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.

Interest Group Coalitions

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

All National Interest Group Endorsements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Democrats Republicans

Identity

Issue

Prof. Assn.

Union

Corporate

Distribution of Endorsements

Electoral networks

• Primary endorsements

• Republican issue groups: ideological and abortion groups

• Democratic issue groups: environmentalists, women’s groups

Network analysis

• How often does each group endorse the same candidate as each other group?

• How often are they on the same team?

Interest Groups in Elections

2002 Pre-Primary Endorsements

2002 Competitive Seat Contributions

Width=# of ties, Size=betweenness centrality, Layout=spring embedding, Red=Republican, Blue=Democrat

Core of Electoral Network

Campaign Endorsements

Size Density Degree centrality

Between-ness

centrality

Central actors

Structure

Overall network

239 .19 7.3% 19.3% TeamstersPartisan divide

Democratic network

121 .21 14.10% 6.4% UnionsCore-

periphery

Republican network

118 .17 14.3% 13.1%Business, ideological

Core with conservative

faction

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

Size Density Degree centrality

Between-ness

centrality

Central actors

Structure

Overall network

3,504 1.5 5.6% .9%Single issue

Partisan divide with

central actors

Democratic network

2,683 1.1 5.4% 1% UnionsCore-

periphery

Republican network

2,779 1.4 6.7% .5% BusinessCore-

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

Coalitions & Bill Success

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Passed 1 Chamber No Vote Failed

Pro

Con

Legislative Coalitions by Topic

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Health

Civil Rig

hts & L

iber

ties

Gover

nmen

t Ope

ratio

ns

Banking

and

Com

mer

ce

Law, C

rime, &

Fam

ily

Educ

ation

Enviro

nmen

t

Labo

r & Im

mig

ratio

n

Social W

elfa

re

Mac

roec

onom

ics

Defen

se

Agricul

ture

Intn

'l Affai

rs &

Trad

e

Other

Groups in Legislative DebateLegislative Coalitions Announced in Congress: 1999-2002

Core of Legislative Network

Legislative coalitions

Size Density Degree centrality

Between-ness

centrality

Central actors

Structure

Overall network

2,562 .08 6.2% 1.9%

Business, unions, health,

religious

Core-periphery, bipartisan

Democratic network

1,738 .12 4.7% 3.7%

Unions, women’s,

single-issue

Core-periphery

Republican network

1,621 .06 10.4% 2.8%Business,

healthCore-

periphery

Combined networks

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?