Question

1. Why is pluralism considered to provide representation as a “by-product” to group membership? What does it mean that groups provide policy representation as opposed to legislators, which Madison suggests provides representation through elections?
2. Why do some critics of pluralism say small group “organized special interests” have an advantage in securing policy representation from government than large latent groups?

Answer 1

SOLUTION :

As far as the Council of Europe is concerned, two documents relevant for pluralism issues were recently issued: “recommendation on Media Pluralism and diversity of Media Content” (Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers 2007c) and “declaration on Protecting the role of the Media in democracy in the Context of Media Concentration” (Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, 2007d), adopted by the Committee of Ministers on January 31, 2007. As regards the approach and focus of the documents, the Council of Europe follows its own tradition in dealing with media concentration. The new recommendation covers ownership regulation in detail, declaring inter alia that ownership rules “may include introducing thresholds based on objective and realist criteria, such as the audience share, circulation, turnover/revenue, the share of capital or voting rights,” and also endorses scientific research on the subject.Political action committees (PACs) give money to candidates that share their views. Although outright bribery is rare, PAC donations do gain access for groups.The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 weakened parties and strengthened groups, which continue to donate to candidates and sponsor their own issue-advocacy campaigns through independent expenditures.In addition to money, campaign activism—whereby groups mobilize their memberships to participate in elections—is also a key tool for influencing the electoral process.Groups sometimes sponsor and promote ballot initiatives at the state level, which, although they are a form of direct democracy, are often subject to group manipulation and even domination.When the federal executive was reorganized in 1849 by the creation of the Department of the Interior, reformers advocated for a formal federal agricultural bureau. Southerners, however, were alarmed by the ad hoc administrative growth of the Patent Office’s “Agricultural Division” and stymied the effort. In response, reformers organized a national agricultural society that met annually in Washington and lobbied Congress through the 1850s on the need for a department of agriculture. Recognizing the need for federal funding of agricultural education, the organization also lobbied for the Morrill land grant bill, introduced in 1857, which proposed to distribute portions of the public domain to the states for the purpose of establishing agricultural and mechanical colleges. Southerners found this measure highly disturbing and denounced it in fiery terms.