From the Editors

This journal focuses on the role of issue advocacy groups -- sometimes called public interest groups -- in a democracy. These groups are formed by citizens who band together to argue the case for a particular cause before their fellow citizens and their elected representatives.

Issue advocacy is a narrower term than lobbying, which is more broadly used to include all private as well as public interests that seek to influence government. In other words, the term lobbying usually describes the activities of corporations and labor unions in defense of their economic interests, in addition to the championing by citizen groups of particular causes in which they may not have a vested economic interest.

Perhaps the most important feature of lobbying in the United States -- whether public or private interests are involved -- is that it is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, although strict laws and rules govern the activity. From the earliest days of the Republic, lobbying has been safeguarded and even encouraged, and court decisions have consistently upheld the principle.

The political and philosophical justification for lobbying even precedes the ratification of the Constitution. James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers, discusses the issue in The Federalist Papers, the series of essays that he wrote with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to encourage the states to ratify the Constitution as the governing principle for the country.

Madison concluded that, on balance, lobbying groups are essential to any real democracy and that constraints, if needed, should be achieved by encouraging full competition among groups and by implementing checks and balances through law and other means.

So long as that competition exists, lobbyists can provide important benefits to the political system, particularly in terms of expertise and knowledge. This point has been stressed through the years by politicians of all political stripes, but perhaps most emphatically by John F. Kennedy. Writing in 1956, before he was elected president, Kennedy made the case for the role of lobbyists. "Lobbyists are, in many cases, expert technicians and capable of explaining complex and difficult subjects in a clear, understandable fashion," he said. "They engage in personal discussions with members of Congress in which they can explain in detail the reason for positions they advocate.... Because our congressional representation is based on geographical boundaries, the lobbyists who speak for the various economic, commercial and other functional interests of this country serve a very useful purpose and have assumed an important role in the legislative process."

At the time Kennedy expressed that viewpoint, most lobbying groups represented economic interests, mainly corporations and labor unions. Since the 1960s, however, there has been an explosion in the issue advocacy or public interest group universe.

Organizations representing civil rights, the environment, consumer safety and protection, healthcare and other issues have catapulted into the spotlight, partly because of the federal government's own involvement in these issues which expanded greatly during and after President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society."

Two of the newer groups are umbrella organizations that deserve special mention for their size and influence -- Common Cause, which has fought for a wide range of causes including improved government ethics and reforming Congress, and Public Citizen, a conglomeration of interest groups headed by Ralph Nader, which attempts to influence public policy on everything from the environment to regulatory reform.

The U.S. experience with lobbying in general has received a mixed verdict from the American people and students of the U.S. political system. Some remain skeptical of the activities of lobbyists and feel that these powerful groups unduly influence elected representatives, particularly through campaign contributions. Others feel that lobbies are an essential component of any efficient democracy when adequately regulated.

Whatever their viewpoint, few Americans would deny the right of lobbyists "to petition the government for a redress of grievances," in the words of the First Amendment to the Constitution. To meet the concern about undue influence, successive administrations and Congresses have sought to exercise greater control over lobbying activities.

A number of legislative initiatives have been passed during the Clinton administration, most significantly the Lobbying Disclosure Act (1995), the subject of an article in part by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). From his own perspective, Senator Levin examines the pros and cons of lobbying in the United States, and explains how the process generally works.

James Thurber, professor of government and director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington, D.C., adds to the debate by looking at the surge of issue advocacy groups over the last 20 to 30 years and the tools they employ to become effective players in the political process.

A roundtable discussion of lobbying and issue advocacy groups features Richard Sachs, a political scientist and historian at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, who has written and lectured widely on the topic of issue advocacy groups; Eusebio Mujal-Leon, an assistant professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and an expert on issue advocacy as part of the overall process of democratization; and, Bruce Adams, project director of Greater Washington, an alliance of business and community leaders.

Rounding out the journal, Contributing Editor Stuart Gorin profiles the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, one of the many issue advocacy groups that have formed in the last three decades.

Issues of Democracy
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, June 1998