Shanghai International Studies University
THE REVOLVING DOOR MECHANISM
IN US INTEREST GROUP POLITICS
A Thesis
Submitted to Graduate School and College of English
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for
Degree of Master of Arts
By
Ji Xuejie
Under Supervision of Professor Wang Enming
December 2012
Acknowledgements
My deepest gratitude goes first and foremost to my supervisor Professor Wang
Enming, who has walked me through all the stages of this thesis with great patience
and thought-provoking suggestions. This thesis could not have reached its present
form without his consistent and illuminating instruction. It is truly an honor to have
been one of Prof. Wang’s students.
Secondly, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all the friends that I have
made in SISU for the past six years. They have made my university life joyous and
fulfilling, and I have enjoyed every single day with these talented and kind students.
Last but certainly not least, I feel greatly indebted to my family, who have raised
me to be who I am. They have always offered me insightful suggestions while in the
meantime respected my own decisions. I am greatly grateful for their confidence in
me and their support all along the way.
摘要
利益集团政治存在于绝大多数国家，而在美国尤为突出，近年来“旋转门”
现象也在美国政坛愈演愈烈。“旋转门”指通过政府机构、私营部门及游说集团
之间人员流动为利益集团谋利的机制。本文通过利益集团理论研究、利益集团影
响政府决策的主要途径、旋转门现象案例分析以及该现象的原因及治理等章节分
析美国旋转门机制。本文认为，利益集团政治和旋转门机制有利有弊，在承认其
促进公民参政及民主发展的基础上也应注意其带来的种种负面影响，并采取相应
措施进行监管。
关键词：利益集团，旋转门，游说
ii Abstract
Interest groups exist more or less in every country. Interest group politics in
America is even more prominent, and the revolving door is getting increasing
attention in recent years. The “revolving door phenomenon” refers to the transfer of
personnel from government to industry, or from industry to government, or from
government to lobbying groups. The paper will discuss the theoretical studies on
interest groups, the major approaches adopted by interest groups to influence
government decisions, specific cases of the revolving door, and the reasons and
regulations on the revolving door. The paper concludes that interest group politics and
the revolving door mechanism have both merits and side effects. While
acknowledging its merits in promoting civic participation and democracy, the side
effects should not be overlooked, and proper measures should be taken to regulate the
revolving door.
Key words: interest group politics, revolving door, lobbying
iii Content
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................
摘要................................................................................................................................ii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iii
Chapter I Introduction....................................................................................................1
1.1 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................1
1.2 Definition and Classification of Interest Groups.................................................................2
1.3 Literature Review................................................................................................................4
1.4 Structure of the Thesis.......................................................................................................12
Chapter 2
Approaches Adopted by Interest Groups to Influence Politics ..............14
2.1 Lobbying ...........................................................................................................................14
2.2 Electioneering and PACs...................................................................................................17
2.3 Litigation...........................................................................................................................18
Chapter 3 The Revolving Door....................................................................................20
3.1 The Revolving Door From Government To Industry........................................................20
3.2 The Revolving Door From Industry To Government........................................................23
3.3 The Revolving Door From Government To Lobbyist .......................................................28
Chapter 4 Implications of the Proliferation of Interest Groups and Revolving Door..32
4.1 Reasons for the Proliferation of Interest Groups...............................................................32
4.2 Pros and Cons of Interest Groups......................................................................................34
4.3 Regulations on the Revolving Door ..................................................................................37
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................41
Bibliography ................................................................................................................43
iv Chapter I Introduction
1.1 Significance of the Study
Interest groups exist more or less in every country, but as Alexis de Tocqueville
observed that “In no country in the world has the principle of association been more
successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objects than in America”1. The
unparalleled proliferation of interest groups in American politics leads to a troubling
dilemma: do interest groups undermine democracy by bringing inequalities into the
political process or serve to facilitate political freedom and encourage civic
participation? Some people argue interest groups, especially public interest groups
can ensure that everyone’s voice be heard for the public good, while others believe
that powerful and resourceful interest groups actually exert much more influence on
governmental decisions, which may lead to corruption and biased policies.
Due to the expansion of government functions and the increasing government
intervention in societal affairs in recent decades, interest groups have become more
and more involved in American politics. The government needs experienced staff
from private sector who have profound knowledge in the field to work on policies and
regulations, while the private sector needs government insiders with resources and
connections to gain access and advantage in the government. And thus the “revolving
door phenomenon” arises and is becoming increasingly prevalent in recent years.
The “revolving door phenomenon” refers to the transfer of personnel from
government to industry, or from industry to government, or from government to
lobbying groups. This mechanism is one of the most important and effective ways for
interest groups to influence government decisions and maximize their interests,
oftentimes at the expense of public good. The “revolving door” mechanism is one
important aspect in the study of interest group politics and American politics as a
whole, and is closely related to the contemporary American society.
1
1. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Henry Reeve trans., New York: Bantam Books, 2000, p.3 1 Though much study has been done on interest group politics in America, very
few focus specifically on the “revolving door” phenomenon, especially in China.
Most of the research materials are journals or newspaper articles from the United
States, and they approach this issue from the perspective of case studies or
quantitative analysis. This paper aims to discuss the influence of interest groups on
American politics and specifically focus on the “revolving door” phenomenon.
1.2 Definition and Classification of Interest Groups
An interest group is any organization or association whose members share
common objectives and policy goals, and collectively attempts to influence the
government as a way to protect or advance their own interest or concern. Unlike
political parties, interest groups do not attempt to gain control of the government, and
they only try to influence governmental decisions. They exist outside the structure of
the government, interact with the government, and bridge the gap between the public
and decision-makers.
The proliferation of interest groups has been a long-time tradition in US
political world, and they have become even more flourishing in contemporary
America. People join interest groups for a variety of reasons. Some people join
because of solidary incentives. Joining a group can bring them social benefits and
connections. For example, members of the Sierra Club can go hiking with other club
members, or enjoy club-sponsored camping trips. For political activists, joining a
political club means solidary benefits such as being recognized by important people,
getting invited to social events, and meeting other politically active people. Some
other people join interest groups for material incentives or economic benefits.
Business people might join their local chamber of commerce to “network” or try to
lobby local government officials for pro-business policies. There are also people who
join interest groups due to purposive incentives, namely personal beliefs and
commitments to an issue. These incentives can be issue-oriented or ideological, such
as gay rights groups, environmental groups or civil liberty groups.
2 Interest groups come in all sizes and shapes. They may have thousands or even
millions, or just a handful of members. They may be loose and informal, or highly
structured. Some groups have rich resources, while others may have very few. Interest
groups can be broadly divided into three general types: economic interest groups,
environmental interest groups, public interest groups, and equality interest groups.
Economic interest groups are primarily concerned with profits, prices and wages, and
attempt to influence the government’s regulations, subsidies, contracts, trade policies
and tax advantages. Economic interest groups can be further divided into business
groups, agricultural groups, labor groups and professional groups. Business groups
attempt to influence policy in a direction favorable to the business community.
American’s power elite is dominated by leaders of the biggest banks, insurance
companies and multinational corporations. Large corporations such as General Motors
and AT&T wield considerable political influence. 70% of all interest groups in
Washington represent business interests, and business PACs have drastically increased
since the mid 1970s. Two umbrella organizations represent most corporations and
businesses: the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufactures.
Agricultural groups are economic interest groups whose purpose is to influence policy
in a direction favorable to farmers or agricultural-related businesses. Examples
include the American Farm Bureau Federation (focusing on large-scale agriculture)
and the National Farmers Union (focusing on smaller farmers). Labor interest groups
try to influence policy in a direction favorable to organized labor. The largest labor
organization in the United States is The American Federation of Labor and the
Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), which is a federation of numerous,
diverse labor organizations such as the American Federation of Teachers, the United
Automobile Workers, etc. Interest groups of professionals represent individuals with
specific credentials. These interest groups attempt to influence policies related to the
members of the profession. Some well-known professional groups are the American
Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Association of
University Professors, and the National Education Association, etc.
Environmental interest groups are among the newest political interest groups.
3 They are concerned with policies affecting the environment at the international as
well as national and state levels. The goal of these interest groups is to preserve
resources, land and wildlife, and examples include the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.
Public interest groups can be defined as organizations that seek a collective
good, the achievement of which will not selectively and materially benefit the
membership or activists of the organization. Examples include Nader Organizations,
Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.
Equality interest groups have championed equal rights and justice, particularly
for women and minorities. The oldest and largest interest group of this kind is the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which has
lobbied and pressured court cases to defend equal rights in voting, employment,
education and housing. Another example is the National Organization for Women
(NOW), which attempted to push for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Other examples include the National Urban League, the National Women’s Political
Caucus, etc.
1.3 Literature Review
The study of interest group politics has become “one of the standard areas of
study for political scientists, and no study of a political system is complete without a
section about them”2 Several political scholars have articulated different theories on
the nature and impact of interest groups in the American political system. Theoretical
studies on interest group politics date back to James Madison who wrote The
Federalist Papers, and the debate on the pros and cons of interest groups has
continued till now. Though most scholars have acknowledged that it is necessary and
legitimate for interest groups to exist and wield influence, they have also expressed
concerns or even disgust towards the interest groups’ selfish nature and sometimes
negative roles in democracy.
James Madison was the first American scholar who studied the relationship
2
Grahamk Wilson, Interest Groups in the United States, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981, p.1 4 between American politics and interest groups; he was also the first prominent
American theorist focusing on the role played by interest groups. The analysis in The
Federalist Papers No. 10 provides a basis for understanding the strengths and
weaknesses of interest group politics in the United States, and the book still remains
to be the foundation of theories on American interest group politics. Madison named
interest groups “factions” and defined a faction as “a number of citizens, whether
amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of citizens, or to
the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”3 James Madison argued
that interest groups could exert negative influence on politics, and worked against the
interests of others and more importantly against the general interests of the
community. However, Madison also believed that the emergence of factions was due
to human nature, and their activities and development should not and could not be
eliminated by force. Rather, the problems resulted from factions must be contained by
leveraging one faction against the selfish nature of other factions. Thus, James
Madison brought the concept of checks and balances into the American governmental
structure. The large and diversified American society encompasses a wide variety of
factions, and the numerous divided powers could work against each other to prevent
any single one of the factional interests from gaining dominance in politics and
society.
The ideal of James Madison was that various interest groups could actively and
freely participate in the political process, none of which could gain dominant position
due to the natural conflict of interests between different groups, and in the process the
government should act as a coordinator of the competing interests. The process of
bargaining and compromising between different interest groups and the government
could lead to consensus and policies that various groups have agreed upon. His main
argument that the natural diversity of interest groups could prevent any single group
from dominating the political process has evolved into the foundation of the pluralist
3
James Madison, 1787, “The Federalist Papers No.10” in Gary Wills ed. The Federalist Papers, New York: BantamBooks, 1982,p.59 5 thoughts.
In 1951, David Truman wrote The Governmental Process, which was
immediately praised by political scholars and scientists as a significant and important
breakthrough in the study of interest group politics. He placed interest groups at the
heart of the increasingly complex and specialized government system, and focused on
the interest groups’ access to influential political decision-makers. The central
argument of the book is that the institutions of government are only aggregations of
various interest groups, interacting with one another and also with various other
groups outside the institution. It seemed that he agreed with James Madison’s view
that the tendencies toward groupings are “sown in the nature of man”4. He also argued
that a politician is a product of group influences, and that an individual in any society
is actually less affected directly by the society as a whole than by interest groups.5 It
is not clearly pointed out whether interest groups are good or evil. Instead, David
Truman concentrated more on interest groups’ existence and positioning in the
political system. Another political scientist George McKenna argues, however, the
book tends to portray a rather favorable image of interest groups—“favorable
certainly in contrast to Madison”.6 Whereas James Madison viewed factions as a
reflection of the selfishness of human nature, David Truman regarded interest groups
as an essential and even vital part of democracy. In the words of McKenna, James
Madison believed that “the ultimate aim of the government was to achieve justice”,
but David Truman was “satisfied with ‘consensus’ and ‘mutual adjustment’ ” of the
many and varied group interests.7
Even though more and more political scientists were becoming positive toward
interest groups after the publication of David Truman’s theory, some opposing voices
could still be heard. One of the most recognized was E. E. Schattschneider, who
expressed his views on interest groups, democracy, and political parties beginning
from the 1930s. “The vice of the group theory is that it conceals the most significant
4
David Truman, The Governmental Process, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971, p.17 Ibid., p.15 6
George McKenna, American Politics: Ideals and Realities, New York: McGraw Hill, 1976, p.142 7
Ibid., p.143 6 5
aspects of the system…Probably about 90 percent of the people cannot get into the
pressure system.”8He argued that those interest groups that could afford experienced
lobbyists in Washington DC had great advantages over other groups in influencing
Congress. Schattschneider also noted that inside connections and campaign
contributions were much more important than the mere size of membership in
achieving access. He argued that “The notion that the pressure system is automatically
representative of the whole community is a myth fostered by the universalizing
tendency of modern group theories. Pressure politics is a selective process ill designed
to serve diffuse interests. The system is skewed, loaded and unbalanced in favor of a
fraction of a minority…”9Schattschneider concluded that this pattern of influence
seriously damaged political equality and badly distorted the process of
representation, 10 thus creating an upper-class bias. The interest group-oriented
political system in the United States not only meant that only a very small number of
groups could play important roles in the process, but more importantly some
particular groups may dominate the political process, typically those groups of highly
educated members with higher income and social status, which would undoubtedly
lead to an “upper-class tendency”.11
Theodore Lowi is another prominent critic of interest group politics in the
United States. In 1969, the book The End of Liberalism was published. He argued that
the widely-held view that interest groups were good and legitimate, namely “interest
group liberalism” has led to a rather dangerous situation in US politics, in which the
government had no basic sense of authority and legitimacy. Lowi believed that it had
resulted in ineffective and distorted policies and a “corruption of modern democratic
government”. 12 Theodore Lowi pointed out four major flaws of interest group
liberalism: 1) It deranges and confuses expectations about democratic institutions and
reveals a basic disrespect for democracy; 2) It renders government impotent and
8
Schattschneider, E.E., The Semi‐sovereign People ,New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960, p.417 Ibid, p.417 10
Norman J. Ornstein and Shirley Elder, Interest Groups, Lobbying and Policymaking, Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1978, p.14 11
Schattschneider, E.E., The Semi‐sovereign People, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960, p.33. 12
Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism, New York: W. W. Norton, 1969, p.287 7 9
unable to plan. 3) It demoralizes government, by replacing concern for justice (doing
the right thing) with concern for jurisdiction (which actors make the decisions); 4) It
weakens democratic institutions by opposing formal procedure with informal
bargaining.13 He concluded that a lot of interest groups protect and expand the power
of the elite because “Programs following the principle of interest-group liberalism
tend to create and maintain privilege; and it is a type of privilege particularly hard to
bear or combat because it is touched with a symbolism of the state.”14Lowi proposed
that the government should carry out reforms to take back the lost authority.
Mancur Olson, an economist, published The Logic of Collective Action in 1965,
in which he put forward a theory that mainly focused on how individuals made
decisions regarding whether or not to join a particular interest group. He argued that
“self-interested behavior is usually the rule, at least when economic issues are at
stake”, but unless it was a group of a rather small size, or there were some devices to
make individuals work for their common interest, rational individuals would not work
to achieve their common interests or group interests.15 Olson argued that rational
individuals had little incentive to participate in interest groups of large sizes, because
the cost of membership often even exceeds the tangible returns. Olson also noted that
people joined interest groups only in the following cases: when membership provided
selective benefits (such as economical, recreational or social benefits); when
membership was compulsory (like labor union); or when the group is rather small so
that any individual is a valued member of the group. The book concluded that public
interest groups would seldom succeed due to the lack of incentives to join the groups.
Trade associations, however, with a set of specific material interests and
comparatively small number of firms, would be more suited for organizational
activities.
Robert H. Salisbury offered a new perspective on interest groups, namely the
exchange theory. He argued that mutual benefits and incentives might exist between
group members and group leaders, and Salisbury focused not only on members of
13
Ibid, pp.288‐291 Ibid, p.422 15
Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000, pp.1‐2 8 14
interest groups but also on their leaders in his research. He concluded that there were
mainly three kinds of incentives: material incentives (tangible rewards, such as jobs,
taxes and money); solidary incentives (friendship of group involvement and
socialization); and purposive incentives (ideological satisfaction).16 Political interest
groups mainly involve purposive and material incentives. Purposive incentives cost
little, as rhetoric and words are cheap, but those interest groups that are solely
purposive-oriented are highly unstable by nature, and have great difficulty in
maintaining membership. Salisbury noted that citizen groups often had to face
difficult situations, because “a slight change in the member’s resources or social
pressures may lead to his failure to renew his membership.”17 For example, Common
Cause is an interest group focusing on governmental reform. Its membership
skyrocketed during the Nixon impeachment proceedings, but fell sharply after Nixon
resigned. On the other hand, it costs a lot to form material benefit groups, but they
tend to remain stable once established, because they are able to offer group members
certain material incentives.
The study of interest groups has evolved into different schools of thought over
the past several decades, the most prominent of which are the pluralist theory, the
elitist theory and the hyperpluralist theory. Pluralism is the belief that democracy is a
balancing structure between all of the different groups that exist within the society.
According to the pluralist theory, interest groups can represent all segments of the
society to compete in the political marketplace. The pluralist model assumes
fragmentation of the marketplace, equal access to policy-making, a competitive
process to determine policies and the neutrality of the government. Everyone is free to
organize and participate in politics, and enjoys equal status in the process, which
ensures that the policy-making process is not monopolized or dominated by certain
powerful political forces. Pluralist theory argues that: 1) Groups provide a key linkage
between the government and the people. Once interests are organized, they can turn to
government and get a hearing. 2) Groups that are weak in one aspect can use other
16
Robert H. Salisbury, “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups”, Midwest Journal of Political Science, February 1969, pp.1‐32 17
Ibid., p.145 9 resources. For example, business groups wield strong financial power, but labor
groups possess much more members. All legitimate interest groups are able to
influence policy by one means or another. 3) Group politics is usually a fair game,
most groups usually abide by the rules, and few groups rely on illegitimate methods
such as lying, stealing, cheating or resorting to violence to get their way. 4) Fierce
competition exists between groups. Environmentalists, consumers, farmers, business
and labor groups oftentimes make competing appeals to the government. 5) No single
group is likely to become dominate. There is always a counter-action for each action,
so the power will remain balanced.
The basic principles of the pluralist model of politics include: 1) Interest groups
are the key to understanding American democracy and the public policy process. The
competition between interest groups in the governmental process will influence the
outcome of public policy. 2) Power relationships are not permanent, and they are
usually formed for a particular decision. Once the decision is made, the relationships
may disappear or may be replaced by another set of power relationships when the next
decision is made. 3) Leadership is mobile and fluid. Unlike British aristocracy, in the
United States, wealth and social status are political assets but only in a sense that they
hold leadership positions of power, not because of some superiority of social or ruling
class. Power resides more in the leadership position than in the person, and there is no
permanent distinction between the elites and masses. 4) Considerable competition
exists between interest groups, so no single group could dominate, and the final public
policy reflects the bargains and compromises reached between the competing
groups.18
Critics
of
pluralism suggest that
pluralists
are
over-simplistic
and
over-optimistic. They claim that there are examples of inequality of influence of
interest groups, and that weaker groups in society do not have much power and access
to the political world. The criticism of pluralism leads to the development of the elitist
theory.
18
James Lester and Joseph Stewart Jr., Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000, pp.54‐55 10