Watering the grass roots: Interest groups, lobbying, and participation in America.
Goldstein, Kenneth Michael
1996
Abstract
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of communications to Congress over the last four decades. Part of the explanation for this rise has been the increase in the use of mobilization as a lobbying tool. Because an understanding of these mobilization decisions must be a part of any explanation of mass participation or interest group lobbying, the goal of this dissertation is to provide a systematic explanation of how groups make tactical mobilization choices. The logic of political mobilization is rooted in the logic of Congressional elections and Congressional decision-making. More precisely, the informational needs of voters and legislators provide strategic opportunities for lobbyists to influence electoral and policy battles. Grass roots mobilization is a way for lobbyists to provide information to voters and legislators that can contribute to a legislator's victory or defeat, or a bill's passage or demise. In turn, tactical mobilization choices depend on the strategic objectives and the information that must be conveyed to legislators and constituents. Mobilization decisions are a multi-stage process in which lobbyists attempt to evaluate the influence that a particular individual's communication to Congress will have on the eventual outcome of a particular legislative or electoral fight. It is these tactical judgments that ultimately determine mobilization decisions about when to target, where to target, whom to target, and how to target. These tactical judgments are based on the fact that, unlike votes in an election, communications to Congress are not interchangeable. More precisely, the effect of a communication on the policy process is a function of the individual communicating, the legislator being communicated to, and the message needing to be communicated. Whether it was an intensive look at one case or a more general examination of lobbying choices across a wide range of issues, interviews with interest group representatives, surveys of the mass public, and my own observations provided evidence consistent with this logic. When the objective was a short-term legislative one, mobilizers were likely to target districts represented by undecided legislators and swing members of key committees. Within targeted districts, lobbyists made great efforts to target those citizens who had the best chance of influencing their members of Congress. When the goal was a more long-term electoral one, targets were likely to be legislative opponents who were judged to be vulnerable. With an electoral objective, constituent targets were also likely to be broader based and included those citizens who could most credibly frame the issue. Whichever the goal, mobilization messages were usually crafted to highlight early-order direct costs and mobilization efforts were generally targeted at those citizens most likely to bear early-order costs. With both goals, citizens over whom groups had leverage, citizens who were likely to respond to a request, and citizens who were likely to respond in a way consistent with an interest group's goals were the most likely targets.Subjects
America Congress Grass Grassroots Groups Interest Lobbying Mobilization Participation Roots Watering
Types
Thesis
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.