Special interest groups bipartisan in Congress, scholar finds

Sep 01, 2009
Matt Grossmann, assistant professor of political science at Michigan State University, argues that special interest groups are not responsible for the partisan divide in Congress. Credit: Michigan State University

Contrary to common perception, special interest groups are not responsible for the partisan division in Congress - and often join bipartisan coalitions to support legislation, according to a Michigan State University political scientist.

The same groups that line up on two sides in elections come together afterward to advance the same bills, said Matt Grossmann, assistant professor of political science.

Grossmann cited the current debate over national health care as an example. "Pharmaceutical companies, unions and doctors have all come out in support of President Obama's plan," he said. "It is the public and legislators that are closely divided, not interest groups."

Grossmann's research challenges the conventional view on several fronts. In a paper appearing in the September issue of the journal American Politics Research, Grossmann and Casey Dominguez of the University of San Diego argue that:

  • Interest group alliances on bills before Congress have no partisan structure. Groups allied with different political parties join many of the same broad-based coalitions.
  • The Democratic Party coalition is not made up of a mishmash of small groups plagued with internal conflict, as many believe. In reality, the Democratic groups are more closely linked than Republican groups.
In a second paper, Grossmann and co-author Kurt Pyle of MSU contend that interest group coalitions and interest group lobbying have little influence on the fate of legislation - regardless of whether they support or oppose the bill. For the study, the researchers analyzed more than 17,000 bills introduced in the House and Senate over a four-year period.

Grossmann was surprised at the finding. "I expected interest group support to at least help legislators move bills toward passage, but the evidence suggests otherwise," he said. "Interest groups are not the all-powerful, behind-the-scenes actors that many envision."

Grossmann and Pyle will present their study at the American Political Science Association annual meeting in Toronto on Sept. 5.

Source: Michigan State University (news : web)

Explore further: Philosopher uses game theory to understand how words, actions acquire meaning

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Why New Political Parties Sizzle or Fizzle

Aug 04, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Across the globe, new political parties, from green parties to anti-immigration parties, are constantly emerging in democratic countries. But while some of these nascent single-issue groups fade away, others, ...

Democracy not good at helping poor people

Oct 19, 2006

A group of U.S. political scientists has concluded democracy may not be more beneficial to the poor than other political systems, contrary to prior findings.

Recommended for you

Extra time in math class has its minuses, scholar says

22 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Eric Taylor, a PhD student at Stanford University's Center for Education Policy Analysis, found that students who spent more of the school day in math class had higher math scores, but the gains ...

Help wanted: Principals who love change

Jul 17, 2014

Training principals for new roles is key to U.S. Department of Education school reforms, according to a new report by SMU researchers. But insufficient training and support for principals to meet the new expectations is leading ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2009
This challenges nothing. OF COURSE special interest groups try to influence all lawmakers, regardless of political affiliation. That's how you get a majority of votes in order to pass legislation. What matters is: can you get Lawmaker x to vote your cause- not are they rep/dem/lib/green/ind. Trying to externalize this process by saying it is the public's opinion that is divided is a deliberate attempt to shift focus away from the issue by making the implication that it is somehow the public that influences lawmakers to vote for special interests. I wonder who funded this "research". This is blatantly political, and even in a political science forum, these guys should be laughed all the way back to Hackensack.