368 Chapter 10Chapter 10 || Interest GroupsInterest Groupslobbied against a new ban on assault weapons, against reforms to the system of national
background checks for handgun purchases, and against new limits on ownership of
guns by mentally ill people.
While the success of the NR A’s negative lobbying attracts considerable attention,
its failures in lobbying for policy change do not. Consider the NR A’s advocacy of
concealed carry laws. As noted earlier, there is little doubt that the NR A’s leaders and
most of its members favor the passage of such laws nationwide, but efforts to lobby
Congress in favor of such laws are unlikely to be successful given public opposition
and well-funded interest groups that are against concealed carry. These groups
could respond with negative lobbying against any effort the NR A might make. As a
result, while the NR A lobbies for concealed carry, it has failed to help enact national
legislation; the limits on its power over legislation do not get much publicity.Salience Interest groups are more likely to succeed when their request has low salience
or attracts little public attention.^64 When the average voter does not know or care about
a group’s request, legislators and bureaucrats do not have to worry about the political
consequences of giving the group what it wants. The only question is whether the officials
themselves favor the request or can be convinced that the group’s desired change is
worthwhile. In contrast, when salience is high, legislators’ response to lobbying will hinge
on their judgment of constituent opinion: Do voters favor what the group wants? After all,
the average legislator has a strong interest in reelection and is unlikely to act against his or
her constituents’ wishes. As a result, lobbying may count for nothing in the face of public
opposition or be superfluous when the group’s position already has public support.^65
While the idea of interest group lobbying probably brings to mind titanic struggles on
controversial issues, such as gun control, abortion rights, or judicial nominations, low-
salience issues are surprisingly common. Many groups are indeed active for or against
these high-profile issues and try to capture public attention as a way of pressuring people
in government. However, the typical issue attracts much less activity. One analysis of
lobbying disclosure forms found that 5 percent of issues attracted more than 50 percent
of lobbying activity and 50 percent of issues attracted less than 3 percent.^66 Thus, the
typical issue debated by members of Congress may involve relatively little interest
group activity, and a group’s request may generate little or no opposition from other
groups. Remember the National Turkey Federation—the people who give the president
a turkey every Thanksgiving? In the winter of 2014, the federation successfully lobbied
federal bureaucrats to increase propane supplies to Midwest states facing record cold
temperatures, including areas where the federation’s members use propane to heat
their barns. The policy change resulting from the federation’s lobbying efforts attracted
no publicity, which is precisely the point. When few people know or care about a policy
change, interest groups are able to dominate the policy-making process.Conflict Interest group influence is much less apparent on conflictual issues—those over
which public opinion is split and groups are typically active on both sides of the question.
Consider a high-salience issue such as gun control. The ongoing debate over gun control
attracts many well-funded interest groups and coalitions, which support different
versions of gun control or want no change to current policy. There is no consensus
among members of Congress, interest groups, or the American public about which
policy changes are needed. Under these conditions, access doesn’t count for very much;
legislators have a keen sense of the political costs of accommodating a group’s demands.
As a result, stalemate is the likely result, which is exactly what has happened over the last
few years: gun control laws have not been strengthened, but other than an increase in
“concealed carry” laws, there have not been significant changes in the other direction.
After the massacre in Las Vegas, in which 58 people were killed and 546 injured, the NR A
said it would favor additional regulation of “bump stocks,” which allow 90 rounds to besalience
The level of familiarity with an
interest group’s goals in the general
populationIf you have ever heard of the National
Turkey Federation, it’s probably
because of its participation in the
annual presidential “pardoning” of
a turkey before Thanksgiving. The
federation’s relative anonymity has
been beneficial: its effort to increase
the amount of turkey served in
federally funded school lunches was
aided by most Americans’ lack of
awareness of the proposal.Full_11_APT_64431_ch10_340-373.indd 368 16/11/18 10:26 AM