Grassroots Mobilization in the Digital Age

• Date: 01 December 2011
• Published date: 01 December 2011
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912910373550
• Author: Richard L. Vining

Political Research Quarterly
64(4) 790 –802
Grassroots Mobilization in the
© 2011 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Digital Age: Interest Group Response
DOI: 10.1177/1065912910373550
http://prq.sagepub.com
to Supreme Court Nominees
Richard L. Vining, Jr.1
Abstract
This study examines how ten interest groups used electronic mail to mobilize their supporters in response to the
Supreme Court nominations of John G. Roberts, Jr., Harriet Miers, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. The effects of group
characteristics and goals, the dynamics of the confirmation process, and prior behavior are evaluated. Logit results
reveal that group traits and preferences influence the likelihood of requests for action and donations. Funding requests
were also conditioned by the stage of the process. The findings show that interest groups use Supreme Court turnover
as an opportunity for political advocacy and organizational maintenance.
Keywords
grassroots, interest groups, Internet, lobbying, nominations, Supreme Court
The influence of interest groups on American politics is
when to do so. A Supreme Court vacancy is an opportunity
widely recognized. Interest groups lobby elites, participate
to request mobilization because the confirmation process
in campaigns, initiate and support litigation, draft legis-
is highly salient, limited in duration, and allows only
lation, and influence popular and elite opinion. Organized
two outcomes—the confirmation of a new justice or failure
interests also take part in the Supreme Court confirma-
of a nomination.
tion process, and have done so regularly since at least the
In this article I determine how interest groups mobilize
1980s (Epstein and Segal 2005). Pressure groups aspire
their grassroots supporters in the digital age by examin-
both to advocate their policy goals and to sustain them-
ing the e-mail messages sent by ten groups to their sup-
selves. One technique used to achieve these objectives is
porters during the Supreme Court confirmation processes
the mobilization of their supporters. The constituents of
of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., of the D.C. Circuit, White
an interest group can promote its mission and supply the
House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, and Judge Samuel A.
resources necessary to maintain the group. How, when,
Alito, Jr., of the Third Circuit in 2005-2006. The behavior
and to what end interest groups mobilize their constit-
of these organizations should be representative of the
uents, especially in response to salient events or issues,
larger population of interest groups active in the Supreme
may determine whether they accomplish their objectives.
Court confirmation process. The e-mail messages exam-
I determine how a set of interest groups used online com-
ined reveal groups’ lobbying strategies and indicate when
munication to achieve their goals in response to the Supreme
and to what end they mobilized their constituents. The
Court nominations of President George W. Bush.
content of e-mail communications is examined to analyze
Technological advances have increased the ability of
the use of two tactics: (1) appeals for supporters to act
interest groups to contact their constituents in response to
and (2) requests for donations. I argue that these tactics
salient political issues. Just as interest groups adopted the
facilitate groups’ advocacy activities and organizational
use of direct mail in the past (Godwin 1988), electronic
maintenance, respectively, and that interest groups use
mail (e-mail) is now an important means to mobilize
each strategically (and differently).
their supporters. Despite the proliferation of online com-
munication, scholars know little about its use by interest
groups.1 E-mail facilitates the pursuit of the advocacy
1University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
and organizational maintenance goals of pressure groups
Corresponding Author:
in response to political opportunities, and groups may be
Richard L. Vining, Jr., 104 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA, 30601, USA
strategic in choosing what to ask of their supporters and
Email: rvining@uga.edu

---

Vining
791
This study adds to knowledge of both pressure group
(Giles, Blackstone, and Vining 2008). A substantial body
activities and federal judicial appointments and goes
of research indicates that the votes of justices are consis-
beyond traditional methods of communication (e.g.,
tent with their political attitudes in light of the facts of
direct mail, canvassing, telephone calls) to examine use
cases (Segal and Spaeth 2002). The political predisposi-
of e-mail. It also facilitates an examination of interest
tions of nominees are evident at the time of nomination, as
group behavior while holding the dominant issue con-
is demonstrated by the substantial predictive power of the
stant over a specific time period. The findings indicate
Segal-Cover measure of justices’ attitudes based on pre-
that supporters and opponents of nominees employ dif-
confirmation editorials (Segal and Cover 1989). The con-
ferent tactics and suggest that the advocacy orientation
firmation of a justice amenable to a group’s policy goals
and goals of interest groups determine whether and how
makes it more likely that the aggregate Court will favor the
they mobilize supporters. Pressure groups focused on
group’s preferences. Supreme Court decisions define
advocacy are more likely to request funds than action
the principles applied by the federal courts and influence
from their supporters, and appeals for donations are
the broader political debate.
more likely in the early stages of the confirmation pro-
The second objective of interest groups is organiza-
cess. Interest groups alter their messages in response to
tional maintenance (Solberg and Waltenburg 2006). Inter-
judicial nominations, but their propensities to request
est groups are concerned with their own longevity and
mobilization are consistent with their tendencies before
Supreme Court nominations are salient events that help
the confirmation process. These results indicate that
them achieve this goal. Few political contests provide such
interest groups are strategic in response to Supreme
clearly defined alternative outcomes as Supreme Court
Court vacancies, adjusting their messages to realize their
nominations. During the confirmation process, pressure
objectives.
groups can demonstrate that they are active, recruit new
members, and raise funds. All of these activities contribute
Interest Groups Activities and the
to the health and well-being of interest groups.
Fundraising is a key aspect of organizational mainte-
Confirmation Process
nance. Many interest groups collect a large proportion of
The organization of constituents is a key role of interest
their revenues from private contributions (Ainsworth
groups in the confirmation process (Caldeira and Wright
2002, 26; Bosso 2003), and salient events are opportuni-
1998, 503-04).2 I argue that how, when, and whether pres-
ties to request donations.4 Interest groups require funding
sure groups mobilize their supporters are conditioned by
for facilities, operating expenses, legal counsel, education
their goals, incentives, and opportunities.
programs, direct lobbying, advertising, direct mail, mem-
ber recruitment and retention, and fundraising itself.
Interest Group Goals, Incentives, and the Bush
Because money is essential to pressure groups, the
opportunity to raise funds is an important incentive to
Nominees
participate in the confirmation process. Groups with
Interest groups have both political and institutional goals.
substantial interest in political advocacy should be espe-
The primary political goal of interest groups is advocacy
cially likely to ask for funds because they must pay lob-
(Solberg and Waltenburg 2006). When a Supreme Court
byists and fund other contemporaneous or future political
nomination is announced, pressure groups may advocate
activities (Godwin 1988).
the confirmation or defeat of the nominee. Groups often
do so overtly, testifying to support or oppose nominees
Opportunities in the Supreme Court Confirmation
(Flemming, MacLeod, and Talbert 1998), lobbying to
influence the Senate vote on confirmation (Austen-Smith
Process
and Wright 1994; Caldeira and Wright 1998), or cam-
As Shames and Weiner (2006) assert, “group leaders
paigning for their preferred outcomes (Maltese 1995).
actively use the political opportunity structure available
These activities are intended to influence the composition
to them in order to both raise money for their group and
of the Supreme Court, an important objective given that
to mobilize support amongst their members and potential
institution’s central role in American political life.
members.” Supreme Court nominations are occasions to
Pressure groups have incentives to promote the con-
pursue both advocacy and organizational maintenance.
firmation or defeat of Supreme Court nominees. There
Interest groups are strategic and must coordinate their
are only nine justices and vacancies are relatively rare
supporters to participate (Ainsworth 2002, 46-9).
(Ward 2003).3 Turnover on the Court influences its col-
Pressure groups’ opportunities in the confirmation pro-
lective output (Baum 1992), relationship with the elected
cess depend, in part, on their political goals regarding con-
branches (Dahl 1957), and response to public opinion
...