To what extent is it fair to say that 'pressure groups in America exert more influence over the political process than their British counterparts'?

In Britain, Pressure groups are not very well received by the government. ‘Parliament is a less important channel for pressure group influence than are government departments, but contact with MPs are still worth making’.  However, some groups do earn consultative status, groups that have a proven expertise and which may be materially affected by any government proposals, are naturally consulted by the government, some groups such as the National Farmers Union must, by law, be consulted. One reason that Britain has relatively less tolerance of Pressure groups is our strong political party system and central government. Britain is a unitary state, power is thus centralised and there are fewer points of entry for groups to use their influence. The way that the American governing system is set up allows interest groups more help in pursuing their interests than the parliamentary system. Legislation happens in many more areas in America, there is also a weak party system in operation. In Britain, Parliament is the highest law making body, where as in America the separation of powers between the Supreme Court, the House of Congress and the House of Representatives allows more points of entry, if a group fail in one area they can apply pressure to another. Also, in America there is a law making process at State level, this where pressure groups come into closer contact with political parties than in Britain’s counterpart, local constituencies.

American and British governments use Pressure groups as sounding boards to some extent. In America there are Information groups for members of the congress and as such they are vital, necessary parts of the political process. In Britain this role is usually played by the civil servants, political parties and to a lesser extent by Pressure groups. In Britain, Pressure group activity has adopted a sequence of importance to the ‘pecking order’ of important targets these are; Whitehall followed by Parliament and finally the Public. This ranking of targets is especially true of Sectional groups and also, to a lesser extent, Promotional groups.  Good contacts with the Executive and bureaucracy come first followed by the ability to mobilize mass opinion through the media. However, in America because there are many more points of entry the strategy may be different. The members of Congress have always paid close attention to the interests of their constituents. Rule changes during the 1970’s were designed to open the committee and sub-committee hearings to the public, this is in contrast with the usually secretive way that the British bureaucracy handle their affairs.

Some groups sponsor candidates for Parliament, which involves paying a proportion of the election expenses and sometimes contributing to the member’s salary. They may remain in direct contact with the member for feedback on Parliamentary polices and thinking. This type of parliamentary candidate is more likely to be successful if they are directly allied to a political party.    In America the finance of parties and individuals is more generally organised. Political Action Committees (PACS) have become an increasingly important feature of the American political system following the 1974 Federal Campaign Act, which imposes strict limits on contributions to congressional elections. The main function of PACS is to raise and spend funds to publicise a candidate’s election campaign. Many PACS ore organised or supported by established Pressure groups such as trade unions or business associations. Many American Interest groups maintain permanent offices in Washington or in State Capitals, in order to maintain close personal contact with legislators and administrators. Other groups may use the services of a professional lobbyist who may represent a number of groups who cannot afford to maintain their own representative. The modern lobbyist must be skilled in producing a persuasive argument and many are equipped with staff and research facilities to enable them to do this, it appears to be a business regulated by skilled, legally trained Congressmen and State Officials.

In Britain however, we are not so geographically diverse and there is a lesser need to establish offices in the Capital, as people can easily commute. Pressure groups are more likely to employ a MPs or an influential figure as their Spokesperson instead of using agencies. Interest groups realize that MPs are part of the Legislature process and that their position allows them to draw attention to the public and government matters that concern them. To have the support of a backbench MP, especially a well known one, is a great advantage to a group. Lobbying in Britain is not so well developed as in America, where Representatives and Senators are the target of highly professional lobbyists, although the number of British Public Relation firms specialising in Parliamentary activities is growing.

Petitions, letters and personal meetings are used by pressure groups to influence MP’s and to gain their support, larger groups may enlist support by providing material, literature, printing, etcetera. A visit to lobby an MP may be accompanied with a mass march or a demonstration near Westminster, although it is a practice used fairly frequently in this country as a device for influencing policy, it is much more often and more effectively used in America. The reason for this lies in the differences of the two systems of government. In America, members of the Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives are very influential figures, much more so than the backbench MP’s in this country. Not only do they have much more control over legislation, through their Congressional Committee system they also have considerable influence over the actions of the Federal government. It could be argued that, Congress and the President do not initiate policy; rather, they respond to demands of lobbies and organised interest groups, thus the conflicting pressures from organised groups determine government policy. In America the courts are subject to pressure activity as this is very much part of the governing process, due to the separation of powers. Often if groups lack the necessary strength to be heard by the executives or legislature, they may turn to the courts to interpret the constitution on civil right, as did the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People over the years. In Britain Parliament is the highest law making body so this option is not plausible.  

In Britain, lobbying as a means of influencing policy is a less promising method than in America. Direct contact with a Department or with a Minister or Civil Servant is usually more rewarding than relying on the lobby method. If you lobby a minister then, because of the openness of the method you are probably going to give him much less room to manoeuvre than if you approach him or his Civil Servants at department level, free from the publicity which is often attached to lobbying. If a Pressure group lobbies a backbencher they are dependant on him finding the time and opportunity to make representation to a minister on your behalf. It is at election times that parties and candidates come up for election or re-election and as such, Pressure groups are more likely to get support in the hope of gaining votes. Because there are many more elections in America than Britain this allows more scope for Pressure groups to gain access or to press home their point.

The role of the media in Pressure group politics can be a crucial one, Pressure groups realise that through the media they can shape the public mind regarding its interests, possibly reshape its opinion and to promote the groups causes. Virtually all Pressure groups seek media publicity for their cause or interest and members of the government are acutely aware of this.  The power of the American press on influencing public opinion is awesome, as under the Constitution, freedom of speech or of the press is guaranteed, there is no equivalent of the British Official Secrets Act making American secrets fair game for the media and also the Freedom of Information Act make almost all government files open to the public, making the flow of information far greater than in Britain.

In conclusion, Pressure groups in both countries play an important part in government, as the main role is to be a collective voice. The type of group, either Promotional or Sectional, will determine the strategy that the group uses. Various methods are used by Pressure groups to influence decisions. This is because in the British system of centralised government it allows groups more chance of winning as they can only really bring pressure to bear on the point where power is concentrated the Executive. Whereas in America they may obtain a listening ear without that body being powerful or influential to bring about legislation or change, also there are so many conflicting interest not everyone can be pleased. There is little doubt that the need for Pressure groups is more prominent in America as the country has so many diversities and so many more voices that wish to be heard. One of the criticisms is that not all groups of people have the same ability to influence decisions. Wealthy and better-organised groups are more likely to influence the government than poorer ones both in Britain and America. However, in both societies it would be terribly difficult, arguably impossible in America that society could function efficiently and democratically without Pressure groups, which supply the government with information and filter through the demands of the various groups.