By Elizabeth Zakaim
News Editor
Associate politics professor John Kastellec of Princeton University visited the College on Friday, March 2 to give a lecture on his research concerning hyperpluralism, or strong-willed activism, in the context of Supreme Court justice nominations — as members of interest groups can use their voting power to keep or throw out their state senators if they agree or disagree with a Supreme Court judge nomination.
“It’s a different kind of way in which people interact with the government through the intermediary of membership organizations,” Kastellec said of the change in interest group activities throughout history. “We’re going to call this hyperpluralism — many groups battling it out in the political sphere.”
While his paper, co-authored with other colleagues, has not evolved into a falsifiable theory as of yet, his work is part of a larger book project he is currently working on with another colleague, which will shed light on how the changes in nomination politics explain broader changes in American politics.
Kastellec’s data provides compelling evidence of how interest groups have grown more active since their inception in 1930. Kastellec’s research fills the data gap of interest group activity before the ’70s. He and his team monitored evidence of all types of political advocacy groups from 1930 until 2017 via any mentions in The Los Angeles Times.
Kastellec found that the rise in interest groups in general, though different lobbying groups have been around since the 1930s, significantly increased in terms of political activism by two or threefold around 1965. Kastellec also found that in the context of the Supreme Court, there was an explosion of interest group activity, or mobilization, in the ’70s. These groups were becoming increasingly more invested in how the justices ruled different cases.
Kastellec taxonomized the 199 different types of political groups by category and their activity by time period. From 1937 until 1969, most political groups consisted of occupational groups, industrial unions, labor groups and core civil rights groups such as the NAACP. From 1970 to 1985, some conservative groups were replaced by identity groups and more civil rights groups like the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights. Today, narrow-purposed and donor-funded public interest groups such as abortion-related groups dominate political advocacy groups in government.
In nomination politics, liberal groups mobilized earlier than the conservative groups— there were fewer instances of mobilization before nominations for justices such as Robert Bork in the late 1980s.
There was a spike in interest group activity for both parties in 1987, particularly around the time of Bork’s supreme court nomination, according to Kastellec’s research.
“Bork was a controversial nominee,” Kastellec said.
Upwards of 60 interest groups rose to either support or oppose Bork’s nomination — the U.S. Senate eventually rejected his nomination.
Bork’s controversy sparked a resurgence of public interest group mobilization. Many started mobilizing not just in opposition of a nominee, but in support as well. Kastellec’s data shows that while liberal groups may have had a head start, conservative group mobilization now exceeds liberal mobilization.
Kastellec and his colleagues also found that the tactics different interest groups use have changed over time.
From approximately 1930 to 1969, most interest group members made personal contact with staffers and testified directly before judiciary committees. They also had direct contact with members of Congress.
“This makes sense, given that interest group network is sparse and the technology was different in 1940 compared to today,” Kastellec said.
From 1970 onward, groups switched to outside and grassroots tactics where they either started advertising, holding press releases or organizing rallies and protests in order to instigate change.
Kastellec’s data implied that there might be an overall advantage to those models for each type of interest group.
“There seems to be some kind of global shift going on where at least in this environment outside and grassroots tactics deserve more attention than inside tactics,” Kastellec said.
Kastellec and his colleagues also conducted a regression analysis to find out what aspects of a nominee predict mobilization of interest groups. He found that interest groups are more likely to cast votes for nominees who do not have any scandals in their past and share similar political ideologies.
Before 1987, the quality of the nominee was a much stronger predictor of mobilization than political extremity, which resulted in a more opportunistic form of mobilization. Interest groups were more likely to mobilize if the nominee had a history of scandals than if the nominee had differing political views.
After 1987, the pattern flipped. Interest groups cared less about legal quality and more about political ideology.
“Qualifications don’t do much either way,” Kastellec said. “Though, most nominees in the post-Bork period have been of high quality because most presidents have learned from past mistakes.”
The timing has also changed during the modern period from 1987 to 2017 –– most groups began advocating before the nominee’s week-long hearing at the judiciary committee.
“Groups are not waiting to learn much about the nominee,” Kastellec said. “The mobilization decision is planned ahead of time –– the groups are ready to go.”
The campaigns have changed from opportunistic to more systematic and immediate forms of mobilization on both sides.
“Lots of people complain that the hearings are staged and not informative because a lot of information about the nominees has already come up,” Kastellec said.
The tactics have changed, according to Kastellec, likely because the federal government has grown over the years and there are now more issues at stake. Interest groups want more of a say in how the government makes decisions –– they already have a large influence on the agenda of both parties and how they change as seen through Kastellec’s research on their impact on the justice system.
Freshman international studies major Karin Thio gained insight from Kastellec’s data.
“I thought it was really impressive how he was able to take certain components of how statistics change over time, how different eras and politics influence how people vote and how different types of groups emerge during those political eras,” Thio said.
