Interfaith Advocacy

Katherine E. Knutson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135054854
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Usingthe historic Minnesota state government shutdown of 2011 as a backdrop, Interfaith Advocacy describes the work of the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, an interfaith advocacy group that brings together leaders from Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim traditions to advocate on behalf of a range of policies. As the nation's first statewide interfaith lobbying group, the story of the JRLC facilitates an examination of the role of political advocacy groups in state level American politics: what they are, how and why they form, how they mobilize citizens to participate in the political process, how they work to influence government, and what their impact is on American democracy.

With research based on two years of in-depth interviews, participant observation, and analysis of archival records, this volume offers proof that it is possible to build successful long term political coalitions among improbable allies. The book investigates both the strengths and weaknesses of this model of advocacy and concludes that the presence of religious advocacy groups in the political process offers substantial benefits of representation, concern for underrepresented issues and groups, and the development of networks of social capital.

Interfaith Advocacy is grounded in the theoretical literature of political science but also accessible to all readers who have an interest in political advocacy, state politics, or religion and politics.

1 Unlikely Ties

The Joint Religious Legislative Coalition

On July 1, 2011, state government in Minnesota came to a screeching halt. In a state where residents joke there are two seasons—winter and road construction—state highways were eerily devoid of construction work. State park rangers herded thousands of visitors from their campsites and picnic tables the afternoon of June 30 in anticipation of the shutdown. Visitors to the Minnesota Capitol were greeted with locked doors and a sign announcing, “This building is closed until future notice due to the current state government service interruption.”

The debate over the budget centered on rhetoric of “tax fairness” and led to what would become the longest state government shutdown in American history. Democratic governor Mark Dayton, elected in 2010 in a campaign in which he emphasized his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, argued that affluent Minnesotans ought to be taxed at a higher rate than those with low incomes. In building his argument regarding the disproportionate impact of the taxation system in Minnesota, Dayton relied on data provided by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, which is required by law to report the tax burden on different income groups every two years and to prepare an impact analysis on any tax proposal that would change taxes by more than $20 million. With this data from the Department of Revenue, Dayton highlighted the inequity of those earning less than $11,298 paying a state tax rate of 30.5 percent, while those earning more than $142,226 paid only 10.4 percent.

Data on the impact of taxes on various economic groups exists because of the lobbying efforts of a religious interest group called the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition (JRLC). The JRLC identified tax fairness as an issue of central importance and shepherded the proposal for the tax incidence study through the legislative process in 1990. That a coalition of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews (and later, Muslims), would be at the forefront of a move to change state tax law is perhaps surprising. After all, why would these four different religious traditions be working together to influence government, and even then, why would they be working on tax fairness, which seems at first glance to be far removed from the interest of religious groups? Just a few decades before their work on this policy, tensions between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, both in Minnesota and nationally, were high, and interfaith alliances like this were rare. Even today, when religious cooperation is more common, individuals or groups with fundamentally different core beliefs working together in a long-term partnership is unusual, more so in the hyperpartisan environment of contemporary politics.

Minnesota’s JRLC is an experiment in the feasibility of interfaith advocacy and a testament to the power of a long-term coalition. Founded in 1970 and composed of institutional representatives of four major faith traditions in Minnesota (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim), the JRLC was the first interfaith advocacy organization of its kind in the United States. It was distinctive because it operated on a statewide level, focusing on a range of state policy issues, and because it advocated from an explicitly faith-based perspective, taking the position that faith-based viewpoints had a legitimate and important role to play in the political process.

Today, many interfaith interest groups exist in the United States.¹ Some operate on a local level, bringing together religious leaders from various faith traditions within cities or regions.² Others operate nationally or internationally and focus on a particular subset of issues such as protecting the environment or working toward peace.³ Some interfaith groups, like the JRLC, find that their religious beliefs and values shape their approach to politics and argue that religious voices ought to play a role in the political process. Others, like the well-known Interfaith Alliance, make the case that people of faith should play a role in the political process but should not bring arguments based on religious reasoning or religious language into the debate.

While the JRLC is a single example of an interfaith advocacy coalition, it shares commonalities with other advocacy groups (both religious and nonreligious) and thus provides an opportunity to understand how interest groups, particularly groups operating as coalitions, form, operate, and affect the political process. The JRLC pursues an active legislative agenda with issues ranging from social service policy to campaign finance reform. Their work on the tax incidence study is just one example of how interest groups can influence the policy process in significant ways. As a group representing religious citizens, the JRLC sheds light on the influence of religion in state-level politics and the role of interfaith coalitions. The JRLC demonstrates that religious coalitions can be effective participants in the political process at the state level, particularly on issues not always considered “religious,” such as taxes, budgets, and social services.

This chapter defines interest groups and coalitions, discusses the conflicting perceptions of interest groups held by American citizens, and explores six key functions served by interest groups. This chapter also describes the methodological approach used in the case study of the JRLC that comprises the remainder of the book.

Interest Groups and Coalitions

Interest groups play a role at every level of government and at every stage in the process of policymaking. One of the first scholars of interest groups in American politics, David Truman, defined an interest group as a “group that is based on one or more shared attitudes and makes certain claims upon other groups or organizations in the society.”⁴ This definition emphasizes two key components of interest groups: first, that there is some sort of shared beliefs among group participants; and second, that these groups based on shared attitudes are in conflict with other groups. While this definition clarifies the broad contours of an interest group, a lot of gray area remains. For example, a small group or Bible study organized through a church would fit within this definition, yet most would not classify it as an interest group.

Other scholars focus instead on the defining features of interest groups; in particular, that they are organized groups that try to influence government but are not part of government and do not run candidates for office.⁵ This helps to clarify the definition of interest groups a bit more. First, interest groups need to have some sort of organizational structure—leaders, members, offices—which helps to differentiate an interest group from something more loosely organized like a social movement. A social movement, like the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, may include the involvement of interest groups, like the NAACP or the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, but is much broader in its focus and more loosely organized.

Second, interest groups request action from government actors as opposed to seeking change from nongovernmental organizations like businesses, families, or churches. For example, the group Lutherans Concerned works to influence the Lutheran Church to be more accepting of gay and lesbian Lutherans. While the group is well organized and has members, its primary target is the church and not government policy. Some groups do have multiple targets, perhaps trying to change both church policy and government policy, but to meet the definition of interest groups, the groups must target government actors in some form.

Third, while interest groups target government actors, they are not part of the government they are trying to influence. Although members of Congress are a distinct group, when individual legislators try to persuade their colleagues to vote in favor of a bill, they do not play the role of an interest group. However, government officials may operate as an interest group in some contexts. For example, the National Association of County and City Health Officials might actively work to influence government policy on issues of concern to members of the group. Finally, unlike political parties, interest groups do not run candidates for office, though interest groups may endorse or oppose particular candidates.

I define an interest group as an organized group with structured leadership and processes whose primary purpose is to influence some level of government.⁶ The JRLC clearly meets this definition. The group has a well-defined organizational structure, it is focused on achieving policy change through state government, it is not composed of the government actors it works to influence (though politicians have, at times, served in various leadership roles in the group), and it does not run candidates for political office.

Furthermore, the JRLC is a particular type of interest group: a coalition. In Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics, Kevin Hula defines coalitions as, “symbiotic alliances with other organizations to facilitate their own goals in the policy process.”⁷ Coalitions differ from traditional interest groups because their membership is made up of existing interest groups as opposed to individual or organizational members. ⁸ Most interest groups work in formal or informal coalition with other groups at some point because working in a coalition is an effective way to stretch scarce resources, gain access to useful information, and add credibility to the cause.⁹ While many coalitions form on an ad hoc basis, some interest groups establish formal, long-term coalitions, which, scholars note, can be difficult to sustain.¹⁰ When they are successful, however, long-term coalitions can be extremely effective, and they come to resemble traditional interest groups in many ways.¹¹ Religious interest groups often work in coalitions, yet little research focuses on this phenomenon.¹²

The JRLC is a long-term coalition composed of four independent groups that exist outside the structure of the JRLC: the Minnesota Council of Churches,¹³ the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, and the Islamic Center of Minnesota.¹⁴ These groups joined forces to create the JRLC and maintain ultimate authority over the work of the JRLC. As a result of the coalitional structure, the board members of the JRLC are chosen directly by the four groups, the issue priorities are set by the four groups, and any official position papers developed by the JRLC require the ratification of all four groups. The four group members also engage in other political activity outside of their work with the JRLC, which is why the JRLC is classified a coalition rather than an interest group with organizational members.

Though decision-making authority in the organization rests with the four groups, individual citizens from churches, synagogues, and mosques affiliated with the four groups form a network of activists across the state. These individual citizens, which the group calls its “legislative network,” give the JRLC elements of a hybrid organization: one that includes both a coalitional structure and the participation of individual citizens. This hybrid organization benefits the group, helping it overcome many of the collective action challenges faced by interest groups and providing the group with enhanced visibility and legitimacy. However, the hybrid structure also poses challenges as group leaders struggle to balance the demands of institutional members and individual activists.

The Problem with Factions

Books about interest groups often start with James Madison’s warning against the “mischief” of factions. As Madison describes in Federalist No. 10, our tendency to gather together with others who share our views is “sown in the nature of man.” For Madison, this was a problem only insofar as it had the potential to make government unruly and, more importantly, vulnerable to tyranny of the masses. The remedy, he argued, could come in a number of forms ranging from the extreme of taking away individual liberties to prohibit people from organizing openly, to creating a form of government that would utilize institutional means to alleviate the problem of tyranny. Madison favored the second option and thought that the Constitution the framers designed offered the best possible solution to the problem of factions. Citizens would be free to speak and organize on behalf of issues they cared about, but the establishment of a large republic (rather than a direct democracy) featuring a division of powers between different branches and different levels of government would help to keep factions in check.

This vision of interest groups set the stage for more than 200 years of a love-hate relationship. On one hand, interest groups reflect Americans’ most basic freedoms of speech, association, and petition enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Americans believe that if there is a problem, one good way to deal with it is to join together with other people and to press the government to fix it. Scholars such as David Truman articulate a pluralist perspective, suggesting that groups form in response to the formation of opposing groups or other societal disturbances. Truman argued that if needs exist in a community, groups will form to address those needs and that the process would repeat itself until some sort of balance, or equilibrium, developed.¹⁵

On the other hand, most Americans view interest groups with a heavy dose of skepticism. Data from the 2008 American National Election Survey shows that 69 percent of respondents think that government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves rather than for the good of the public. Lobbyists representing “special interests” are derided as representing the worst in American politics. A constant stream of scandals featuring prominent lobbyists and politicians adds to the belief that interest groups represent a few powerful individuals and businesses without concern for the interest of America as a whole. This “elitist” perspective advocated by political scientist E. E. Schattschneider maintains that “the business or upper-class bias of the pressure system shows up everywhere.”¹⁶ Schattschneider confronts pluralists like Truman directly, arguing that “the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper class accent.”¹⁷

Between these two extreme views lies a more complicated reality. Some interest groups and lobbyists do indeed focus on achieving benefits only for a select few, but many others are driven by citizen activists actively seeking to make government more responsive to the people.¹⁸ Business groups are prominent in the interest group landscape, but citizen groups and public interest groups also have a profound impact on public policy. This book takes the perspective that interest groups are not all bad, though there are times when wealthy and well-connected interests can win out over the voices of average citizens. In most cases, though, organized groups of concerned citizens are on hand to participate in debates over public policy. The JRLC is one such group, formed for the purpose of representing the interests of religious groups speaking on behalf of the least powerful individuals in Minnesota. The JRLC serves as a case study to help explain how groups representing citizen interests form, operate, and work to influence government.

The story of the JRLC fits within a larger narrative concerning the work of interest groups representing religious voices and institutions in the political process. Religious interest groups have long played a role in national and state-level politics. As Luke Ebersole noted in his 1951 book, Church Lobbying in the Nation’s Capital, “The attempts of the religious to affect government are not new. Nor have their efforts been solely individual efforts; they have been collective and organized.”¹⁹ The JRLC falls squarely in this tradition of religious-based political advocacy, although it is rooted in an interfaith identity and maintains a focus on state, rather than national, politics.

Interest Groups and the Political Process

As a coalitional interest group, the JRLC serves several important functions in Minnesota politics, including representation, participation, education, framing, agenda setting, and monitoring.²⁰

Representation

First, interest groups represent constituents to government officials and agencies. Because elected officials depend on constituents for reelection, this role is at the heart of a representative form of government. Poli...