Suchergebnisse

During the past few decades the number of pres sure groups has rapidly multiplied, the scope of their activities has vastly expanded, and their methods and tactics have become more professionalized and subtle. Today the more highly organized groups have lobbyists in Washington and in many state capitals, well-staffed bureaus of press agents and research personnel, and active membership groups across the nation. In general, pressure groups function in a pragmatic fashion, employing any procedures or methods which will ef fectively promote their aims. Pressure groups attempt to ex ert influence on every phase of the political process. They en deavor to influence their own members and other groups; urge political parties to endorse favored policies; work for the selec tion of "friendly" officials; and attempt to secure favorable decisions from executive, legislative, and judicial officials. Pos sibly the most significant contemporary development in pres sure-group activity is the continual increase in their efforts to mold public sentiment by utilizing the media of mass communi cation. Noteworthy recent developments in this area include the widespread use of institutional advertising and the estab lishment of the foundation, committees, councils, and institutes which have as their basic purpose the influencing of public attitudes.

Many states have lobbying laws which require the filing of registration, appearance and expense statements. However, these laws for the most part are restricted in cover age to direct communication with members of the Legislature and the Governor in influencing legislation. Although the in tention of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 was to regulate both direct and indirect communication with Con gress by pressure groups and lobbyists, this objective was car ried out by using vague and ambiguous language in a law with criminal penalties as sanctions. A series of decisions by the United States Supreme Court involving the existing statute has construed lobbying in its commonly accepted sense as repre sentations made directly to the Congress. The members of the McClellan investigating committee, aware of the need of ob serving constitutional guaranties, are sponsoring in the 85th Congress Senate Bill 2191 which provides for the revision of the existing statute with requirements for disclosure of both direct and indirect communications with Congress and with any agency or department of the executive branch. To meet strict Constitutional requirements, civil penalties are provided for all persons except legislative agents who continue to be subject to criminal punishment as well as those who file false statements or send spurious communications.

Public administrative agencies in many ways re semble and behave like pressure groups. They not only ad minister laws, but they attempt to influence public opinion and legislative action, promoting the interests of their members and of related groups. General statutory regulations do not re strict them noticeably in this regard, although in some impor tant ways the Chief Executive does, especially through budg etary, personnel, and other organizational controls. Never theless, public bureaucracies enjoy considerable autonomy to propose public policies and promote their adoption. By day-to-day liaison with legislators, avenues are kept open for administrative lobbying. Most crucial in the legislative ac tivities of executive agencies is their strategic work with com mittees considering bills in the legislature. Among the critical kinds of support which may be mobilized here are executive superiors, employees, and clientele. Also, by elaborating their administrative structure, bureaucracies enlist the interest and participation of influential citizens as advisors and sponsors. Additionally, bureaucracies may bring pressure to bear upon legislators through the exercise of administrative discretion. Finally, in the publicity arena, bureaucrats have certain privi leged positions, although they may invite legislative reprisals through overzealous propagandizing.

The heart of government is public policy. Pri vate interest groups and administrative agencies have come to be the principal originators of policy, while legislative groups, along with administrative and private groups, are the major shapers of public policy. The role of private groups depends upon the cultural setting within which they operate and the nature of the policy-making process. An interest group may succeed in shaping public policy when it is able to identify its conception of desirable policy with prevailing attitudes of the public and when it has access to the major centers of policy determination. Identification of the interests of the group with those of relevant publics may be accomplished by ma nipulating public attitudes, by adjusting the attitudes of the group, or both. Groups seek access along a number of fronts in all three branches of government. The ability of a group to gain or exploit access is limited by certain factors which, to a large extent, are not subject to its control. There has been frequent comment on the alleged danger from interest groups. An objective appraisal of interest groups in a democracy should focus on the process by which policy is formulated rather than on the policy which results.