Think Tank Thoughts

I (and I assumed a couple of y’all) almost applied to intern at a think tank. If I am being honest, I am slightly glad that I never did because what I have learned about think tanks in these last couple weeks of studying them leads me to believe that I might not have been satisfied.

That’s because I didn’t really know what a think tank even was. I still am not quite sure what a think tank is wholly. And unlike interest groups where average Americans hold strong opinions, when it comes to think tanks, the public doesn’t know that much or hold any real opinions regarding think tanks. I think that this is a red flag on the credibility of thinks tanks altogether. Although our professor and our speaker believe that think thanks produce a “net positive” in the political world, I would argue that the lack of transparency, the ambiguity, and the obvious partisanship of thinks thanks invalidate this positive. 

Rich labels think tanks as “independent, non-interest based, non-profit organizations that produce and principally rely on expertise and ideas to obtain support and influence policy-making.” Unfortunately, the scholarship and reality of think tanks do not support this ‘definition’ totally. Specifically, the think tanks are not wholly “independent,” nor are they “non-interest based.”

One aspect of think tanks that weakens any credibility or authority is the lack of transparency, specifically in regards to donations. While our speaker’s think tank does well to share who their donors are and offer information to the public, the majority of think tanks do not do this. And according to our speaker the amount of funding think tanks receive is ‘absurd’. Medvetz used the term “disparate” to explain the funding and resources that think tanks rely on – reliance could lead to a lack of integrity, or a conflict of interest, in research. Who is donating to think tanks? And is the money influencing the research? Our speaker questioned this also, wondering if the power of money was strong enough to push narratives and offering a solution of using government money to fund both sides to avoid outside influence or other influencing factors. While the public is in uproar over which special interests donate to which representatives and question whether these donations have any influence, there does not appear to be the same concern when it comes to research funding. However, I would agree with our speaker that money has some influence on what type of research is being done and for what angle it is being produced. Our speaker also argued that money could somehow “buy silence,” to produce works that conform to a donor’s ideas and do not challenge the status quo or question the authority (or the donor’s beliefs). 

Another aspect that detracts from any level of credibility is the overall lack of knowledge or formal definition that is available. While Rich may have his definition, Medvetz argues that any definition of a think tank is not completely viable or known, using the term “structurally ambiguous,” and even our professor who works for a think tank has described them as “occupying an ambiguous role in the policy-making world”. I believe that this lack of knowledge – of how a think tank operates, hires, influences, etc. – does nothing to lend these institutions credibility or authority. Whereas with special interests, while there is not an extensive pool of research, there has been credible research done and analysis into how special interest operate and how they influence. This lack of scholarly attention, according to Rich, has allowed think tanks to hold a historical low-profile contribution to policy-making and has made it difficult to account for the role of ideas and expertise in American politics.

The last straw in the camel’s back for credibility is the obvious partisanship that is known with a majority of think tanks. For example, the Heritage Foundation leans right, and the Worldwatch Institute leans left, no question about it. Our speaker was somewhat adamant that think tanks should officially adopt an ideology and claim it openly, which would lend to more transparency and perhaps some credibility. But most usually attempt to maintain that “non-interest based,” unbiased front to claim authority. And while I understand that special interests are also ideological, they are at least very open about it and their influence is generally known. Rich describes think tanks as less organizations that are committed to objective analysis of policy problems, but more as organizations that turn experts into advocates and policy information into communication nowadays, pushing different narratives to fit different molds. They have moved on from their intended role as producers of credible expertise or research and objective writing and are now more focused on contributing to potential debates over ideas. Medvetz explains how one type of policy expert is a “salesman” who is good at selling an argument and, as according to our speaker, making political jargon more understandable for politicians which could possibly open a door for influence. This partisanship makes it very difficult for researchers and politicians and the special interests who also use the research to find common ground and realize the truth. Our discussion in class also lends to this idea of think tanks being echo chambers with the power to influence, but not necessarily change ideological beliefs through facts, especially since most of the time facts might not be found in the middle ground. How this partisanship influences policy is another question that cannot fully be answered – as I’ve mentioned in class, I watch a lot of hearings, and think tanks policy experts or representatives are usually available for comment, or a representative uses research done to prove a point – however, how credible are these ‘facts’ that are being quoted? And could research from a think tank on the other side of the aisle contend or corroborate? If the facts contend, or cannot be found in the middle ground, why should they have any part of policy decisions or representatives’ arguments? 

Beyond these points, I believe that think tanks are well-intentioned and were created to bring forth that “net-positive” our speaker and professor both believe in. If think tanks adopted different measures, perhaps some of the ideas that our speaker put forth, and strived to be less ‘ambiguous and weird’ they could have a credible and authoritative role to play in policy decisions. Until then, I will remain skeptical, albeit hopeful.

Lobby Away

In the last few weeks our Political Advocacy class has been learning about and discussing a very important aspect of our political culture – special interests, otherwise known as lobbyists to the greater public. Lobbying often receives negative attention or is accused of being biased against the public yet lobbying is a staple aspect of our political world and is one of the many ways representatives are able to understand the public and serve their constituencies. We were able to meet with a speaker who works in the lobbying world and has extensive knowledge on this subject and he happily shared his opinion with our class. His company is a full-service government affairs firm that monitors the actions of states that may impact the various organizations his firm supports. Here I will analyze his overall opinion (and how it reflects the work he does) and compare it to the ideas put forth by academics regarding what special interests are and what they do.

“How many of you believe that lobbying is bad?”  - Majority of class raised their hands.

“Okay, I’ll tell you why you’re wrong. Think of anything, whatever you want and understand that everything you use or love or want has been lobbied for.”

The speaker put forth many examples, one being makeup. His company represents a large corporation who oversees many big-name makeup companies and he explained how they lobby for makeup. For this argument, he explained a scenario of a proposal to ban a chemical that certain makeups containing SPF have – his group, and other makeup lobbying groups, would argue against the state that without that chemical the SPF is useless and that it is necessary to continue production of such products and provide a safe product to consumers. This is simply one example to support his opinion. His company represents many other large corporations who seek support in approaching the government to help their cause or find support for their vision.

This idea that groups, such as a large makeup corporation, retain lobbyists to voice their wants and needs to the government is rooted deep into the history of lobbying groups. Wright’s discussion on the “Evolution of Interest Groups” puts lobbying in the context of its original ideas. The United States is a representative republic based government and while some, such as James Madison, feared that factions and interest groups would turn the country against each other and lead to a ‘tyranny of the majority’, the union was built to represent the concerns and needs of the constituents within its borders. Men fought for independence on the idea of “no taxation without representation,” in which “taxation” could be replaced with several other priority concerns Americans possessed then and now. The government is here to serve the people and therefore should respect the people.

It is this idea of the government’s role as protector of the citizens and provider of safety that led to the formation of special interest and lobbying groups. The right to free speech and the right to petition the government allowed groups who felt slighted by big law-making decisions or other groups to come together and fight for their rights and opinions. Wright uses the example of the American Postal Workers Union which was a group of postal workers who felt slighted by the rules that were in place and decided to voice their concern – this led to other groups to form which felt similar or wanted to compete against another group’s intentions. Wright described this production of interest groups as a “wavelike formation” with groups forming when they are disturbed by economic, social, political or technological change, otherwise known as the disturbance theory.

Today lobbying groups are not seen as these tough groups who fight for the rights of a particular sector of people or jobs, but as groups who are biased and use their positionship to affect advocacy and issues while leaving the ‘little guys’ out of the discourse. This idea seems to apply mostly to large corporations or large interest groups who have wide reaching appeal across the nation, such as the National Rifle Association or the American Civil Liberties Union. However, Wright’s argument and description of the “free rider” program is a good place to base a counter-argument to those who hold the previously stated opinions of lobbying groups. Lobbying groups were once started and maintained by people who wanted a say in the government and people actually participated and helped their special interest group make a difference. Today a lot of lobbying groups deal with free riders who benefit from the work of the lobbying groups without putting in any physical effort, monetary support, or membership contribution.

The people complain of lobbyists fighting for companies to slight individuals when they are in fact benefitting from these fights, such as is with the makeup lobbying group our speaker discussed with the class earlier. Those who use makeup or any of those SPF related products have benefitted from the work of that group and its supporters without putting in any effort besides to criticize special interests. Obviously, it is not always the case that a lobbying cause will benefit the ‘little people’; they may in fact sometimes be harmful to individuals or counteractive to another group’s efforts. However, it is important to note as John M. de Figueiredo and Brian Kelleher Richter have put forth in their analysis, “Advancing Empirical Research on Lobbying,” not much is known on lobbying groups or their total impact and influence on the government; therefore, it is hard to issue accusations against lobbying groups or criticize their actions as if they are the sole arbiters of policy-making decisions.

By taking a step back and looking at lobbying groups as a whole instead of their specific flaws it is clear the point our speaker was trying to make. While one may not agree with what one specific group is lobbying for, it is highly likely that one would be able to find a counter-group that is supportive of one’s own values and ideology. For example, I might not agree with a group that lobbies against candy because of its sugar content, but it is highly likely that I will be able to find a different lobbying group that is fighting for the candy-makers who know that sugar is one of the best parts of candy (this is all speculative of course and completely my own opinion). Despite a lack of research or thorough understanding of what lobbying groups do or how they do it, Americans are often found fighting against the interests who are fighting for them. I believe our anger and dislike towards lobbying groups should be directed elsewhere.

It is in this context of individuals misunderstanding the concept of lobbying and what it does to help individuals (a majority of the time) that I agree with our speaker’s comment. Everything we use or love or want has been lobbied for. That is a strong statement and a true statement. The Marvel mega-hit movies I love to watch have been lobbied for regarding property rights and copyright laws, and the Netflix that I love to binge every weekend has been lobbied for by activists who support streaming. As someone who is interning at a very similar firm to that of our speaker, I have seen firsthand how lobbying groups work to fight for special interests. One group that Venn founded and manages is ESCA, the Employee-Owned S-Corporations of America, a lobbying group that fights for small business owners. We hold conferences twice a year to bring in more members and petition Congressional staff to support bills that we have put forth in the House and the Senate. It is a full-fledged operation that will benefit not only our 200 company members, but the thousands of other small businesses out there, including my family’s own DJ business.

As a history and political science major I know why Americans are so critical of our government and any entity that seems to be supporting it or consorting with it (I’ll give you a hint to the event I’m referring to – flashlights and hotels were involved). However, this distrust has clouded our judgements and biased our opinions to the point where we don’t even try to understand what a lobbying group is and what it does for us. Our speaker and I both come from difficult and humbling backgrounds and I was quite inspired by his dedication and work ethic. I was not sure about my internship at first because I too was wary of lobbying firms, but working with and for such groups so closely I have realized the enormous potential benefits that they can provide to all of us.

So, as you read this remember, everything you use or love or want has been lobbied for, including this Blogger site and the laptop I typed it on.