, and their people, remain affected by national policies addressing their treaty, land, resource, and civil and political rights. Theories of American Indian political incorporation suggest that Indian nations thus deploy interest group tactics to maintain or achieve favorable policy outcomes. We argue that coalition building, a ubiquitous lobbying strategy, enhances tribal policy advocacy and that "Native‐dominant" coalitions—those in which Native interests constitute a majority of members—are more influential than their non‐Native‐dominant counterparts. We test these claims using data from administrative rulemaking and find support for our hypotheses. We conclude that the unique particularities of tribal advocacy distinguish Native coalitions from those of other groups, and that their strategic lobbying choices may help to mediate representational disparities in policymaking by the executive branch.

Scholars argue that the Black church produces religious messages that foster racial cohesion; however, recent examinations of Black religion note the heterogeneity of the messages and beliefs advanced by Black churches. Several argue that this heterogeneity in Black religious beliefs is reflected in Black political beliefs. This study examines the linkage between heterogeneity in Black religious beliefs and heterogeneity in Black political attitudes. Offering measures of the social gospel, prosperity gospel, and Black theology, we demonstrate that each religious belief system is related to different aspects of Black public opinion. The social gospel is linked to continuing the legacy of the civil rights movement, while the prosperity gospel is associated with a departure from its legacy. Meanwhile, Black theology is linked to racial empowerment and extending the boundaries of Black politics.

"The Mass Media and the Policy Process" published on by Oxford University Press.