Presentation on theme: "Quiz Nader vs. Political Science “ On five key votes, the top five recipients of banking money received over $190,000 in contributions and voted against."— Presentation transcript:
Quiz Nader vs. Political Science “ On five key votes, the top five recipients of banking money received over $190,000 in contributions and voted against banking interests only 24% of the time…the five lawmakers who received the least banking PAC money received on average $34,000 and voted against banking interests 76% of the time.” (Paraphrase, Sorauf) Mobilization of bias—interest group efforts, campaign contributions increase EFFORT by those who already agree with them Free votes—interest groups more likely to be influential when constituents don’t care about a vote.
If you were the leader of an interest group, would you work with other groups? With whom? Under what circumstances? Why? Would your coalitional strategy differ when you are trying to get a bill passed vs. when you are trying to get sympathetic officials elected? Why or why not?
Interest Group Coalitions Broadly defined advocacy coalitions—those that work together across institutional contexts Active coalitions—high costs; those that require affirmative action of each group that is a member of the coalition Passive coalitions—low costs; those that only require groups to be on the same side of an issue
Research on issue coalitions Groups will work in coalitions if –it improves their reputation –It is low cost Coalitions can impose diverse workload burdens on members –Just contribute name –Form close associations of interlocking boards –Core members supply bulk of lobbying and coordination efforts Generally in any given policy area, a “hollow core”
Electoral networks Primary endorsements come from groups that: –Choose to be involved in elections –Take sides between the parties –Want to gain influence over partisan elected officials
Electoral Networks: general election PAC contributions How often do different groups contribute to the same candidates? How often are they on the same team?
PAC network SizeDensityDegree centrality Between- ness centrality Central actors Structure Overall network 3,5041.55.6%.9% Single issue Partisan divide with central actors Democratic network 2,6831.15.4%1% Unions Core- periphery Republican network 2,7791.46.7%.5% Business Core- periphery
Core of PAC Contribution Network Width=# of ties, Size=betweenness centrality, Layout=spring embedding; Dichotomous links established with 85 shared ties or more
Legislative network Members get up to announce thank yous to groups that have helped to work on a piece of legislation. How often are groups mentioned as being part of the same legislative effort? How often are they on the same team?
Legislative Data 319 legislative coalitions of national interest groups announced in the Congressional Record, 1999-2002 From initial list of organizations that endorse legislation; snowball sample for organizational names Affiliation networks, with ties based on number of shared legislative coalitions
Electoral & Legislative Network Green Ties = Legislative Ties, Blue Ties = Electoral Ties, Blue Nodes = Democratic, Red Nodes = Republican
Conclusions The Extended Party Organization: Different in Elections and Legislative Debate Party Differences - No Match to Stereotypes Signaling in Interest Group Coalitions: Many Large Coalitions; Some Bipartisan Legislative Polarization: Interest Groups - Not Polarized Most central actors are partisan—what does that mean?