Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resources and agendas: combining Walker’s insights with new data sources to chart a path ahead

Interest Groups & Advocacy volume 10, pages 85–90 (2021)Cite this article

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Notes

  1. Laws that require interests to register both their activity and valence on specific bills before the legislature.

References

  • Bawn, Kathleen, Martin Cohen, David Karol, Seth Masket, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2012. A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics 10(3): 571–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergan, Daniel E. 2009. Does grassroots lobbying work? A field experiment measuring the effects of an e-mail lobbying campaign on legislative behavior. American Politics Research 37(2), 327–352.

  • Blanes-i-Vidal, Jordi, Mirko Draca, and Christian Fons-Rosen. 2012. Revolving door lobbyists. The American Economic Review 102(7): 3731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, Michelle L., Jon R. Bond, and Nehemia Geva. 2000. A foot in the door: An experimental study of PAC and constituency effects on access. Journal of Politics 62(2): 534–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosson, Jesse M, Alexander C. Furnas, and Geoffrey M. Lorenz. 2020. Polarized Pluralism Organizational Preferences and Biases in the American Pressure System. American Political Science Review 114(4): 1117–1137.

  • Grossmann, Matt. 2012. The not-so-special interests: Interest groups, public representation, and American governance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Grossmann, Matt, and David A. Hopkins. 2016. Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Richard L., and Alan V. Deardorff. 2006. Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review 100(1): 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Hahrie. 2016. The organizational roots of political activism: Field experiments on creating a relational context. American Political Science Review 110(2): 296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalla, Joshua L., and David E. Broockman. 2016. Campaign contributions facilitate access to congressional officials: A randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krimmel, Katherine. 2017. The efficiencies and pathologies of special interest partisanship. Studies in American Political Development 31(2): 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPira, Timothy M., and Herschel F. Thomas. 2017. Revolving door lobbying: Public service, private influence, and the unequal representation of interests. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Frances E. 2016. Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, Geoffrey M., Alexander C. Furnas, and Jesse M. Crosson. 2020. Large-N bill positions data from maplight.org: What can we learn from interest groups’ publicly observable legislative positions? Interest Groups and Advocacy 9: 342–360.

  • McCrain, Joshua. 2018. Revolving door Lobbyists and the value of congressional staff connections. The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1369–1383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, Paul, and Eric Schickler. 2019. Madison's constitution under stress: A developmental analysis of political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science 23: 37–58.

  • Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 2013. The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Thieme, S. 2020. Moderation or Strategy? Political Giving by Corporations and Trade Groups. The Journal of Politics 82(3): 1171–1175.

  • Walker, Jack L. 1991. Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zoorob, Michael. 2019. Blue endorsements matter: How the fraternal order of police contributed to donald trump’s victory. PS: Political Science and Politics 52(2): 243–250.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trinity University, San Antonio, USA

    Jesse M. Crosson

  2. Center for Science of Science and Innovation, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA

    Alexander C. Furnas

  3. Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA

    Geoffrey M. Lorenz

Authors
  1. Jesse M. Crosson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander C. Furnas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Geoffrey M. Lorenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander C. Furnas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crosson, J.M., Furnas, A.C. & Lorenz, G.M. Resources and agendas: combining Walker’s insights with new data sources to chart a path ahead. Int Groups Adv 10, 85–90 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-021-00113-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-021-00113-4

Search

Navigation