Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T08:38:13.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seeds of Cynicism: The Struggle over Campaign Finance, 1956–1974

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Julian E. Zelizer
Julian E. Zelizer
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Albany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“It is a cesspool, it is a source of infection for the body politic,” Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.) warned his fellow senators in 1973 about the private financing of elections. “[I]f it doesn't stop, there are going to be good men in this hall right here today who are going down the drain, not that you are guilty, not that you have done anything wrong, but that the public is disenchanted with all of us, and they are going to want somebody new and say I want a fresh one here.” From 1971 through President Nixon's resignation in 1974, Congress enacted the boldest campaign finance reforms in American history, including strong disclosure laws, public financing for presidential elections, contribution and spending limits, and an independent enforcement commission. Despite these reforms, after only a decade under the new laws, citizens still felt that campaign finance was corrupt.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 14 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Money and Politics , January 2002 , pp. 73 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Minutes of the Senate Democratic Conference,9 May 1973,MMP,Google Scholar Collection 65: Mansfield–Mike–U.S. Senate, Series XXII: Leadership, Box 91, Folder 1.

2. I would like to thank Professor Alan Brinkley for suggesting that I use this puzzle to frame my analysis.

3. The best historical treatment of campaign finance reform, the only one, comes from political scientist Mutch, Robert E., Campaigns, Congress, and the Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (New York, 1988), 191Google Scholar. While his book provides the sole historical overview of this subject, it is unsatisfying for a historian since he organizes the book by topic. Besides its lack of a strong analytic argument, the structure obscures how the various components and factions of reform unfolded over time in relation to each other. By compartmentalizing each area of reform, the book fails to explain satisfactorily the chronology of how this issue unfolded–the major task of the historian. Mutch (see pages 188–89) acknowledges the fact that many reforms were proposed before Watergate, and he presents snapshots of the debates in his scattered topical history, but he does not incorporate this fact into any type of systematic analytical framework for understanding the history of the period. Mutch stresses the centrality of scandal to producing reform legislation, while I emphasize the importance of a reform coalition. Another useful, albeit brief, historical article is Corrado, Anthony, “Money and Politics: A History of Federal Campaign Finance Law,” in Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook, ed. Corrado, Anthony, Mann, Thomas E., Ortiz, Daniel, Potter, Trever, and Sorauf, Frank J. (Washington, D.C., 1997), 27–35Google Scholar. Although I take issue with his thesis, the best historical account of campaign finance reform that relies on the unintended consequences argument is Gillon's, Steven M.“That's Not What We Meant To Do”: Reform and Its Unintended Consequences in Twentieth-Century America (New York, 2000), 200–234Google Scholar. The best nonhistorical overviews of campaign finance are Sorauf's, Frank J.Money in American Politics (Glenview, Ill., 1988)Google Scholar and idem, Inside Campaign Finance (New Haven, 1992); Sheppard, Burton D., Rethinking Congressional Reform: The Reform Roots of the Special Interest Congress (Cambridge, Mass., 1985)Google Scholar; Sabato, Larry J., PAC Power: Inside the World of Political Action Committees (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Drew, Elizabeth, Politics and Money: The New Road to Corruption (New York, 1983)Google Scholar.

4. This reform coalition, and its broader efforts to change Congress, is the focus of my book, The Cost of Democracy (work-in-progress).

5. By stressing the political self-interest in reform, I differ in some respects with the political science literature that stresses how ideas can overcome interest. See, for example, Derthick, Martha and Quirk, Paul J., The Politics of Deregulation (Washington, D.C., 1985)Google Scholar, and Mucciaroni, Gary, Reversals of Fortune: Public Policy and Private Interests (Washington, D.C., 1995)Google Scholar.

6. On policy incubation, see Polsby, Nelson W., Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Innovation (New Haven, 1984), 153–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Sacks, Albert, “Election Contributions and Expenditures: Present Federal Law and Proposals for Change,” 15 01 1958Google Scholar, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, File 21.

8. Fraser, Steven, Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (New York, 1991), 503–517Google Scholar.

9. These pressures are gleaned from a survey of the social science literature on campaign finance. See, for example, Sorauf, , Money in American Elections, and Party Politics in America, 5th ed. (Boston, 1984)Google Scholar; Sabato, Larry, The Rise of Political Consultants: The New Ways of Winning Elections (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; and Polsby, Nelson W., “Money in Presidential Campaigns,” New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution, ed. Brinkley, Alan, Polsby, Nelson W., and Sullivan, Kathleen M. (New York, 1997), 51–58Google Scholar.

10. Redish, Martin H., “Campaign Spending Laws and the First Amendment,” New York University Law Review 46 (1971): 900–934Google Scholar.

11. Draper, Alan, A Rope of Sand: The AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education (New York, 1989)Google Scholar.

12. Chiles, Lawton, “PAC's: Congress on the Auction Block,” in Funding Federal Political Campaigns: PACs, Corporate Activities and Contributions, and Lobbying Laws (Washington, D.C., 1986), 275Google Scholar.

13. Jones, William H., “Political Muscle Desire Began Payoffs,” Washington Post, 4 03 1976, Sunday, section BGoogle Scholar; Walter Pincus, “Silent Spenders in Politics–They Really Give at the Office,” 1971, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, Folder 20.

14. Epstein, Edwin M., Corporations, Contributions, and Political Campaigns: Federal Regulation in Perspective (Berkeley, 1968), 74Google Scholar.

15. George Riley to George Meany, 8 October 1956, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 32, Folder 23; Meany, George, “The Lobby Probe,” The AFL-CIO American Federationist 63 (04 1956): 16–17Google Scholar.

16. Walter Reuther to George Meany, 5 August 1959, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 10, Folder 27.

17. William Vanderbilt to Members of the Committee on Campaign Expenditures, 12 June 1958, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, File 21.

18. Jim McDevitt to George Meany, 8 May 1958, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, Folder 21.

19. Committee on Campaign Contributions and Expenditures to Senators and Representatives in Congress, 4 November 1958, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, File 21.

20. Herbert Alexander, interview with Julian Zelizer, Washington, D.C., 4 March 1999.

21. Citizen's Research Foundation, Financing the 1960 Election (Princeton, 1961)Google Scholar.

22. Office of the White House Press Secretary, Press Release, 4 October 1961, JFKL, Presidential Office Files, Box 93.

23. President's Commission on Campaign Costs, Financing Presidential Campaigns, April 1962, JFKL, Presidential Office Files, Box 93.

24. Harold Reis, Memorandum, 3 July 1962, and Alexander Heard to Lee White, 13 July 1962, in JFKL, White House Central Files, Box 206.

25. Robert J. Rosthal to Fred Vinson, 26 July 1965, LBJL, Office Files of Matthew Nimetz, Box 3, File: Financing Political Campaigns.

26. Alexander, Herbert E., Money in Politics (Washington, D.C., 1972), 33Google Scholar.

27. Robards, Terry, “Election Funds May Set Record,” New York Times, 31 03 1968Google Scholar.

28. “Campaign Spending Regulation: Failure of the First Step,” Harvard Journal of Legislation 8 (1971): 642Google Scholar.

29. Hodgson, Godfrey, The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America (Boston, 1996)Google Scholar.

30. Democratic National Committee, “Financial Report,” 25 March 1965, LBJL, Files of Marvin Watson, Box 19, File: DNC/Financial Reports.

31. Democratic National Committee, Financial Records, 1965 and 1966, LBJL, Files of Marvin Watson, Box 19, File: DNC/Financial Reports.

32. Zelizer, Julian E., “The Constructive Generation: Thinking about Congress in the 1960s,” Mid-America 81 (1999): 265–298Google Scholar, and idem “Bridging State and Society: The Origins of 1970s Congressional Reform,” Social Science History 12 (2000): 379–90.

33. Arthur Krim to Marvin Watson, 2 November 1967, LBJL, Files of Marvin Watson, Box 19, File: DNC/Financial Reports.

34. Marvin Watson to President Johnson, 25 January 1967, LBJL, Files of Marvin Watson, Box 19, File: DNC/Financial Reports; John Criswell to William White, 16 November 1967, LBJL, Files of Marvin Watson, Box 19, File: DNC/Financial Reports.

35. Gallup, George H., The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935–1971: Volume Three (New York, 1972), 2070; 2116–17Google Scholar; Gallup, George H., The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935–1971: Volume Two (New York, 1972), 1391, 1445Google Scholar.

36. Adamy, David and Agree, George, “Election Campaign Financing: The 1974 Reforms,” Political Science Quarterly 90, no. 2 (Summer 1975): 206Google Scholar.

37. Pomfret, John P., “Johnson Urges Strict New Law on Election Gifts,” New York Times, 7 05 1966Google Scholar.

38. “Position of Various Senators on Political Campaign Problems,” 1967, LBJL, Office Files of John E. Robson and Stanford G. Ross, Box 15, File: Political Process.

39. Richard Neustadt to the President, 20 December 1966, LBJL, Task Force Reports, Box 3, File: 1966 Task Force on Campaign Financing.

40. Record of Meeting, 22 October 1966, LBJL, Task Force Reports, Box 3, File: 1966 Task Force on Campaign Financing.

41. “Testimony of Senator Robert F. Kennedy On Campaign Financing,” 6 June 1967, LBJL, Office Files of John Robson and Stanford Ross, Box 15, File: Political Process.

42. Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation, 2 December 1966, LBJL, Task Force Reports, Box 3, File: 1966 Task Force on Campaign Financing.

43. Joseph Califano to President Johnson, 1967, LBJL, White House Aide Files: Papers of Joseph Califano, Box 57, File: Political Process.

44. Joseph Califano to President Johnson, 23 May 1967, LBJL, White House Aide Files: Papers of Joseph Califano, Box 57, File: Political Process.

45. Joseph Barr to President Johnson, 10 June 1967, LBJL, White House Aide Files: Papers of Joseph Califano, Box 57, File: Political Process.

46. Andrew Biemiller to Tom Harris, 29 June 1967, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, Folder 20.

47. Powe, Lucas A. Jr., The Warren Court and American Politics (Cambridge, Mass., 2000), 303–335Google Scholar.

48. New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

49. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).

50. Redish, Martin H., “Campaign Spending Laws and the First Amendment,” New York University Law Review 46 (1971): 900–934Google Scholar.

51. Orren, Gary, “Fall from Grace: The Public's Loss of Faith in Government,” in Why People Don't Trust Government, ed. Nye, Joseph S. Jr., Zelikow, Philip D., and King, David C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1997), 80–81.Google Scholar

52. Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Financing Congressional Campaigns, Electing Congress: The Financial Dilemma (New York, 1970)Google Scholar.

53. Fred Vinson Jr. to Ramsey Clark, 14 February 1966, LBJL, Office Files of Matthew Nimetz, Box 3, File: Financing Political Campaigns.

54. National Committee for an Effective Congress, July 1969, and Philip Hart and James Pearson to Fred Harris, 5 August 1969, CAC, Fred Harris Papers, Box 279, File 12.

55. James Abourezk to Carl Albert, 22 September 1971, CAC, Carl Albert Legislative Files, Box 147, File 5.

56. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications, Hearings: Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 92d Cong., 1st sess., 2–31 March and 1 April 1971, 146–48.

57. Common Cause, “Making Congress Work,” November 1970, CCP, Box 216, File: Open-Up-The-System.

58. Bryce Harlow, Memorandum for the President, 6 October 1969, RNP, White House Central Files, Subject Files FG 31–1: Bryce Harlow, Box 5, Folder 4; Poff, Richard, “Diary of White House Leadership Meetings–91st Congress,” 7 10 1969Google Scholar, GFL, Robert Hartmann Papers, Box 106, File: White House–Congressional Leadership Meeting 7 October 1969.

59. Report by Tom Mathews, 1971, and “Statement of John W. Gardner Re Common Cause Lawsuit,” 11 January 1971, CCP, Box 27, File: Tom Mathews–1971.

60. For the best existing work on Common Cause, see Andrew S. McFarland, Common Cause: Lobbying in the Public Interest (Chatham, N.J., 1984), and Rothenberg, Lawrence S., Linking Citizens to Government: Interest Group Politics at Common Cause (Cambridge, Mass., 1992)Google Scholar.

61. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts, 46.

62. Adamany and Agree, “Election Campaign Financing,” 207.

63. McFarland, Common Cause: Lobbying in the Public Interest; Sorauf, Money in American Politics, 229.

64. Polsby, Nelson, Consequences of Party Reform (New York, 1983), 131–156Google Scholar; Shafer, Byron E., Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York, 1983), 410–413Google Scholar.

65. Thimmesch, Nick, “Gardner: Common Cause,” Newsday, 6 05 1971Google Scholar.

66. Cohen, Richard E., Rostenkowski: The Pursuit of Power and the End of the Old Politics (Chicago, 1999), 68Google Scholar.

67. “Statement of John W. Gardner Re Common Cause Lawsuit,” 11 January 1971, CCP, Box 27, File: Tom Mathews–1971.

68. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts, 45.

69. Zelizer, “The Constructive Generation”; Sabato, Larry J., Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American Politics (New York, 1991), 25–26Google Scholar.

70. Numerous examples can be found in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications, Hearings: Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 220–79.

71. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, Hearings: Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 92d Cong., 1st sess., 24–25 May 1971, 92–93.

72. Ibid., 189.

73. Press Release, 23 June 1971, CAC, Box 147, File 91; Democratic Advisory Council, Democratic National Committee, “Report to the DNC Executive Committee,” 19 July 1973, DNCP, Box 22, File: Democratic Advisory Council 1973.

74. Robert Strauss to Democratic Senators and Representatives, 13 May 1974, CAC, Tom Steed Collection, Box 62, File: Democratic Party 1 of 2.

75. Lawrence O'Brien to Members and Friends of the Democratic Party, 27 December 1970, CAC, Tom Steed Papers, Box 43, File: Democratic 2 of 3.

76. Andrew Biemiller to Edward Kennedy, 9 June 1971, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, File 20.

77. Weaver, Warren Jr., “Nixon Shift Seen on Campaign Bill,” New York Times, 17 03 1971Google Scholar.

78. Lowell Beck to John Gardner, 21 June 1971, CCP, Box 28, File: Tom Mathews–1971 III.

79. John Gardner to Senator Frank Moss, 27 June 1971, CCP, Box 28, File: Tom Mathews–1971 III.

80. Robert E. Gallamore to John Gardner, 23 July 1971, CCP, Box 28, File: Tom Mathews–1971 III.

81. Larry Gold to Tom Harris, Ken Young, and Mary Zon, 1 June 1973, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, File 20.

82. Bill Frenzel to John Gardner, 7 July 1971, CCP, Box 23, File: 1971.

83. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Hearings: To Limit Campaign Expenditures, 92d Cong., 1st sess., 1971, 28.

84. Al Barkan to George Meany, 11 November 1971, GMA, Office of the President: George Meany Files, Box 95, File: Political Education, 1970–72.

85. “Proceedings of the Tenth Constitutional Convention of the AFL-CIO: Volume II,”18–23 October 1973, GMA, 236Google Scholar.

86. “Statement of Clark MacGregor,” 29 November 1971, CAC, Carl Albert Legislative Files, Box 144, Folder 1.

87. Editorial, “Nixon's Responsibility…” New York Times, 30 March 1972.

88. Democratic Study Group, “The Most Corrupt Administration in History,” 13 October 1972, Issue Report No. 13, DSGP, Box 22, File: Issue Report #13.

89. Common Cause, Press Release, “The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971–Is It the Real Thing, or Only a Sham?” 24 February 1972, CCP, Box 136, File: January–March 1972; Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting of the Policy Council,22 October 1971, CCP, Box 30, File: 09 1970–01 1972Google Scholar.

90. Minutes, Executive Committee Meeting of the Policy Council,”20 January 1972, CCP, Box 30, File: 13 09 1972Google Scholar.

91. Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Board of Common Cause, 15 February 1972, CCP, Box 30, File: February–July 1972.

92. Minutes, Governing Board of Common Cause, 28–29 September 1973, CCP, Box 31, Folder: 20 July–November 1973.

93. Jack Conway to Carl Albert, 20 September 1972, CAC, Box 134, File 19.

94. John Gardner, Memorandum, 3 October 1972, CCP, Box 23, Folder 1972.

95. Gardner, John W., “We, The People of the United States and Common Cause: Remarks Delivered to Common Cause Membership Meeting,” 1 02 1973Google Scholar, CCP, Box 25, File: Speeches–March 1973.

96. Pipefitters v. United States 407 U.S. 385 (1972).

97. Alexander, Money in Politics, 171.

98. Larry Gold to Tom Harris, Ken Young, and Mary Zon, 1 June 1973, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, File 20. See also “Alice in Wonderland of Campaign Reform,” Memo from COPE, 24 June 1974, DSGP, Box 27, File: Unmarked.

99. U.S. Congress, Senate, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, Hearings: Presidential Campaign Activities of 1972, 93d Cong., 1st sess., 17–24 May 1973.

100. Ibid., 14–21 December 1973.

101. Ibid., 5–24 October, 12–19 November, 4 December 1973, and 28 January 1974.

102. “Minutes of the Senate Democratic Conference,”9 May 1973, MMP, Collection 65: Mansfield–Mike–U.S. Senate, Series XXII: Leadership, Box 91, Folder 1Google Scholar.

103. Bill Brock to Carl Albert, 4 May 1973, CAC, Carl Albert Legislative Files, Box 160, Folder 1.

104. The White House, Press Release, 16 May 1973, GFL, Ford Vice Presidential Papers, Box 143, File: Election Reform.

105. Colson, Charles W., “Public Office, Public Funds,” New York Times, 19 11 1973Google Scholar.

106. “Minutes of the Senate Democratic Conference,”9 May 1973, MMP, Collection 65: Mansfield–Mike–U.S. Senate, Series XXII: Leadership, Box 91, Folder 1Google Scholar.

107. O'Hara, James, “Remarks at the St. Clair Rotary Club, St. Clair, Michigan,” 13 11 1973, JOP, Box 33, File: Speeches January–August 1973Google Scholar.

108. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, Hearings: Federal Election Reform, 1973, 93d Cong., 1st sess., 11–12 April and 6–7 June 1973, 66–67.

109. “Minutes of the Senate Democratic Congress,” 9 May 1973.

110. Malbin, Michael J. and Gais, Thomas L., The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons from the American States (Albany, 1998), 13–14Google Scholar.

111. “Minutes of the Senate Democratic Conference,”9 May 1973Google Scholar.

112. Arch Booth to Members, 8 February 1974, GMA, Department of Legislation, Box 7, File 20.

113. Winter, Ralph K. Jr., Domestic Affairs Studies: Campaign Financing and Political Freedom (Washington, D.C., 1978)Google Scholar.

114. “GAO Issues ‘Q+A’ Explanation of $1 Income Tax Check-Off,” 14 March 1974, CAC, Carl Albert Legislative Files, Box 188, Folder 10.

115. “Minutes of the Senate Democratic Conference,”30 January 1974, MMP, Collection 65: Mansfield–Mike–U.S. Senate, Series XXII: Leadership, Box 91, Folder 1Google Scholar.

116. “Minutes of the Democratic Conference,”24 January 1974, MMP, Collection 65: Mansfield–Mike–U.S. Senate, Series XXII: Leadership, Box 91, Folder 1Google Scholar.

117. Gallup, George, The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion. 1972–1977 Volume I (New York, 1978), 146, 186Google Scholar.

118. President Richard Nixon to Speaker Carl Albert, 27 March 1974, RNP, White House Subject Files, FG 34, Box 15, File: 2 of 3.

119. Editorial, “Inadequate Reform,” New York Times, 11 March 1974; “Pastore Criticizes Nixon Proposals for Vote Reforms,” New York Times, 16 March 1974.

120. Lydon, Christopher, “Hays Opposes Public Subsidies for House and Senate Campaigns in Election Reform Bill,” New York Times, 28 02 1974Google Scholar.

121. Ken Cole to President Ford, 21 August 1974, GFL, White House Central Files, Box 77, File: PL2.

122. Timmons, William, “Meeting with Rep. Hays,” 12 09 1974Google Scholar, GFL, William Timmons Files, Box 5, File: Meeting with Representatives + Senators–Briefing Papers September 1974.

123. NBC Nightly News, 17 September 1974, GFL, Weekly News Summary Videos, Tape 1, File: F073.

124. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts, 164–65.

125. CBS Nightly News, 13 September 1974, GFL, Weekly News Summary Videos, Tape F069B.

126. Minutes, Governing Board of Common Cause, 28–29 September 1973, CCP, Box 31, Folder: 20 July–10 November 1973.

127. William Timmons to President Ford, 9 October 1974, GFL, William Timmons Files, Box 2, File: Campaign Financing Reform Legislation. See also Ken Cole to President Ford, 26 August 1974, GFL, William Timmons Files, Box 2, File: Campaign Financing Reform Legislation.

128. White House, Press Release, 15 October 1974, GFL, Philip Buchen Files, Box 14, File: Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments–1974.

129. Congressional Quarterly, The 1974 Election Report, 12 October 1974, 2714.

130. ABC Nightly News, 5 November 1974, GFL, Weekly News Summary, Tape F134.

131. “Labor and A.M.A. Top List in ‘74 Spending on Politics,” New York Times, 29 October 1974; David E. Rosenbaum, “Special Interests Donate $8.5 Million So Far in ‘74,” New York Times, 1 November 1974; “The 1974 Elections: The New Potential,” AFL-CIO American Federationist 81, no. 12 (December 1974): 1–5; “Proceedings of the Eleventh Constitutional Convention of the AFL-CIO: Volume II,” 2–7 October 1975, GMA, 351–52.

132. Rosenbaum, David E., “Who Is Paying for the Election? People Who Want Something,” New York Times, 3 11 1974, Sunday, section IVGoogle Scholar.

133. “Statement by John W. Gardner,” 20 November 1974, CCP, Box 216, File: Open-Up-The-System.

134. For an alternative explanation of why Americans continued to hate politics, see Dionne, E. J. Jr., Why Americans Hate Politics (New York, 1991)Google Scholar.

135. Alexander, Herbert E., “Political Finance Regulation in International Perspective,” in Parties, Interest Groups, and Campaign Finance Laws, ed. Malbin, Michael J. (Washington, D.C, 1980), 336Google Scholar.

136. Salisbury, Robert H., “The Paradox of Interest Groups in Washington–More Groups, Less Clout,” in The New American Political System, ed. King, Anthony, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C., 1990), 203–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar.