From protests to litigation to YouTube: A longitudinal case study of strategic lobby tactic choice for the Buffalo Field Campaign

Abstract

Interest group scholars have long explored under what circumstances interest groups choose lobby tactics to influence policy. While most studies focus on well-funded national interest groups, this study uses a newly formed interest group, Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC), in order to qualitatively analyze changes in lobby tactic choice from its inception and empirically assess these changes with traditional measures of lobby choice. Additionally, this study employs an innovative methodology by proposing a new typology of lobby strategy and using the interest group's political narratives as the data source. Thus, the research questions addressed in this study are: (1) does the BFC evolve over a ten year period in terms of lobby typologies and if so, how?; (2) qualitatively, what are these lobby activities?; and (3) how does choice of lobby typology relate to age of the group, issue saliency, financial resources, and external political context? The results indicate that BFC has gone through three distinct lobbying stages since its inception from indirect-unconventional to direct-conventional to indirect-conventional. Significantly correlated with these stages are age, financial resources, and governing coalition; interestingly, there are no statistically significant associations between lobby tactic choice and issue salience or external political context measured in the number of bison deaths. The implications of the findings for the study of other interest groups are explored.