It is well documented that the number of interest groups lobbying a piece of legislation in Congress varies greatly. While most legislation generates little to no activity, the number of groups interested in a bill can grow into the hundreds. The challenge for scholars is to explain these behavioral differences. Using a population ecology approach to explain interest-group populations, it is argued that the number of groups lobbying a bill is influenced by the political context. Using data generated by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, this article demonstrates how the actions of members of Congress can both stimulate and suppress lobbying activity.
Ainsworth, Scott.1997. The role of legislators in the determination of interest group influence in legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly22:517-34.
2.
Austen-Smith, David, and John R. Wright .1992. Competitive lobbying for a legislator’s vote. Social Choice and Welfare9:229-57.
3.
---. 1994. Counteractive lobbying. American Journal of Political Science38:25-44.
4.
Bacheller, John M.1977. Lobbyists and the legislative process: The impact of environmental constraints. American Political Science Review71:252-63.
5.
Bauer, Raymond A., Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis Anthony Dexter .1963. American business and public policy: The politics of foreign trade. New York: Atherton.
6.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech .1996. The multiple ambiguities of "counteractive lobbying."American Journal of Political Science40:521-41.
7.
---. 2001. Interest niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. Journal of Politics64:1191-213.
8.
Berry, Jeffrey M.1989. The interest group society. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins .
9.
---. 1999. The new liberalism: The rising power of citizen groups . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
10.
Bound, John, David A. Jaeger, and Regina M. Baker .1995. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association90:443-50.
11.
Carpenter, Daniel P., Kevin M. Esterling, and David M. J. Lazer.2004. Friends, brokers, and transitivity: Who informs whom in Washington politics?The Journal of Politics66:224-46.
12.
Colinvaux, Paul.1978. Why big fierce animals are rare: An ecologist’s perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Collie, Melissa P., and Joseph Cooper.1989. Multiple referral and the "new" committee system in the House of Representatives. In Congress reconsidered , 4th ed., ed. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
14.
De Grandpre, Louis, and Yves Bergeron.1997. Diversity and stability of understorey communities following disturbance in the southern boreal forest. Journal of Ecology85:777-84.
15.
Den Boer, P.J.1990. On the stabilization of animal numbers. 3. What do we conclude from significant test results?Oecologia83:38-46.
16.
Denzau, Arthur T., and Michael C. Munger .1986. Legislators and interest groups: How unorganized interests get represented. American Political Science Review80:89-106.
17.
Gais, Thomas L., and Jack L. Walker Jr.1991. Pathways to influence in American politics. In Mobilizing interest groups in America , ed. Jack L. Walker Jr., 103-21. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
18.
Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery.1995. The demography of interest organization communities: Institutions, associations, and membership groups. American Politics Quarterly23:3-32.
19.
---. 1996a. Environmental limits on the diversity of state interest organization. Political Research Quarterly49:103-18.
20.
---. 1996b. The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
---. 1998. State lobbying regulations and their enforcement: Implications for the diversity of state interest communities. State and Local Government Review30:78-91.
22.
---. 2001. The institutionalization of state communities of organized interests. Political Research Quarterly54:265-84.
23.
Gray, Virginia, David Lowery, Matthew Fellows, and Jennifer L. Anderson .2005. Legislative agendas and interest advocacy. American Politics Research33:404-34.
24.
Hall, Richard L., and Frank W. Wayman .1990. Buying time: Moneyed interests and the mobilization of bias in congressional committees. American Political Science Review84:797-820.
25.
Halpern, C.B.1988. Early successional pathways and the resistance and resilience of forest communities. Ecology69:1703-15.
26.
Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman.1989. Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
Hansen, John Mark.1991. Gaining access: Congress and the farm lobby, 1919-1981 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Hayes, Michael T.1981. Lobbyists and legislators. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
29.
Hojnacki, Marie.1997. Interest groups’ decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science41:61-87.
30.
Hojnacki, Marie, and David C. Kimball .1998. Organized interests and the decision of whom to lobby in Congress. American Political Science Review92:775-90.
31.
---. 2001. PAC contributions and lobbying contacts in congressional committees. Political Research Quarterly54:161-80.
32.
Holyoke, Thomas T.2003. Choosing battlegrounds: Interest group lobbying across multiple venues. Political Research Quarterly56:325-36.
33.
Ives, A.R.1995a. Measuring resilience in stochastic systems. Ecological Monographs65:217-33.
34.
---. 1995b. Predicting the response of populations to environmental change. Ecology76:926-41.
35.
Jones, Bryan D., Frank R. Baumgartner, and Jeffery C. Talbert .1993. The destruction of issue monopolies in Congress. American Political Science Review87:657-71.
36.
Jonsson, N., B. Jonsson, and L.P. Hansen.1998. The relative role of density-dependent and density-independent survival in the life cycle of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Journal of Animal Ecology67:751-62.
37.
King, David C.1994. The nature of congressional committee jurisdictions. American Political Science Review88:48-62.
38.
Kingdon, John.1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown.
39.
Kollman, Ken.1997. Inviting friends to lobby: Interest groups, ideological bias, and congressional committees. American Journal Political Science41:519-44.
40.
---. 1998. Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41.
Krehbiel, Keith.1995. Cosponsors and wafflers from A toZ. American Journal of Political Science39:906-23.
42.
Kroszner, Randall S., and Thomas Stratmann .1998. Interest-group competition and the organization of Congress: Theory and evidence from financial services’ political action committees. American Economic Review88:1163-87.
43.
Leech, Beth L., Frank R. Baumgartner, Timothy M. La Pira, and Nicholas A. Semanko .2005. Drawing lobbyists to Washington: Government activity and the demand for advocacy. Political Research Quarterly58:19-30.
44.
Long, J. Scott, and Jeremy Freese.2006. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
45.
Lowery, David, Virginia Gray, and Matthew Fellowes .2005. Sisyphus meets the Borg. Journal of Theoretical Politics17:41-74.
46.
Lowi, Theodore J.1964. American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics16:677-715.
47.
---. 1972. Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review32:298-310.
48.
Martin, Cathie Jo.1995. Nature or nurture? Sources of firm preferences for national health reform. American Political Science Review89:898-913.
49.
May, Robert M.1973. Stability in randomly fluctuating versus deterministic environments. American Naturalist107:621-50.
50.
---. 2001Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
McCarty, Nolan, and Lawrence S. Rothenberg .1996. Commitment and the campaign contribution contract. American Journal of Political Science40:872-904.
52.
Milbrath, Lester W.1963. The Washington lobbyists. Chicago: Rand McNally.
53.
Olson, Mancur.1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
Nownes, Anthony J.2004. The population ecology of interest group formation: Mobilising for gay and lesbian rights in the United States, 1950-1998. British Journal of Political Science34:49-67.
55.
Nownes, Anthony J., and Daniel Lipinski .2005. The population ecology of interest group death: Gay and lesbian rights interest groups in the United States, 1948-1998. British Journal of Political Science35:303-19.
56.
Rogers, Everett M., and James W. Dearing .1994. Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? In Media power in politics , 3rd ed., ed. Doris A. Graber.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
57.
Romer, Thomas, and James M. Snyder Jr.1994. An empirical investigation of the dynamics of PAC contributions. American Journal of Political Science38:745-69.
58.
Rothenberg, Lawrence S.1989. Do interest groups make a difference? Lobbying, constituency influence, and public policy. Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
59.
---. 1992. Linking citizens to government: Interest group politics at common cause. New York: Cambridge University Press.
60.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and John T. Tierney .1986. Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
61.
Sharov, A.A.1992. Life-system approach: A system paradigm in population ecology. Oikos63:485-94.
62.
Smith, Richard A.1984. Advocacy, interpretation, and influence in the U.S. Congress . American Political Science Review78:44-63.
63.
Tarrow, Sidney.1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Windmeijer, F.A.G., and J.M.C. SantosSilva .1997. Endogeneity in count data models: An application to demand for health care. Journal of Applied Econometrics12:281-94.
65.
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M.2003. Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. 2nd ed. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
66.
Wright, John R.1990. Contributions, lobbying and committee voting in the U.S. House of representatives. American Political Science Review84:417-38.
67.
Young, Garry, and Joseph Cooper.1993. Multiple referral and the transformation of house decision making. In Congress reconsidered, 5th ed., ed. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer.Washington: CQ Press.
