Special Interests in US Politics

Jack Berger (I will not be taking the 2nd part of the course)

Background

On the surface, the American electoral system appears simple enough: A candidate makes the decision to run for office, and voters cast their ballots for the candidate they believe best represents their values. The current political climate, however, has created an environment in which the individual candidates are secondary to the power of special interest groups, which have perfected strategies for winning elections. Given the great power of these lobbying groups, candidates are increasingly tailoring themselves to fit a certain mold in order to attract the attention, and resources, of these groups.

The proliferation of Political Action Committees (PACs) over the last 15 years has changed the face of US politics. The polarization seen in the US Congress is a direct result of this proliferation, as PACs are, by definition, more concerned with their own issues than with the functioning of government. When combined with the 24-hour news cycle, this political climate causes Americans to narrow their focus to a minority of issues, many of which are distorted into mere caricatures for the sake of political objectives. This reality is unsustainable, and the American public must find a way to dismantle the power of these groups.

Primary Question

Who is behind the proliferation of PACs in the United States? Is it a small group of individuals? Is it politicians themselves? Are there umbrella organizations that control a large number of PACs?

Hypothesis

I believe that the majority if PACs are run by a small cabal of political (and economic) juggernauts. These individuals create webs of non-profits, PACs, 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations, and lobbying groups to ensure the widest reach possible, and to cover their own tracks. Through loopholes and clever maneuvering, these men and women exert their influence over legislators, bureaucrats, judges, and the American public as a whole. I believe that it is possible to track this influence by following the line from politicians, to PACs, to larger umbrella organizations, and ultimately to the individuals responsible for this political gridlock.

Data

For this project, I would need to gather data from key Senate or Gubernatorial (these attract the most national interest) campaigns from the 2014 election cycle. This data would include both direct financial contributions, and more indirect contributions in the form of political ads, phone banking, or canvassing. I would also gather information on the leadership of relevant organizations, both at the local and national level. I would necessarily begin with individuals such as the Koch brothers, George Soros, and Sheldon Adelson, on the assumption that they are at the head of sprawling PAC networks. Much of this data is publicly available, or can be easily researched by examining the sources of political ads.

Methodology/Important Network Measures

The individuals and groups who seek to influence policy-making in the United States are extremely good at covering their tracks. That being said, it is not an impossible task to track contributions (whether direct or indirect) far enough up the chain so as to give a better picture of who is controlling the political dialogue in the US. After determining the organization directly tied to the candidate, I would then identify any parent organizations tied to that local/grassroots affiliate. If that is not possible, I would look to tie the organization’s leadership to other key national interest groups.

Centrality measures would be very important for this analysis. The most important of these measures would be “Betweenness,” as I am working on the assumption that there are certain individuals who tie these networks to one another. I would also work to identify cliques, in order to see how various issues tie individual together. Finally, I would look to identify the Democratic and Republic (or Liberal/Conservative) subgroups in order to offer a visual representation of the extreme divide between the two primary political camps in this country.

Conclusion

This project would, in essence, look to uncover the political manipulation of the many by the few. There are analysts who have done excellent work uncovering these networks of manipulation, but a comprehensive network analysis will offer a comprehensive, tangible representation of exactly how these networks operate.