Opening Word document…

Disobedience fails---rich counter-lobbies AND inevitable fragmentation.

Herian ’11 [Mitchel; 2011; Research Specialist at the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center, M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Governing the States and the Nation, “The Intergovernmental Policy Influence of the National Governors Association,” Kindle]

While acknowledging the ability of such actors to affect policy at the federal level, one must also acknowledge the barriers and obstacles that intergovernmental lobbying organizations face. First, in relation to their private counterparts that are much better funded, intergovernmental lobbying organizations do not have the ability to contribute financially to those they are attempting to lobby. In this, traditional privately funded interest groups have an advantage in that they can attempt to gain access to the decision-making process through financial contributions. Without providing monetary contributions, intergovernmental lobbying organizations must rely upon their policy expertise and access to large amounts of reliable information to make their preferences known.

Another disadvantage that intergovernmental lobbying organizations face is the need to reach consensus. According to Sabato (1983), “when an association hosts 50 prima donnas the inevitable frictions, conflicting ambitions, and jealousies can make it a laborious task to operate the group harmoniously or to develop a consensus on a policy issue” (p. 174). Interest groups, as they are traditionally thought of, do not face the high hurdle of reaching consensus among their members. Of course, other interest groups must also adopt policy positions through means such as formal meetings, yearly meetings, surveys of members, and other methods. But in the end, most members of interest groups delegate decision making activities to the leadership. In the case of the NGA and other intergovernmental lobbies consisting of elected officials, it is not possible to adopt a policy position, formal or informal, without substantial support from its members. For this reason, the organization is reluctant to take strong stands on issues if it does not have the backing of most of its members—the governors’ failure at resisting the adoption of the ITFA is an example of what can happen if the organization loses support among even a few of its members.

Sign in to recut, update, or save this card.