Internet and Politics: Reinforcing Political Interest Groups
Perspectives of the Internet and Politics
At the center of the discussion over the use of the Internet in American politics is the debate over its potential to truly revolutionize the way we communicate and behave politically. As early as 1993, political scientists were beginning to argue that the use of the Internet in the political sphere does indeed lead to advanced levels of civic participation, supporting a utopian perspective of the technology and its benefits; Mitch Kapor, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation observed that “life in cyberspace seems to be shaping up exactly like Thomas Jefferson would have wanted: founded on the primacy of individual liberty and a commitment to pluralism, community and diversity.1,2 The introduction of Web 2.0 technologies, which includes video, fund-raising, and community-building apps, would seem to support this theory. In their 2002 Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction, James Katz and Ronald Rice comment that “certainly the Internet has already become a powerful political tool”, and that is supports politics in both a top-down and bottom-up role.3
On the other side of the debate, however, is the reinforcement perspective. While few go so far as to suggest that the Internet will actually have a dystopian effect on American politics, many still doubt that online activities will vastly improve existing patterns of participation; the current digital divide and social inequality limit the benefits, and may even widen the participation gap. While the Internet may optimize political communication and behaviors, it’s believed that the Internet cannot simply redefine the electorate, social organizations, or social institutions.1 Katz and Rice describe the reinforcement perspective as the belief that “online communities are secondary and controlled relations,” where existing political relationships and organization activities can only be complemented and not replaced.3
This section of the blog will examine the effect of the Internet on political interest groups (click here for information about, and definitions of, political interest groups as they relate to this blog), and whether or not its role lends itself to the utopian or reinforcement perspective.
Examining Political Interest Groups
To examine the effects of the Internet on political interest groups, this blog will look at the success of these organizations in the pre and post-Web 2.0 age. There are many who believe that these emerging technologies are what will ultimatly define the Internet’s role in politics; “the ideal democratic process is participatory and the Web 2.0 phenomenon is about democratizing digital technology”.4 New tools are evening the playing field regarding communication, networks, data-mining, etc.
This analysis will at look at existing records of the most influential political interest groups during presidential election years (years with the most political activity and monetary expenditures). By looking back at the three most recent election cycles, it will be possible to compare the changes in political interest groups with increased Internet use; In 2000, only 41% of American households had Internet access5; in 2004, almost 75% of households had access6; and in 2008, that number jumped to about 82%.7 If the use of the Internet is advancing civic participation, we would expect to see a notable increase in the donations/expenditures of political interest groups due to more cost-effective communication technologies, a change in the players from “business-as-usual” actors to new actors benefiting from the leveled Web 2.0 playing field, and consistent use of social media by the key political interest groups.
Political Interest Groups at First Glance
On the surface, it would seem that the existence of many political interest groups as solely online organizations would support the reinforcement perspective:
Case Study: MoveOn
The organization that is today known as MoveOn began as a one sentence, online petition in September of 1998 calling on Congress to “censure President Clinton” for his personal affair with Monica Lewinsky and “Move On to pressing issues facing the country”.8 The petition’s writers Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, a married couple, had never before been involved in politics, and originally sent the petition to fewer than 100 of their friends. Within a week, 100,000 people had signed the petition. Ultimately, the petition gathered about 500,000 signatures.9
Click here to watch an interview with Blades discussing the petition.
Later in 1998, the MoveOn PAC, which is today known as Moveon.org Political Action, was created to support candidates with limited political power in Washington.10 The PAC is credited as being a significant factor in the Democratic takeover of Congress in the 2006 elections, among other accomplishments.11
Moveon.org Political Action is still today considered one of the most powerful PACs on Capitol Hill; in the 2008 elections, they were one of the top 20 PACs by total expenditures, at $38,123,571.12
The Moveon family also includes a 501(c)(4) organization, Moveon.org Civic Action, dedicated to media reform and voter outreach.
Image from moveon.org.
Case Study: SarahPAC
In January of 2009, Sarah Palin launched the leadership PAC SarahPAC. According to its Web site, SarahPAC “supports Gov. Palin’s plans to build a better, stronger, and safer America in the 21st century”.13
In its first six months, SarahPAC raised about $733,000, mostly through donations of under $200. According to spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton, the money was raised with just “one event and one e-mail from the governor back in February”.14
SarahPAC’s existence is limited almost exclusively to its Web property, but has still been very successful in raising funds in support of Palin’s political efforts.
Image from sarahpac.com.
A Deeper Look: Key Players
Using OpenSecrets.org, it is possible to gather data on the top five lobbyists and PACs in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and the top five 527 organizations in 2004 and 2008.
For the purposes of this blog, lobbying will represent a look at 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations and their competitors, as many of these organizations are active in lobbying efforts in one way or another. The top lobbyists are determined each year by which organizations spend the most in that fiscal year.15
Data from opensecrets.org: Top 5 Lobbying Organizations in 2000, 2004 and 2008. Click to see full-size.
According to the data, in 2000, three of the top five lobbyists were non-profit organizations, two business-related and one trade-related. In 2004, three of the top five lobbyists were non-profit organizations, two trade-related and one business-related. In 2008, only two of the top five lobbyists were non-profit organizations, one business-related and one civic-related. This trend would suggest that existing players are actually maintaining, or even reinforcing, their stronghold in political lobbying, instead of the leveling of the playing field that we would expect to see.
Because data on 527 organizations is only available for 2004 and 2008, we will look at the 2008 numbers to see if there is any significant difference between the two years. The top 527 organizations are determined by total receipts for the year.12
Data from openserets.org: Top 527 Orgnizations in 2008. Click to see full-size.
One of the top five 527 organizations in 2008, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), was in the top five in 2004. Two others, America Votes and EMILY’s List, were in the top 20 in 2004. The other two were not launched until after the 2004 election.12 This gives us mixed results: it shows that newcomers can be just as powerful as returning players, but also suggest that these same returning political interest groups still have a significant stronghold.
Below is a video on the success Emily’s List has had in their political efforts:
Because PACs change dramatically from year-to-year in response to specific candidates, they cannot be looked to as a source of insight regarding the effect the Internet has on key political interest groups.
A Deeper Look: Donations and Expenditures
Again using OpenSecrets.org, it is possible to gather data on the five wealthiest lobbyists and PACs in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and the five wealthiest 527 organizations in 2004 and 2008.
Data from opensecrets.org: Top Lobbyists in $ spent in 2000 and 2004. Click to see full-size.
Data from opensecrets.org: Top Lobbyists by $ Spent in 2004 and 2008. Click to see full-size.
Data from opensecrets.org. Top 527 Organizations by Total Receipts in 2004 and 2008. Click to see full-size.
Data from opensecrets.org: Top PACs by $ to Candidates in 2000 and 2004. Click to see full-size.
Data from opensecrets.org: Top PACs by $ to Candidates in 2004 and 2008. Click to see full-size.
The amount of money spent or earned by lobbyists and PACs does seem to go up with increased use of the Internet. In 2000, the average amount of money donated to candidates by the top five PACs was $2,312,292. In 2004, the amount was $2,751,626.60, and in 2008, the amount was $3,252,178.60.
From this data we also see that the amount spent by 527 organizations actually decreased from 2004 to 2008, due most likely to regulations that were introduced by the FEC in that time frame.
The amount of money spent or earned by lobbyists and PACs does go up with increased use of the Internet. This is consistent with the expectation that Internet and Web 2.0 technologies are a more cost-effective way of disseminating information and gathering funds than traditional methods. It is, however, difficult to gauge what financial increases are due to the Internet, and which are just expected increases due to inflation and unrelated changes to the political sphere. Therefore, evidence to support the utopian perspective is limited at best in regards to donations and expenditures.
A Deeper Look: Social Media Usage
The graph below is a summary of social media usage by the top five lobbyists, 527 organizations, and PACs in 2008. As key political players, we should expect to see robust use of Web 2.0 technologies if the utopian perspective holds true.
Social Media Usage by Key Political Interest Groups in 2009. Click to see full-size.
What we see is that they key players are, for the most part, engaged in social media, but that there are no discernible trends to the success of their use inrelation to their ranking. Also, the popularity of channels such as Facebook and Twitter in use by these organizations is limited; most organizations that utilize these resources have friends or followers in numbers barely in the thousands. The ones with the most friends or fans on Facebook, the US Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, and America Votes are not necessarily the top organizations. The same holds true for the top Twitter users: Northrop Grumman, AT&T, and American Solutions Winning the Future. Many political interest groups are still not blogging, and do not have online donation options on their home page.
Image from www.facebook.com: Screenshot of the America Votes Facebook page. Click to see full-size.
Watch the video below to hear Newt Gingrich, on behalf of American Solutions Winning the Future, discuss the opening of the organization’s Silicone Valley office and the importance of Internet use by political interest groups:
Conclusion
While the top political interest groups in American politics are utilizing the Internet and, for the most part, social media in some form, there is little evidence to suggest that this usage is truly revolutionizing the way political interest groups operate. While evidence shows that the Internet may be playing a role in the larger pocketbooks of these organizations, it is not changing the key players; if the utopian perspective were true, we would expect to see more players emerging from a democratic base rather than a corporate base due to a leveled playing field regarding channel access and content. From this we can conclude that groups such as Moveon and SarahPAC may be the exception rather than the rule and that the Internet’s effect on political interest groups, while optimizing communication efforts, still merely reinforces the existing political structures and hierarchies as they relate to political interest groups. It looks, then, as if the reinforcement perspective best summarizes the relationship between the Internet and political interest groups.
An interview with the interim president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACSCAN), Molly Daniels, supports these findings: according to Daniels, political interest groups are “asking people to do the same thing they were asking them to do 20 years ago. What’s changed is how we communicate with them”.16 Ultimately, actions more tangible that what can be accomplished online still need to happen: people still need to donate money, call their representatives, and get out and vote. These actions can never be replaced by the Internet, so the organizations that have been the most successful in mobilization using traditional means are often those who are most successful doing the same thing online. Still, the Internet is a priceless tool when it comes to cost-effectiveness and giving a voice to organizations that wouldn’t be heard otherwise, even if they are unable to compete at the same level as key political interest groups.
References:
1. Wang, Kevin. “Internet and Politics: Part 1: Theoretical Concepts.” Journalism 3552 Lecture. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 28 Oct. 2009. Lecture.
2. Kapor, Mitchell. “Where is the Digital Highway Really Heading?: The Case for a Jeffersonian Information Policy.” Wired July & aug. 1993. Wired. Web. 12 Dec. 2009.
3. Katz, James E., and Ronald E. Rice. Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Cambridge: MIT, 2002. Print.
4. Granick, Jennifer. “Saving Democracy With Web 2.0.” Wired.com. Conde Nast, 25 Oct. 2006. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.
5. “Post-Election 2000 Survey on Internet Use for Civics and Politics.” Ipdi.org. Insititute for Politics Democracy & The Internet, 4 Dec. 2000. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
6. Neilsen//Netratings. Three Out of Four Americans Have Access to the Internet, According to Nielsen//Netratings. Neilsen Netratings. Neilson, Inc., 18 Mar. 2004. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
7. Sachoff, Mike. “18% of U.S. Households Have No Internet Access.” WebProNews. IEntry Network, 14 May 2008. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
8. MoveOn.org. Disgusted citizens organize on the Internet: Urge Congress to Censure and Move On. MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org Political Action. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
9. McNally, Terrence. “MoveOn as an Instrument of the People.” AlterNet. Independent Media Institute. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
10. “About the MoveOn Family of Organizations.” MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org Political Action. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
11. Garrett, Major. “MoveOn Gravy Train Makes and Breaks Political Fortunes.” FoxNews.com. Fox News Network, 18 Sept. 2007. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
12. “Top PACs.” MoveOn.org. The Center for Responsive Politics, 17 July 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
13. “Frequently Asked Questions.” SarahPAC.com. SarahPAC. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
14. Stein, Sam. “SarahPAC: Palin Launches Political Action Committee, Prep For 2012?” Web log post. The Huffington Post. HuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 27 Jan. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
15. “Top Spenders.” OpenSecrets.org. The Center for Responsive Politics, 29 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.
16. Daniels, Molly. “Interview with Molly Daniels.” Telephone interview. 12 Dec. 2009.
