Interest Group Design

The Foundation and Evolution of Common Cause

Marcie L. Reynolds

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000011623
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In Interest Group Design, Marcie L. Reynolds examines the evolution of Common Cause, the first national government reform lobby. Founded in 1970 by John W. Gardner, the organization gained influence with Congress and established an organizational culture that lasted several decades. External and internal environmental changes led to mounting crises and by 2000 Common Cause's survival was in question. Yet fifteen years later Common Cause is a renewed organization, with evidence of revival across the United States. Empirical evidence suggests how Common Cause changed its interest group design but kept its identity in order to survive.

Utilizing a mixed-methods approach to frame and analyze the history of Common Cause, Reynolds provides a lens for studying how key aspects of the U.S. political system—interest groups, collective action, lobbying, and representation—work as environments change. She extends work by previous scholars Andrew S. McFarland (1984) and Lawrence Rothenberg (1992) creating a sequence of analytical research about one interest group spanning almost fifty years, a unique contribution to political science.

This thoroughly researched and comprehensive book will be of great interest to those who study political participation and organizational change.

1 Introduction

Common Cause is an extraordinary public interest group. Its rhetoric and actions combine elements of idealism and pragmatism attractive to many supporters. Yet during the late 1990s and early 2000s, the organization’s survival was questionable. Existential crises forced contemporary leaders to change the interest group design developed by Common Cause’s founders—a design that helped build influence among Members of Congress. Major changes destabilized the organization but led to a form of renewal that continues in 2019. Thus, a historical narrative of Common Cause encompasses three phases: foundation and influence, existential crises and change, and renewal as a different type of organization. Consistent across the phases is the commitment of leaders, activists, members, and supporters to the goal of governance integrity, or the idea that government should be accountable to the people instead of special (i.e., business or economic) interests.

Common Cause’s narrative arc and longevity—it is approaching the half-century mark—warrant an investigation. Survival is a concern for most public interest groups. Chris Bosso (2005) describes Environment Action’s demise after it could not get organized around a clear goal following the success of Earth Day. In contrast, March of Dimes’ leaders successfully refocused the organization after the polio vaccine became widespread. A case study of Common Cause illustrates organizational survival by changing interest group design.

Background

In 1970, John W. Gardner organized the public interest group Common Cause, the first national government reform lobby.¹ At that time, conditions were ripe for the creation of a general-purpose public interest lobby like Common Cause. But to successfully launch such a group required a rare person who could mobilize a diffuse—and mostly politically moderate—constituency. John W. Gardner was a national figure due to his serving as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare during Lyndon Johnson’s administration (engineering many Great Society programs) and as president of the Carnegie Corporation. Gardner was perceived as “a sincere, intelligent idealist and he knew something about the workings of Washington” (McFarland, 1984, pp. 196–197). In addition, he was a well-received author and speaker.

Gardner hand-picked his early leadership team, including, among others, Lowell Beck (a former American Bar Association lobbyist), Jack Conway (United Automobile Workers President Walter Reuther’s principal advisor), David Cohen (a labor lobbyist who worked with Conway), and Tom Mathews (a public relations consultant). Political historian Julian E. Zelizer (2006, p. 100) described Common Cause leaders in the 1970s as usually “Democratic or independent, financially well-off, and in possession of undergraduate and graduate degrees. . . . Most of the leadership was politically well connected and able to reach powerful positions with relative ease” (see Appendix A for a list of all Common Cause Chairs of the National Governing Board and Presidents).² John Gardner was a liberal Republican, but from the beginning, leaders worked to avoid partisan labels and cultivated an image of a nonpartisan public interest group working on issue politics, not candidate politics.

Common Cause arose during the social movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, a time of mounting alarm with domestic and foreign events (e.g., Kent State University shooting, bombing of Cambodia). Early membership appeals framed the organization’s mission as promoting governance integrity. Andrew S. McFarland (1984, p. 6) notes that at its founding, Common Cause was “the incipient organizational expression of widespread enthusiasm and hope.” Membership numbers soon swelled to over 300,000, and forty-eight state offices opened to lobby for state government reforms under the Common Cause brand.³

After successfully advocating for an end to the Vietnam War and passage of the Federal Election Campaign Amendment of 1974, Gardner and his leadership team decided to focus on structure and process issues (e.g., campaign finance, lobbying regulation, and ethics reforms). Structure and process issues are concerned with inputs into the policymaking process in contrast with outputs or substantive policy decisions. Yet substantive policy change may require structure and process reform, so the focus did not preclude specific output campaigns.

John Gardner and his team developed basic action principles that framed Common Cause’s interest group design. The principles were unwritten but appeared repeatedly during interviews with those who worked with or for John Gardner, in open-ended membership survey results, and in newspaper articles archived at Princeton University’s Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library (see Methods section). They helped build a prestigious identity, political influence, and an organizational culture. This book uses the term “Gardner’s Rules” for the principles listed in Figure 1.1 (and discussed in Chapter 2).

Figure 1.1 Gardner’s Rules.

Source: Figure Created by Author.

In general, Gardner’s Rules indicate how Common Cause lobbied for governance integrity. Adhering to the principles initially led to significant reform but within a few decades brought the organization to existential crises.

External and internal environmental changes threatened the efficacy of Gardner’s Rules. Indeed, action principles that once promoted success proved insufficient to address existential crises arising in the 1990s and early 2000s. In the 1990s, Common Cause began to disintegrate and by 2000, it was nearly insolvent. Dependent on the membership for revenue, the organization struggled to balance their budget as the number of dues-paying members steadily declined. Fiscal troubles continued into the early 2000s and led to another financial crisis in 2004.

Until the late 1990s, Common Cause leaders addressed building crises incrementally while remaining loyal to Gardner’s Rules. Significant change was instituted only after leaders who had not worked with or for John W. Gardner took the helm. Beginning around 2000, a new generation of Common Cause leaders revised the rules and altered the interest group design. The idea of a national lobby representing diffuse interests became almost unworkable within an increasingly polarized Congress. A new interest group design turned resources and attention toward state and local campaigns which achieved a level of success and brought Common Cause back into the national spotlight. In 2019, there was evidence of the organization’s revitalization.

Common Cause’s narrative of influence, crises, and renewal informs general theories of how interest group leaders remain loyal to a group identity, even at some cost to the principles on which it is built. It also provides a basis for understanding the negotiability of interest group design when survival is threatened. Its history speaks to general theories of interest groups, collective action, lobbying, and representation in the U.S. political system.

Significance of the Study

Common Cause is distinctive for its standing as the first national government reform lobby. In 1970, Gardner and early leaders created a new form of public advocacy.⁴ National interest groups of the time, such as the League of Women Voters (LWV) and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), were organized as charitable organizations under the 501c3 U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code.⁵ Other nationally based associations formed as IRS code 501c4 lobbying groups to promote specific issues (e.g., the Sierra Club in 1968).⁶ But Gardner initiated a different kind of interest group, one primarily formed to amplify citizens’ interest in governance integrity before policymakers. Because the primary focus was lobbying, Common Cause formed as a 501c4 organization.

In addition, Common Cause is distinctive due to John Gardner’s imprint, which continues to inspire leaders over forty years later. In 1970, Gardner’s reputation was key to Common Cause’s successful launch, mobilization of members, and approach to advocacy. In a 2015 interview, an early activist stated that “the reputation of Gardner flowed through the organization.” Also, it was Gardner’s motivation for the “common good, not necessarily the man, which gave the organization integrity and inspired activists.”⁷ Even when the interest group design moved away from Gardner’s Rules in the 2000s, the founder’s legacy was integral to its adaptations as Gardner wrote about the necessity of organizational change over time in his 1995 [1963] book, Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society.

John Gardner announced the formation of the first national government reform lobby in the summer of 1970 during interviews with the Washington Post and on television programs including the Today Show with David Frost and Face the Nation. Following the announcement, hundreds of people across the nation mailed letters of support and even contributions for the nascent group that had yet to be named.⁸ A number of these letters were addressed to Gardner in care of the relevant newspaper or television stations. In many letters, support was based on Gardner’s reputation. A few excerpts (with the writer’s state in parentheses) suggest the esteem in which Gardner was held across the country: “You are probably better equipped than any other individual to lead the type of constructive effort we need” (California); “Thank God for someone who has the ‘know-how’ and ‘can and will do’” (Texas); “I am very grateful that a person of your stature has begun an organization which must succeed if we are to survive as a democracy” (Minnesota); “Your values and record of effort will create a force that citizens of this time can wholeheartedly support, a power that works with this age and its need” (New York).

John Gardner possessed a brand of charisma that is reflected in Common Cause’s interest group design. Essentially, there is a balanced tension between idealism (advocating governance integrity goals) and pragmatism (working through established policymaking processes). A general acceptance of ideals like governance integrity informs U.S. political culture and indirectly supports government institutions. For example, Common Cause promotes governance integrity by working within institutions instead of working to overthrow the government. Yet a pragmatic view understands that governance integrity is an ongoing struggle throughout the policymaking process. Compromises may be necessary to achieve a higher level of government reform under current conditions. Also, it is essential for some entity to perform a watchdog function once policies are passed. The balanced view fits within the neopluralist perspective of policymaking. Neopluralism theorizes that although some, usually economic, groups wield a significant amount of power, other groups and individuals may present countervailing power to limit their influence in policymaking and policy implementation processes (see discussion of neopluralism below).

Common Cause was formed to improve representation of citizens’ interests before government officials (from one perspective). At bottom, its mission is to move from “what is” to “what ought to be,” according to David Cohen (1999, p. 82), expert lobbyist and second president of Common Cause (1975–1981). Cohen explains that to get there, the organization focuses on “pragmatic problem-solving, as opposed to ideology which can be rigid.” The organization works with interest groups and political officials who support their policy preferences regardless of partisan affiliation.

Gardner and his leadership team created a new form of participation, combining the broad-based appeal of a political party with the professionalized advocacy of a special interest lobby. With its early and widespread popularity, activists across the country organized to press for similar issues at the state level under the Common Cause name. On the one hand, state activists’ efforts helped promote national reform as issues rose on the political agenda. In addition, their work enhanced Common Cause’s legitimacy and standing across the country. On the other hand, state campaigns contributed to a level of tension between national and state leaders. Often, tensions arose due to national restrictions on state resources and issue selection. National leaders wanted state activists to focus on national issues, yet the activists wanted to pursue government reform issues when they arose at the state and local levels. These pressures affected the organization’s design and available resources. More importantly, a wider focus became critical to Common Cause’s survival as it provided advocacy opportunities in an increasingly gridlocked national political environment.

Common Cause can claim political influence at the national and state levels. Significant legislation has been passed within the organization’s “Open Up The System” (OUTS) program for reform (see McFarland, 1984, Chapters 7 and 8). Common Cause Colorado was the originator of “sunset” laws which were enacted in Colorado, thirty-two other states, and later at the national level. In addition, coalitional efforts led by Common Cause affected congressional votes regarding production and deployment of the Peacekeeper Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, informally known as the MX missile (Rothenberg, 1992, pp. 213–215). After the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed in 2002, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold gave credit to Common Cause for its advocacy efforts (U.S. Congressional Record, Volume 148, Issue 33, March 20, 2002).

Common Cause is committed to campaign finance reform across government levels. In the past, state activists participated in successful efforts to enact voluntary public financing of local and statewide campai...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Praise for Interest Group Design
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Gardner’s Influence—Rules of the Game (1970 to 1995)
• 3 Crises—The Game Changes (1995 to 2007)
• 4 Renewal—Playing by New Rules (2007 to 2019)
• 5 Pockets of Revitalization—Illinois and Texas Comparison
• 6 Commitment to Campaign Finance Reform
• 7 Representing a Public Interest
• 8 Conclusion
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C
• Appendix D
• Index