Sociology Now, Census Update

Increasingly, interest groups do not try to represent an
entire political agenda. Instead, they fight for or against a
single issue, like gun control. As the number of “hot-but-
ton” issues has become more visible in the media, the num-
ber of interest groups has increased, especially now that
the Internet provides an easy, risk-free place for mobiliza-
tion: Potential members need only push a button indicat-
ing that they support the cause and key in their credit card
number to make a donation.
Interest groups are very visible in Washington. They
often have a staff of full-time professional lobbyists who
influence politicians for a living. In fact, many people
believe that interest groups have too much power and can
buy votes in any election by pumping money into their
campaign—or the campaigns of their opponents. For
example, the medical risks of smoking were known to physicians for more than 20
years before Congress mandated that warning labels should appear on cigarette boxes.
Why? It’s likely that it was because lobbyists for the tobacco industry were effective
in preventing it, by promising big campaign contributions to those legislators who
went along with them. As a result of widespread public suspicion, interest groups are
also subject to severe restriction. They must be registered, and they must submit
detailed reports of their activities.
But how much power do interest groups really have? University of Washington
sociologist Jon Agnone (2007) studied the number of proenvironmental bills passed
by Congress each year between 1960 and 1994 and found no correlation with the
intensity of proenvironmental lobbying. Talking to politicians made no difference in
the way they voted. However, each major environmental
protest increased proenvironmental legislation by 2.2 percent.
Evidently big, showy gestures get more results than
conversations.
One of the more controversial contemporary versions of
an interest group is the political action committee (PAC).
These are lobbying groups that work to elect or defeat can-
didates based on their stance on specific issues. Most PACs
represent interests of large corporations—business and
industry; there are no poor people’s PACs. However, you can
find many smaller special-interest PACs on the Internet.
PACs work by soliciting contributions, which they then
contribute to the campaigns of their chosen candidates. Prior
to the 2004 presidential election, for instance, PACs raised
$376 million (an increase of 19 percent over 2001) and con-
tributed $106 million of it to federal candidates. Because the
total campaign contributions received by George Bush and
John Kerry combined amounted to $665 million, this was a
sizeable sum. And it was all “soft money,” outside the limits
imposed by federal election law (Federal Election Commission,
2006). By June 2006, disbursements to federal candidates had
increased by 27 percent over 2004 (Federal Election Commis-
sion, 2006). Even in nonelection years, PAC contributions to
candidates has been growing steadily, with sharper increases
over the past decade (Federal Election Commission, 2006;
Figure 14.3). In 2006, the top three PACs—the National Asso-
ciation of Realtors, National Beer Wholesalers Association,

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES 473

JInterest groups organize to

lobby around specific issues.

These Greenpeace polar bears

are protesting against global

warming.

YEAR

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

$60

$50

$40

$30

$20

$10

0

AMOUNT IN MILLIONS

Corporate Non-connected

Trade/Member

Labor

Other

FIGURE 14.3PAC Contributions to Candidates

in Nonelection Years

Source:Federal Election Commission.