Strategies and Tactics
Since the very first Congress, interest groups have played an important role in shaping legislation. They have used an assortment of methods to influence legislators and impact public policy. These tactics can be divided into two categories: direct and indirect techniques.
Direct Techniques
Lobbying policymakers directly is the preferred method of influencing the process. Many interest groups hire specialized lobbying firms or retain lobbyists on their staff to help gain access to key decision-makers. With their vast network of contacts and intricate knowledge of the political process, former legislators and staff members typically make the best lobbyists.
Lobbyists perform a variety of functions to shape government policy:
Setting up private meetings with lawmakers, staff, and executive agency bureaucrats to inform them of their clients' interest
Providing both policy and political information to decision-makers
Assisting lawmakers and their staffs in drafting legislation
Testifying before Congressional committees, subcommittees, and executive rule-making agencies on proposed legislation and rules related to their industry
Interpreting the impact of proposed legislation and rules
Organizing protest demonstrations
Hosting campaign fundraisers for candidates
Talking to the media
Running advertisements in the media
Filing lawsuits or engaging in other litigation
Former members of Congress take full advantage of certain privileges when lobbying their former colleagues, such as continued access to their respective chambers' gym, dining room, and floor. The only catch is that former lawmakers are prohibited from directly lobbying members of Congress for one year after they leave government.
Most interest groups aren't shy about offering campaign assistance to lawmakers in order to gain access and shape policy. The larger interest groups have special fundraising committees called political action committees (PACs), which distribute campaign contributions to various federal and state lawmakers. Interest groups give PAC donations to incumbents and challengers that they believe are sympathetic to their cause. Since the late 1970s, the number of PACs has quadrupled to nearly 5,000, with the size of their contributions increasing tenfold to $500 million. Labor PACs give most of their dollars to Democratic candidates, while corporate donations tend to favor the Republicans.
A few prominent interest groups, such as the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the American Conservative Union (ACU), and the League of Conservation Voters, publish an annual “scorecard” whereby they rate the performance of every member of Congress. For example, if a lawmaker has an ACU rating of 80, it means that he voted in favor of the ACU's position 80 percent of the time on legislation that the group deemed important.
In their effort to defeat the passage of NAFTA, dozens of consumer, environmental, labor, and manufacturing groups formed an “umbrella” organization called the Citizens Trade Campaign. By pooling their resources, the groups were able to reduce expenses, avoid duplicating each others' efforts, and give the appearance of broad-based support.
Indirect Techniques
Sometimes, interest groups will work through third parties to influence legislators and shape public policy. One of the most commonly used indirect techniques is constituent lobbying, whereby members of an organization write, phone, and e-mail legislators to communicate their concerns. When done correctly, this type of grassroots lobbying can be extremely effective because it demonstrates the size, intensity, and political savvy of an interest group — something elected officials monitor closely.
In some cases, well-funded and high-profile interest groups try to generate a groundswell of public pressure through mass mailings, public demonstrations, media advertising, and public relations campaigns. In 1993, the Health Insurance Association of America, a group opposed to Hillary Clinton's nationalized health-care proposal, spent $17 million on a series of television commercials for the purpose of discrediting the first lady's plan. The memorable ads generated national buzz and were highly effective in turning public opinion against “Hillary-Care.”
