Rarely does a day pass where some form of power struggle does not occur within
our government. The importance of the role of American government in the lives
of its constituents has continuously grown in conjunction with a corresponding
increase in governmental economic and social obligations. As the American state
assumes greater power and responsibility in its actions, so must the citizens of
the United States. With this increase in modern government participation,
private interest groups have emerged as powerful influences in the American
political scheme, particularly in the decision-making process. These highly
effective organizations exist for several reasons, but especially for one in
particular. The principal duty of such an interest group is the preservation of
favorable circumstances that allow for that specific group to ideally exist.
These interest groups effectively mobilize their efforts through lobbying,
political clout, litigation and through sheer nepotism to gain favorable public
opinion. Two such groups, the National Rifle Association and the tobacco
industry interest parties, have been strong in voicing their beliefs. By a
thorough study in their respective actions and political convictions, we can
begin to see clearly the influence and role that these groups possess in our
government. The National Rifle Association has actively represented a strong
political opinion concerning gun control and the implementation of related laws.
Representing virtually every gun owner and gun manufacturer in America, the NRA
carries with it the burden of preserving basically the second amendment right to
bear arms. Although the Second Amendment to the Constitution states, “a well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” to what extent can
these gun lobbyists argue for reductions in gun laws. Using the well known Brady
Bill as an example, we are able to see what a formidable task these interest
groups become with respect to the passage of legislature. A seven-year battle.
After a long and arduous seven-year struggle, Congress finally was able to
implement the Brady Bill as law. Approved as the “first major gun control
legislation…since 1968,” it permitted limitations to gun purchasing in
answer “urban violence and the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” The passed bill called for a five-day waiting
period upon the purchase of a hand gun. During this five-day span, information
would be sent to the police who would, in turn, run background checks. This was
all in hopes that convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts or the mentally ill,
would be prevented from purchasing guns. Despite this historic passage of
legislation concerning gun control, the Brady Bill is often described as a
“modest measure that at best will only make a small dent in crime.” The
National Rifle Association and other powerful gun interest groups were able to
apply great political pressure in order to cause serious alterations from the
original bill proposed back in the late 1980’s. The NRA argued two points in
their rebuttal to the bill. Firstly, they emphasized the Second Amendment right
to arms. Secondly, the National Rifle Association stressed that this particular
bill would not be effective in the limiting the access criminals would have to
guns. Through their efforts, particularly in influencing members of Congress,
the gun interest groups were able to get something “acceptable” passed.
Whether it was through campaign contributions or by pressure exerted in the
congressperson’s constituency, the NRA and its fellow counterparts were able
to sway legislators to filibuster during a time immediately preceding a period
of Congressional adjournment. By influencing congressional members in such a
way, the NRA pressured supporters of the bill to drastically compromise,
resulting in passing a bill which was greatly different from the one originally
proposed. In analyzing a second interest group, the tobacco industry’s lobby
organizations, a trend similar to that found in regards to gun control is
noticeable. Historically, the government has called for the regulation of
various facets in the tobacco industry for three distinct reasons: “risk to
the public health or safety, risk assumed by consenting adults, and risk assumed
by children and adolescents.” Basically, the government’s stance is founded
upon the issue of to which extent consumers are able to reasonably make
uncoerced decisions about smoking and purchasing tobacco products. Furthermore,
government has repeatedly held the constitutional power to “protect the health
and safety of children and adolescents” through the powers of parens patriae.
From the beginning of the twentieth century, a pattern of successful avoidance
of tobacco regulation is prevalent. The American government began its
anti-tobacco campaign in 1905, excluding it from the “US Pharmacopoeia.”
Then, in 1964, smoking was said to cause lung cancer and other diseases in the
Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health. After the implementation of
this specific report, the Federal Trade Commission declared its intentions to
mandate warning labels on cigarette packaging stating the ills of smoking and
tobacco use. In response to the aggressiveness of the FTC, the tobacco industry
initiated a heated lobbying strategy that would constrain legislative
regulation. The cigarette industry’s first method of action was to announce
that required warnings on tobacco product packaging “could result in an end to
all cigarette advertising.” This threat drew in political support from the
advertising sector, which was currently profiting greatly from the tobacco
industry’s use of advertising. In the end, Congress was able to implement the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, requiring that cigarette
packaging emulate industry concerns by reading: “Caution: Cigarette Smoking
May be Hazardous to Your Health.” In short, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act clearly confirmed the strength the tobacco industry possessed to
cripple and hinder legislative endeavors. With the passing of time, government
has continued to emphasize its policy of restricting the tobacco industry. But,
each and every piece of proposed legislation has met a formidable challenge due
to the tobacco industry’s continuous efforts. These challenges include:
“challenging the FDA’s jurisdiction, threats of litigation against the
media, lobbying and political contributions to gain influence in Congress,
advertising campaigns with an anti-government theme, and the manipulation of the
public comment component of the regulatory process.” In short, political
interest groups have become more and more influential in the running of
government. As they attempt to preserve the status quo of government legislature
in regards to their respective industries and interests, these groups continue
to influence the way government is enacted in our society. But under a closer
examination, a greater problem is able to be found. To what extent are political
interest groups a necessary and/or a viable facet of democracy? It is important
for various groups of citizens to arduously press for their views to be heard,
but at the same time, we must also keep in mind the means and methods that they
employ to achieve their goals.