This feat is the best example we have of business control of government. Language used by Thomas Jefferson to state the relationship between citizens and government necessary for the development of the individual personality, has been used by business to attract public support in its effort to avoid regulation. The law, the newspaper press, and the advertising profession have all helped business by spreading this changed conception of the Jeffersonian idea.

THE NEED

To cope with the problem of government by pressure groups, of which business is the strongest, requires the development of stronger democratic institutions than are now at hand. It is necessary to even up, to equalize, the unequal pressures to which government is subjected.

In agriculture, potentially significant steps have been taken since 1933 to extend democratic principles to the performance of economic tasks. Through a number of devices, agricultural producers' opinions, judgments, and advice are now being brought to bear much more effectively than heretofore on planning, production, and marketing problems. Labor union functions are similarly broadening in scope. There is little doubt that business fears that such developments may lead to a relaxation of its control. Its hostility to agricultural producers' referenda and to collective bargaining by organ

ized labor are well known.

But there are doubts as to the permanence of these gains. Will their existence be tolerated long enough to demonstrate their usefulness? And even if they live up to their originators' highest hopes, can they, in the aggregate, diminish the control which business now exercises? So long as technology is the ally of business, can there be any effective attack upon the position of business? So long as the struggle is so largely invisible, can the public be sufficiently aroused to exert its full strength? And, what is the basic question, can our Federal system with its division of powers, its system of checks and balances, and its geographic basis of organization ever cope with the present concentration of economic power? These questions are not foremost in the minds of the people today, yet the future political development of the nation turns upon the answer to them. From the political point of view, a minimum program to meet the problem of control of government should embrace three items. First, Congress should enact an effective lobby registration law. Second, voters should be given complete information regarding group pressure on government. If this cannot be provided as a public service feature by the radio chains and newspapers, it should be done by some adequately financed government office with the facilities of a government-owned and operated radio station. The third item would require the harnessing of technology to democracy's needs by developing a far-reaching program of governmental research. The Federal agricultural research program provides ample precedent for such a step. No adequate research, for instance, has ever been done in the field of low cost housing. The charges of suppression of patents by industry have been hotly denied, but they will probably continue to crop up until there is established a Federal agency for

the development and exploitation of inventions and discoveries. The experience of the University of Wisconsin in setting up a patent pool is of real interest in this connection.

This minimum program, as well as the idea of government planning and proposals to improve administration are discussed in the last chapter. It is perhaps sufficient to say here that many methods have been proposed to strengthen the democratic process. The problems are immediate, and most of the solutions seem to run outside the traditional pattern of political action. But the traditional American goal of equal opportunity is far more vital to our welfare than maintaining any established patterns of action.

The only real problem is to settle upon a program which seems reasonably calculated to advance us toward the goal.

CHAPTER II

PRESSURE GROUPS

The forces engaged in the struggle for the control of power were classified in chapter I as government, pressure groups, and the general public, with government and those pressure groups allied with business as the major contestants.

Theoretically, pressure groups compete with each other on equal terms, have equal bargaining power, with none enjoying an advantage over another. This assumes that the right of petition guaranteed by the Constitution is exercised by "free and equal" men. The most it assumes, under a broader interpretation, is that citizens, when they have grievances against their government, lend weight to their pleas by mobilizing their strength and directing it by organization to Congress. But it is assumed that such organization is temporary, and furthermore that the group wields no more economic power than that growing out of the aggregate resources of the individuals composing it. Actually, the situation has changed radically. Relying on the individual's right of petition, lawyers today lobby for business, for labor, for farmers, just as they have done for decades. But beyond this surface similarity there is little resemblance to the situation of Washington's day. The membership organization, employing the lobbyist, directed by paid executives, exerts a degree of strength, cohesion, and mobility differing essentially from the fluctuating pressures of an earlier day. As for business, the corporations whose right as persons to petition the government is exercised by lawyer-lobbyists have behind them so much wealth, such concentrated control, and such a degree of impersonality as to challenge their right to function, under democratic theory, as individuals. In addition, corporations have marshaled behind them the bulk of the scientific brains of the country, a resource which labor, farmers, and government itself cannot equal. In the contest for government control, applied science is so weighty that it tips the scales in favor of business.

Theoretically, government participates in the struggle not as a contestant but as an umpire. If business long ago had not borrowed public power, government might still be able to function solely in the umpire's role. But with the attempt by Congress to balance the tremendous power which business has gained, government appears not only as an umpire but as a contestant as well. To every group aggrieved by government, Washington appears as more than a contestant; it seems to be an antagonist. And, since business has gained so large a share of public power, it is not surprising that business more than any other group regards the government as an antagonist.

CONTESTANTS IN THE STRUGGLE

It is difficult to enumerate the organizations which, together, are the antagonists in the struggle for power. A classification by func

tion, on the basis of government, pressure groups, and the general public, apparently neglects the divergent interests making up the various groups, so that in many cases wider variations in aim, methods, and effectiveness are found within a single group than exists between any of the three groups. The abyss that separates the United States Chamber of Commerce from the Municipal Ownership League, for instance, is far wider and deeper than the separation between the Republicans and the conservative Democrats.

It is probably true that the ranks of the pressure groups shelter some who would prefer to live under a government in which their sole voice was that of individual citizens; and that government agencies and legislative bodies are honeycombed with men and women who feel that business is far better able to wield political control than the politicians. Still it is impossible to classify the interacting forces on a completely adequate basis, and the division here set up has the advantage of emphasizing the energetic, directional approach of pressure groups as against either government or the general public. Government, of course, includes town, county, and State legislative bodies and administrative agencies, as well as the local courts. The Federal Government's scope of action is so different from the lower levels of government that it must be classified separately, although its general position in the contest is at least partly the same. One of the chief techniques by which pressure groups get and maintain their power is by insisting that a certain function legally belongs to the States, even though it is clear that the State cannot handle it adequately. By insisting that it belongs to the States, they manage to preclude the possibility of any effective action.

Among the pressure groups, business can be divided into two categories-principals and satellites. In the former are included the groups representing business and industry generally, and those representing distinctive parts of American business. In the latter are the professional associations which revolve around business, largely dependent upon it for support.

Chief among the organized groups representing business generally is the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The outstanding employers' group is the National Association of Manufacturers. It acts not only on its own account, but has also, through the National Industrial Council, been instrumental in coordinating the activities of State industrial associations, local industrial relations organizations, and manufacturing trade associations. Twelve of the country's topnotch corporations keep informed of each other's activities in the industrial relations field through a special conference committee.

In the electric power industry, the Edison Electric Institute, successor to the National Electric Light Association, operates a wellknown lobby. Legislative activities of the country's life insurance industry are under the direction of the Association of Life Insurance Presidents. On governmental matters the Association of American Railroads speaks for the railway industry. Iron and steel, petroleum, lumber, coal, copper are represented by the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the National Coal Association, and the Copper Institute, respectively. Of special importance, because of the national defense considerations involved in national policy regarding merchant shipping and air transport, are the American Merchant