P1: C-152-Gronke
Gronke WL040/Bidgoli-Vol III-Ch-07 July 11, 2003 11:45 Char Count= 0
92 POLITICSspread of the Internet has already affected the way that
interest groups conduct their activities and will continue
to do so in the future.
The importance of fundraising for any interest group
is readily apparent; groups require financial support to
continue operating. As Richard Davis notes, “[g]roups
have formed in competition with each other, but they are
not guaranteed equal voices or shares in power...(m)ost
policy maker attention is centered on groups who pos-
sess substantial resources” (Davis, 1999, p. 81). Fundrais-
ing can take a variety of forms, especially with regard
to groups dependent on businesses or other special par-
ties for support. This fundraising carried out by interest
groups is a type of direct mobilization, where political
leaders communicate directly with citizens and provide
an opportunity for political action. A request for members
to volunteer time to support the organization is one com-
mon example of this. Another important way direct mobi-
lization occurs is in the basic task of educating the public
and the group’s members along with informing them of
news and events related to the group. This process is vital
because an informed membership is more likely to care
about the group’s issues and actively support the group in
some way.
Other types of direct mobilization include requests to
sign petitions and write letters to political representa-
tives. These efforts to encourage individuals to contact
the government, described as “outside” lobbying by Ken
Kollman or “grassroots” lobbying by Mark Petracca, con-
stitute an important tactic for interest groups to use to
achieve results. Kollman argues that this outside lobbying
performs the dual tasks of “communicat[ing] aspects of
public opinion to policymakers” and “influenc[ing] public
opinion by changing how selected constituents consider
and respond to policy issues” (Kollman 1988). Petracca
(1992) emphasizes its widespread use, stating that “in-
terest groups across the political spectrum now pursue
grassroots lobbying with a vengeance.” In this way, inter-
est groups encourage direct contact between their mem-
bers and government to further their own ends.
Because communication is so central to an interest
group, this has the consequence of making its main cost
the cost of communication. The traditional methods of
mass media advertising, telephone campaigns, and mass
direct mailings all incur significant costs to the group per-
forming them. The potential of the Internet, then, be-
comes clear. The difference in cost between 1,000 and
100,000 people reading an informative Web site put up by
an interest group is most likely trivial (due to bandwidth
charges) or zero; however, the cost of printing and mail-
ing 100,000 brochures is presumably much higher than
that of doing so for only 1,000. Thus interest groups can
reach a much larger audience without incurring higher
transaction costs through use of the Internet.
A similar logic can be applied to member responses
to group requests as well as member communication to
a group or the government in general. Well-written form
letters can be sent online with the mere click of a but-
ton. People would (generally) like to spend less time on
the task and therefore prefer the easier online method.
This can be extended to essentially all exchanges that take
place between a member and a group: joining, donationsand sales, getting current news and events, and providing
feedback to the group.
The Internet also presents the opportunity for groups
to make communication between and among members
easier. Web forums and online services, such as electronic
greeting cards, enable Web sites to develop a community
made up of regular visitors to the site. Fronting the re-
sources necessary for this effort can pay off for the inter-
est group as well, because these new social networks will
discourage members from quitting, encourage members
to be active, and possibly even attract new members, as
entrance to this online community becomes another type
of solidary incentive (Olson, 1971).
In summary then, an interest group’s or political
party’s success is affected significantly by three types
of communication: group-to-member, member-to-group,
and member-to-government. Also, the interest group can
help itself by encouraging social networks among its
members, or member-to-member interaction. The Inter-
net has the potential to greatly decrease the transaction
costs for all of these types of communication.
This suggests that interest groups should and will pur-
sue online options for their activities. This capability of
the Internet to decrease costs and provide alternative
methods of communication is precisely what gives it huge
relevance to politics. So, in theory, Internet usage is a
valuable pursuit for interest groups in a variety of ways.
However, the issue of efficiency is still largely ignored.
The common thinking goes that, because Web site con-
struction and Internet use are relatively cheap, then if
such efforts produce any results, they must be worthwhile.
With these low production costs, it should be expected
that there would be roughly equivalent Web usage across
interest groups with different budgets. Or if differences
in breadth of group interests are considered, then there
should be at least no direct correlation between a group’s
budget and its Web presence, as the whole concept is that
the low cost enables any group to provide as large an on-
line presence as it desires.
As with studies of campaign communications, how-
ever, there are few up-to-date studies of the efficacy of
interest group and political party activities on the Inter-
net(although see the studies conducted for the author by
Tang and Looper [1999] and Casey, Link, and Malcolm
[2000] available online at http://www.reed.edu/∼gronkep/
webofpolitics). It is clear that the Web sites are being cre-
ated, but at what cost and for what impact? Can interest
groups enhance democratic politics by substantially in-
creasing political participation? Those few studies that
have been conducted examine political party Web sites
and conclude that established interests dominate this
new medium as they did traditional avenues of political
competition (Gibson & Ward, 1998; Margolis, Resnick,
& Wolfe, 1999). No comparable studies of interest group
sites have been conducted. For now, the question remains
open.The Hotline to Government? The Internet
and Direct Democracy
Imagine that a federal agency such as the Environmental
Protection Agency is holding a hearing on a new set of