Interest Groups In The 19th Century

Since the rise of political interest groups in the United States (U.S.), it has become apparent that the Average American has virtually no representation in the creation of public policy. In sum, the rapidly transforming structure of political institutions in the late 19th century, and early 20th century (progressive era), created conditions in which United States (U.S.) business interests were able to outweigh the public interest, while simultaneously downsizing interest representation of the common people. Thus, representation, at least in the form or organized interests, requires some degree of economic prosperity. The poor, women, and minority groups as a whole, have little representation of their interests in the interest system, because, …show more content…
In addition to farmers and workers, women in particular formed nonpartisan associations that plunged into nonelectoral politics, both to secure social and economic reforms and to develop organizations that exercised dominion over protective labor legislation. Other Americans, outraged by corporate abuses and party complicity exposed in the 1890s depression, organized as consumers and pressed for government regulation. The Bureau of Corporations, created in 1903, asserted administrative oversight of trusts, while the Interstate Commerce Commission had its regulatory authority greatly expanded by the Hepburn Act (1906) and the Mann-Elkins Act (1910). Yet, to assume that interest groups and administrative agencies better aggregated, articulated, and represented the interests of most Americans than political parties, is ill-founded; little groups actually organized. For example, the evolution of Wisconsin's Railroad Commission from an idea promising to reduce railroad rates for consumers and small producers to an agency that cooperated with railroads to reduce competition and even forestall further regulation exposes the shortcomings of interest groups, accountable representation. A Fortune farm poll taken some years ago found that 70.5 percent of farmers belonged to no agricultural organizations. A similar conclusion was reached …show more content…
In comparison to formal groups, informal groups, lacked organization, and thus, lacked consistent participation and representation. What's more, author E.E Schattschneider, claimed that “probably about 90 percent of the people cannot get into the pressure system [organized special interests].” Therefore, for Schattschneider, the flaw in the pluralist “heaven” (America) was that the “heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent; the poor, are marginalized from the interest system, having no representation of interests, because, the system harbors an upper-class