Interest groups and political change

Popular commentators often view the interest group system as a conservative force, contributing more to the maintenance of the status quo than to innovation and change. Groups receiving generous governmental subsidies mobilize to protect their privileges even well after the initial justification for such treatment has long disappeared. So we have mohair subsidies, huge stockpiles of helium, and a variety of wasteful policies that periodically are the subjects of journalistic exposé or of complaints by popular commentators. Compounding this image of government beholden to and immobilized by special interests is the perceived role of money in the electoral process. With members of Congress depending so heavily on the contributions of political action committees, it is no wonder that they reciprocate by doling out millions from the public trough for such purposes as maintaining a 100-year supply of helium (see Verhovek, 1993). Clearly, interest groups are seen as the root of government waste by many commentators, and this view is widely shared by the public. President Clinton, like many of his predecessors, has vowed to overcome the inertial forces of the interest group system. His plea for health care reform represents one of the biggest challenges in this regard, as we discuss here.