A Profile of Legislator Perceptions of Interest Group Behavior Relating To Legislative Issues in the States

Abstract

T THIS JUNCTURE of inquiry into the nature of policy-making in the SUnited States, no one needs to be cautioned about the significance of interest group representatives in the formulation of public policy. To simply recognize their significance and perhaps a few assorted manifestations of their behavior, leaves us, of course, a long way from bringing their impact into sharp descriptive focus. The problem is complicated by the fact that interest groups and their representatives in the fifty states spring up in response to great diversities of economy, geography, and social stratification. Literally thousands of interest group leaders descend upon the state capitols in a host of particularistic ways and on a great variety of issues, making it extremely difficult to bring together, bit by bit, even the bare outlines of their impact?. Clearly the alternatives for gaining perspective on this subject matter are numerous. One way to proceed is to petition information from those who receive and observe pressure group communication and who ultimately have some control over its consequences that is, either legislators or administrators. In this study, as it happens, the amorphous pressure group environment is organized through the perceptions of legislators, 838 of whom offered their comments in a 1963 fifty-state survey.2 By necessity, the results of the study are limited to those pressure group activities that are visible to legislators. The foremost concern of this paper will be to convey the extent to which pressure groups are active over different types of legislative policy-making. Underlying this concern is the assumption that variations in the substance of issues and legislation will be characterized by correspondingly different sub-systems of actors. Pressure group representatives will have a varying role, depending upon the substantive nature of policy questions. In some areas of policy their actions will be of minimal consequence, while in other areas they will be an integral part of the decision-making process. Elaboration of this theme will be accomplished in four steps: (1) a classification of powerful pressure groups; (2) an examination of pressure group activity and conflict over important issues; (3) an examination of