April 99 State Legislatures magazine: Lobby clout

State Legislatures Magazine: April 1999

Editor's Note: These articles appeared in the April 1999 issue of NCSL's magazine, State Legislatures. To order copies or to subscribe, contact the marketing department at (303) 364-7700.

Who's Got Clout?

What Kind of Power?
Lobbying With Success
Real Political Clout
The Root of Power
The Major Players
The More Things Change

What Determines Influence?

Who's Got Clout?

Interest Group Power in the States

Who sways committee votes, who gets phone calls returned—in short, who gets what they want from government—has always been of interest to political observers.

By Clive S. Thomas and Ronald J. Hrebenar

At one time, especially from the 1930s to the early 1960s, five so-called "traditional interests"—business, labor, agriculture, local government and education—were virtually the only interest groups operating in state politics. But things have changed.

A major development in state capitals since the late 1960s has been the increase in the number and types of interest groups seeking to press their cases. The traditional groups have been joined by a plethora of so-called "new interests."

Our 50-state research project on interest groups—the Hrebenar-Thomas Study conducted over the last two decades using political scientists who are experts on politics in their own states—throws light on the essential ingredients of interest group power: Is it just money or are there other reasons a group has political clout?

We’ve come up with a list of the 20 most effective interests as of the spring of 1998. We’ve also compiled the top 20 interests over the last two decades. These lists convey some interesting points and trends about the power of high-profile interest groups and lobbies.

The "new interests" range from environmentalists to women’s groups to gay rights and victims’ rights groups to hunting and fishing groups to anti-poverty and senior citizens’ lobbies. The traditional groups have themselves increased and diversified. For instance, many individual cities, towns and special districts now hire their own lobbyists while remaining part of a state league of cities; and a host of businesses have their own lobbyists while remaining in a state manufacturers’ or other trade association.

WHAT KIND OF POWER?
What exactly do we mean when we talk of interest group power? Do we mean the power of any group, well-known or not, to get what it wants? Do we mean the interest groups and lobbies that are considered by politicians and others to be the most effective in the state at large? Or do we mean the political clout of interest groups in general as a force in state politics compared with, say, parties, the governor, the legislature? All three are important to consider in trying to get a handle on interest group power. Our study looked at all three perspectives, but mainly focused on the second—high profile groups and lobbies considered to be the most influential.

LOBBYING WITH SUCCESS
Of these three perspectives on power the only one that really counts is how successful any particular group is in getting what it wants. Some groups can be very successful in achieving their goals, but manage to keep a low profile in a state and not be singled out as powerful by public officials. It might be because the group is only occasionally active when it has an issue, such as an association of billboard owners working to defeat restrictions on the size of highway billboards. It could be an ad hoc group coming together on one issue and then disbanding when success is achieved, such as a coalition to defeat an anti-smoking ballot initiative or one to defeat a proposal for school vouchers. Or it could be that the group’s issue is far from public view and of minor public concern, like dentists interested in the occupational licensing process, working with a department to write regulations. Rarely are dentists listed as among the most effective groups in a state, but they may be among the most successful groups in achieving their limited goals. Many groups involved in the regulatory process are successful because they "capture" their area of concern and have control of policymaking through the dependence of bureaucrats on their expertise. The last thing most of these groups want is public attention or to be singled out as effective.

This is not an easy aspect of group power to assess. Group leaders and their lobbyists are very reluctant to talk about their successes and failures.

REAL POLITICAL CLOUT
Our main concern, interest groups seen as powerful in the state at large, is the perspective on group power that most interests the press and the public, being, as they are, less concerned about the minutiae of government. Instead they focus on high-profile issues and questions such as "who is running the state" or who has "real political clout."

Of course we must be clear on what our lists of the 20 most effective interests now and over the past 20 years do and do not represent. They outline the interests that are viewed by policymakers and political observers as the most effective in the states over the five years prior to the survey. And so they tend to be the most active groups or those with high profiles. It also may be that some observers confuse visibility with influence and list groups that might have little clout. The assessment should not be viewed as indicating that the groups near the top of the list always win or even win most of the time. In fact, they may win less often than some low-profile groups not listed. The ranking of an individual interest, however, does indicate its level of importance as a player in state politics in 1998 or since the early 1980s and its ability to bring political power to bear on the issues that affect it.

Comparing our findings over the years, what comes through most of all is that the types of groups that make the list and their ranking have stayed pretty consistent. When changes in ranking occur or new groups make the list, the changes appear to be most influenced by the prominence of particular issues at the time, as well as partisan control and the political complexion of state government. Gaming, health and insurance interests, for example, have steadily increased in perceived influence as lotteries and casinos, health care and tort reform have become issues in the states. Environmental and other liberal causes, as well as senior citizens’ groups (not on either list), wax and wane in strength according to who is in power. This is also true of business and development interests, which have seen a boost in their rankings since the GOP successes in state elections in 1994. The biggest loser over the last 20 years is traditional labor, though white collar unions—particularly state and local employees—have risen to prominence and held on even as partisan control has changed.

Today, as over the past 20 years, two interests far outstrip any others in terms of their perceived influence and continue to vie for the top spot. These are general business organizations (mainly state chambers of commerce) and teachers (primarily state affiliates of the National Education Association—NEA). Despite the major expansion in group activity, few interests are considered to be effective in a large number of states. Only the top 13 show up as having power in more than half of the 50 states. The data confirm once again what researchers have known since the first study of state interest-group power in the 1950s. Business and the professions continue to be the most effective interests in the states (as they are in Washington, D.C.).

Some of these findings may seem fairly obvious, so why did we need a survey to discover the obvious? Because we now have hard evidence based on investigations in all 50 states to support what before were just "hunches" or personal observations. And while some things have been confirmed, like the power of business, some things, like a feeling among many that the "new interests" are taking over in the states, are quashed by our findings.

THE ROOT OF POWER
Our findings on the root of the power of individual groups and lobbies may, at first sight, also appear obvious. But again, we now have hard evidence across the states plus some new perspectives. We all know that money and numbers count, but without other factors like organizational skills to direct a lobbying campaign and good political timing, big bucks and numbers are of little use. The continued success and high ranking of NEA and state chambers are based on these organizations maintaining long-term insider relations with lawmakers and being able to enter into coalitions, rouse public interest and overcome the elements they lack to wield political clout in state capitals.

Our surveys reveal that the No. 1 element determining the political clout of a group is how much they are needed by politicians and government. This dependence could stem from campaign contributions (as with many business interests), running a state service like education (as with teachers) or simply a state’s, and thus government’s, dependence on an industry like Boeing in Washington state and coal in West Virginia. Some groups, such as victims’ rights or the arts, may score short-term victories, but because government does not need them in the way it needs a major industry or teachers, they will never exert long-term influence and be ranked among the most powerful in a state.

THE MAJOR PLAYERS
Our third and final perspective is that of the overall power of interest groups in a state. We know that in most states, interest groups were the major force for many years, dwarfing legislatures, governors and sometimes parties. This has changed a lot since the 1930s, but interest groups are still major players in policymaking.

The South has always been the region where groups have predominated, probably because of the weakness of any countervailing force like strong political parties. In contrast, the Northeast interest groups have been more constrained by other major elements in state politics, particularly strong parties, strong governors and generally more economic and social diversity. In our 1998 survey, the South remained the region with the most powerful interest group systems, followed by the West and the Midwest; the Northeast remains the region with the least powerful. These regional rankings are all unchanged from the early 1980s and probably even before that.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE¼
These findings on interest group power bring to mind the adage, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Although this is partly true, a better way to look at it is that interest group and lobby power has reached a new stage of development as part of the constantly evolving state of politics in state capitals.

States are no longer dominated by one or a handful of interests, although some states still have a prominent interest—the Mormon church in Utah, chickens in Arkansas, gambling in Nevada, for instance. The last 30 years have seen a growth in both new and traditional interests.

There are more groups representing more people across the 50 states today than ever before. This increasingly crowded political playing field has made it more difficult to predict who will win and who will lose. It has forced the development of all sorts of new techniques on the part of traditional and new interests alike, such as "grassroots" lobbying and media campaigns, to try and meet the challenges. And most of these new techniques have democratized group activity.

On the other hand, some realities about interest group power, particularly of individual groups and lobbies, remain unchanged and probably will for generations to come. Since time immemorial, the possession of resources and a symbiotic relationship between a group and government has been at the root of power.

This largely accounts for the persistence of so-called "insider interests," particularly business, some of the professions and local governments. Most of the new interests do not yet have this symbiotic relationship. So despite the mushrooming of interests in state capitals, the groups considered powerful in 1998 are not that much different from 1978. There may be more players in the state capital political game, but the factors determining success are virtually unchanged.

The reality of what determines success has a host of implications for groups and state politics. Three are central. First, if the "outsider interests"—mainly the new interests—want to become "insiders," they need extensive resources—money, members and so on—and they need to build up a symbiotic relationship. Second, because some groups will never be able to do this, political inequality and uneven representation will always exist in state politics, as at the federal level and in any country, democratic or otherwise. In this regard, the populist sentiment among large segments of the population that money talks and some interests will always be more powerful than others is quite justified. And third, lobbying laws cannot even up the political playing field, but can only provide public disclosure of who’s lobbying whom.

The authors are political science professors, Clive S. Thomas at the University of Alaska in Juneau and Ronald J. Hrebenar at the University of Utah. This article is based in part on a chapter from Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 7th ed., Washington, D.C: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1999.

©1998, National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved.

Who the Big Ones Were

Up until the early 1960s most states were "run" or dominated by one or a handful of interest groups. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, politics in all the 48 contiguous states were dominated by railroad interests. In California, it was the Southern Pacific; in North Dakota, Montana, Idaho and Washington, the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern; in Kentucky, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad; in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Railroad; and in Maryland, the Baltimore & Ohio.

As late as the 1950s, Texas politics were dominated by the "Big Four"—oil, chemicals, the Texas Manufacturers Association and, again, the railroads. Maine’s politics were long dominated by the "Big Three," electric power, timber, and textile and shoe manufacturing, while Iowa’s politics were heavily influenced by agriculture and agribusiness interests (corn and hog farmers and farm machine manufacturers), truckers and the insurance industry.

The oil industry was dominant in Louisiana and Oklahoma, the Farm Bureau, county courthouses and utilities in many southern states—and the list goes on.

The Ones With Clout

(Since 1980)

1 Teachers’ organizations
2 General business organizations
3 Utility companies & associations
4 Lawyers
5 Bankers’ associations
6 General local government organizations
7 Traditional labor associations
8 Insurance: general and medical
9 Manufacturers
10 Physicians and state medical associations
11 General farm organizations
12 State and local government employees (other than teachers)
13 Individual banks and financial institutions
14 Hospital associations and health care organizations (excluding physicians)
15 Realtors’ associations
16 Environmentalists
17 Universities and colleges
18 K-12 education interests (other than teachers)
19 Contractors, builders and developers
20 Individual cities and towns

Source: The Hrebenar-Thomas study.

What Determines Influence?

Internal Resources:
Political, organizational and managerial skills.
Financial resources.
Size and geographical distribution of membership.
Political cohesiveness.

Policy Goals and Potential Opposition or Support of Others
Whether lobbying focus is defensive or promotional.
The extent and strength of opposition.
Potential to enter into coalitions.

State Political Climate and Public Perceptions
Timing and the changing political agenda.
Partisan and ideological make up of the executive and legislature.
Public perceptions of issues and groups.

Long-term Relations with Public Officials
The degree of necessity of group services and resources to public officials.
Relations between lobbyists and policymakers.

Source: The Hrebenar-Thomas study

NCSL Home Page

Visitor counts for this page.