116 Pressure politics
- groups may attempt to exert influence on elections, on the process of leg-
islation, on the way in which government programmes are administered, or
on the courts. Groups may attempt to influence the selection of candidates
for office at all levels of government, both in primary and general elections,
and in particular since the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1974 by the means of Political Action Committees. Thus labour unions
and other groups attempt to secure the election of candidates responsive
to their demands. The Congress of Racial Equality in 1967 pledged itself
to secure the return to Congress of the black Congressman Adam Clayton
Powell who had been barred from taking up his seat. In 1952 oil-producing
interests made it clear to delegates at the Democratic National Convention
that Adlai Stevenson’s attitude towards state control of offshore oil deposits
was hostile to their interests. Groups may contribute to party funds, help
with canvassing, aid party organisation, and provide speakers and literature
to help in a campaign. The effectiveness of such activities, and the extent to
which the interest groups benefit from the later behaviour of candidates who
achieve office with their support, vary, of course, from negligible to very con-
siderable, but it is very difficult to give any precise indication of the results of
pressure politics at any stage of the governmental process. Congressmen who
benefit from the support of a particular group at election times are probably
predisposed towards their point of view in any case, and would normally as-
sist them as far as seemed practicable in view of all the varying interests of
their constituents. Perhaps the most that such groups can hope for, at federal
level at any rate, is to maintain close contact with legislators through their
supporting activities and thereby to have easier access to the Member of
Congress or Senator at critical times. Interest groups attempt to influence
the behaviour of the legislators in a number of ways. They may arrange to
deluge them with letters and telegrams from constituents urging their point
of view, or they may arrange for groups of voters to present their views to
their representatives at the Capitol. Rather more subtly, and perhaps more
effectively, they may prepare detailed briefs to deliver as evidence before
congressional committees or to convince individual members of the legisla-
ture of the rightness of their case. Many interest groups maintain permanent
offices in Washington, or in state capitals, in order to keep up close personal
contact with legislators and administrators; other groups use the services of
a professional lobbyist who may represent a number of groups who cannot af-
ford to maintain their own representative. The use of a lobbyist who will pur-
sue a group’s interest in the legislature is by no means new. In 1846 a certain
A.J. Marshall was hired by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad to obtain from
the legislature of the state of Virginia the grant of a right of way through the
state to the Ohio River. When offering his services to the company Marshall
emphasised that he was not proposing to use corrupt methods in dealing with
legislators. ‘My scheme is to surround the Legislature with respectable and
influential agents, whose persuasive arguments may influence the members
to do you a naked act of justice. That is all.’ The modem lobbyist must be
skilled in producing ‘persuasive arguments’, and many are equipped with