1. History of Groups Proliferation in US due to: Social cleavages along income, occupational, religious, racial and cultural lines US Constitutional system increases access points Institutional vs. Membership groups Business, governments, foundations, universities Or, supported by activities/contributions of mems. Factors explaining rise of groups Broad economic developments (mass production) Government Policy (public programs: vets, poor) Religious/Moralistic movements Rise in # parallels gov’t involvement since 1970s

2. Interest Groups More IG’s, more belonging? »No for unions, businesses, charities »Yes for civil/political organizations »Therefore, greater civic duty/political efficacy High-Status joiners- High-class bias? »But, outputs: who wins and who loses? »Internal group divisions (farmers, etc.) »Elite opinion cleavages rampant »Some well organized (NAACP), some not (taxpay) »Bus/Prof.: tend to be more well organized/financed Extension of member concerns? »External political strategy vs. internal recruitment »Leftist leaning union perspectives, AARP material b

3. Political Representation In US: Ideological vs. Geographic Rep. 4 factors for IG representation accuracy –Group homogeneity –People’s motives for joining –The size of the staff –Level of militance and activity of membership Challenges to IGs –Large constituencies (taxpayers, women) hard to organize –Mancur Olson’s free-rider problem –No incentives to join How to overcome them –Material/Purposive/Solidary benefits: AARP

4. IGs in action Policy influence occurs through: Credible information Public support Money Direct Action Regulation of IGs Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 1995: tighter regulation. Violations to Justice Dept Best Regulation: Tax Code Bundling and PACs: Example of EMILY’s list