The Interest Group Politics of Autism

Autism illustrates three major points about interest group politics:

1. Changes in the perceived extent of a problem lead to changes in interest group activity.
2. Interest group activity on one issue may foster activity on related issues.  In this case, the civil rights movement spawned the disability rights movement, which spawned the autism rights movement.
3. Interest group activity on any issue is often full of factionalism and conflict among groups.  In the case of autism, the conflict includes death threats.

 The "Early History" of Autism

• 1943:  American psychiatrist Leo Kanner publishes “Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact” (Nervous Child 2 (1943): 217-250), identifying autism as a childhood psychiatric disorder.
• 1948:  In another article, Kanner says that autistic children “were kept neatly in refrigerators which did not defrost.”  Time popularizes the idea in an article titled "Frosted Children."
• 1959:  Bruno Bettelheim publishes “Joey: A Mechanical Boy,” in Scientific American  200 (March 1959): 117-126.  A condensed version reaches a larger audience through Reader's Digest.  The article gains even more attention for the "refrigerator mother" theory.
• 1960:  Armstrong Circle Theater presents “The HiddenWorld,” a highly favorable dramatization of Bettelheim's work, with actor Peter von Zerneck portraying Bettelheim.
• 1964:  Bernard Rimland publishes Infantile Autism, a book summarizing current research and refuting the "refrigerator mother" theory.
• 1965: Psychologist Ole Ivar Lovaas develops the Applied Behavior Analysis.  The May 7 issue of Life gives it national publicity in “Screams, Slaps, and Love:  A Surprising,Shocking Treatment Helps Far-Gone Mental Cripples.”
• 1965:  Rimland and 60 others form the National Society for Autistic Children (NSAC), later the Autism Society of America.
• 1967:  Bettelheim publishes The Empty Fortress, a book expanding on his theory and criticizing Rimland.  Bettelheim is a celebrity who gets many more readers.

The Disability Rights Movement and the Law

• 1973:  Congress passes the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112). Section 504 forbids discrimination against the handicapped "under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” See chapter 4 of Fleischer and Zames.
• 1975: Congress passes the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) requiring free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive setting.  The law later gets the more familiar name of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  See chapter 11 of Flesicher and Zames.
• 1975: The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (P.L. 94-103) creates a "bill of rights" for persons with developmental disabilities, funds services, and establishes protection and advocacy organizations in each state.  Because of lobbying by NSAC, it includes autism .
• 1982: The Rowley case (458 U. S. 176) narrows the scope of EAHCA. See p. 189 of Fleischer and Zames. 
• 1987: Lovaas publishes a study reporting a 47 percent recovery rate with ABA. 
• 1988: Rain Man introduces autism to millions of moviegoers.
• 1990:  President George H.W. Bush signs the Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336). mandates that local, state and federal governments and programs be accessible, that businesses with more than 15 employees make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled workers, that public accommodations  make "reasonable modifications.” See chapter 6 of Fleischer and Zames.
• 1990: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) (P.L. 101-476) renames the Education of the Handicapped Act and reauthorizes programs under the Act to improve support services. Autism becomes a separate category in IDEA for special education.
• 1994:  The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) expands the definition of autism.
• 1998:  Dr. Andrew Wakefield and others publish a controversial study in the Lancet about MMR vaccinated children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders.
• 2000:  President Clinton signs the Children's Health Act, founding an autism research coordinating committee.
• 2002: Wakefield tells the House Government Reform and Oversight committee that there is “compelling evidence” of a link between vaccines and autism, even though studies have already discredited his research.

Autism Takes Off

Children 3 to 21 years old with autism served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B (numbers in thousands)  Source: Digest of Education Statistics, various years.

The Interest Group Universe

Peak Associations

• Autism Speaks  -- advocacy page
• The Autism Society

Anti-Vaccine Activists

• SafeMinds
• Autism Research Institute
• Generation Rescue

Pro-Science Groups

• Autism Science Foundation
• Association for Science in Autism Treatment

Self-Advocates

• Autistic Self-Advocacy Network -- public service announcement
• GRASP

Professional Organizations

• Association of Behavior Analysts International
• National Association of Special Education Teachers
• Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates

Businesses

• Kirkman Labs
• International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists

Lobbying Clips

The American League of Lobbyists describes what its members do:

 

"Thank You for Smoking" took a different perspective:

 

 A 60 Minutes interview with Jack Abramoff:

 

 How the Medicare prescription drug bill passed:

 

 Penn State lobbying:

 

Penn State Lobbying

MPAA and the GOP Platform

The Hollywood Reporter reports:

Hollywood may be known as a Democratic stronghold, but the movie industry’s lead trade organization on Wednesday came out strongly in support of a plank in the Republican party platform supporting the need to protect intellectual property from Internet pirates.

Chris Dodd, the former Democratic Senator who is now Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement that he “wholeheartedly” agrees with his “friends in the Republican party” that it is important to protect the free flow of information but it is also important to protect American innovation by making sure that copyrighted material is not stolen by cyber pirates.

The text of the statement:

The Republican Party platform language strikes a very smart balance: it emphasizes the importance of us doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting internet freedom.

As the party points out, the internet has been for its entire existence a source of innovation, and it is intellectual property that helps drive that innovation. Copyright is the cornerstone of innovation; it allows creators to benefit from what they create.

As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor – herself once a Republican elected official – wrote, ‘[I]t should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.’

I agree wholeheartedly with my friends in the Republican Party that we must protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting American innovators. It is imperative to our national economy and our national identity that we protect an internet that works for everyone.

Interest Group Ads in 2008

The special election for Louisiana's 6th Congressional District has provided some examples of what interest group ads may look like in the 2008 elections. Here are 2 from the conservative Freedoms Watch group. (Don Cazayoux, the Democrat won). Just like our readings have said, the ads do not explicitly ask anyone to vote for a particular candidate. Religious ad...Obama Health Care ad

Green Collar Jobs

With the boom in renewable energy there is also the creation of green jobs for lobbyists. The politico has a great story here that I have copied below:

Green energy means work for lobbyists
By: Jeanne Cummings
May 6, 2008 12:51 PM EST

Congressional leaders and all three presidential contenders are talking about spurring the economy by pumping money into renewable fuel research and creating green jobs.

But unlike many political promises, this is one for which they can actually begin to take some credit. Already, they have created new green jobs, and many of them are right here in Washington.

Ten years ago, the alternative energy industry spent less than $2 million on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As Congress began moving on two global warming bills last year, that spending reached nearly $16 million.

The American Wind Energy Association spent $815,700 on lobbyists last year, according to lobbying disclosure reports. The National Biodiesel Board shelled out $1.2 million — more than double its lobbying budget for 2006.

Behind those figures are lots and lots of new jobs.

In the first quarter of this year, for instance, the USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance paid Ernst & Young $70,000 for help on Capitol Hill. That relatively small contract alone helped keep 18 individual lobbyists busy from January to March, according to lobbying disclosure reports.

The emerging industry has also stepped up its political giving to lawmakers, which, of course, represents a different kind of jobs program.

In 1998, the alternative energy sector accounted for $308,000 in donations to candidates. So far this cycle, green industry donors have given nearly $528,000 — putting them on track to match or surpass their high water mark of nearly $957,000 in 2000, when global warming guru Al Gore topped the Democratic presidential ticket.

To be sure, the investment of the green companies in Congress pales in comparison to that of the established energy sector players.

Political giving by the oil and gas crowd this cycle has already surpassed $11.5 million — roughly 22 times more than the energy sector’s green newcomers.

Meanwhile, the oil and gas industries are a perennial entry on the center’s list of top lobbying sectors. They spent $82.6 million on lobbying last year, up from a record-breaking $75.3 million in 2006.

But the promise of economic growth and government grants in the green sector is turning some of the old energy giants into converts.

Take coal, for instance.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, representing coal producers, transporters and customers, is circling the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, looking for a way to get in on the research grants and other goodies that might be included in it.

The coal industry, a perennial polluter, is developing new technology to capture its greenhouse emissions and transform itself from a dirty industry into a cleaner, if not clean, one.

That makes it a competitor of the wind and solar companies for research cash. But it also could turn it into a powerful new ally in pushing the legislation through the sharply divided Congress. Historically, the greens have given overwhelmingly to Democrats, while old energy’s political donations have tilted heavily toward Republicans.

Of course, old disagreements still simmer.

Much of the environmental community still shuns coal and questions its ability to go clean. An Illinois demonstration project aimed at creating a cleaner coal plant ran well over budget and didn’t meet expectations.



Meanwhile, the newly converted coal industry executives who see a green future must also keep an eye on their smokier present and resist change that comes too fast and is too costly for their industry.

The speed of reform proposed in the Senate global warming bill is a concern of theirs, but the industry hasn’t come out against the legislation. Instead, it has launched a nearly $40 million campaign to educate lawmakers about the role it hopes to have in a new green economy. The effort includes a national advertising campaign on cable television and a mobilization of hundreds of thousands of coal-friendly voters to reach out to House and Senate members.

Their pitch: Any new energy policy should proceed incrementally, include a broad diversity of fuels to protect national security and keep costs affordable for consumers.

“It’s obvious the next president and the next Congress are going to make decisions that will leave an indelible mark on the energy future of our country,” said Joe Lucas, a former Clinton administration energy official who’s now the coalition’s vice president for communications.

“If we have too abrupt a shift, it will create a disruption in energy markets that disadvantage consumers,” he added.

But Bruce Nilles, who heads the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, says the federal government has waited too long to implement new energy policy.

Like the coal industry, the Sierra Club has stepped up its lobbying efforts in Washington. But it is being badly outmanned. Sierra’s lobbying payments amounted to $380,000 last year, while the National Mining Association spent $4 million.

Nilles is working with state governors to combat global warming, and he’s coordinating a grass-roots effort to block some two dozen applications to build new coal-burning plants. Approval of those applications would increase pollution and reduce the market need for cleaner renewable energy producers, he argues.

“Rather than stepping up to make the demonstration project work, the industry goes on a $40 million ad campaign to confuse the issue and delay strong action at the federal level and oppose state efforts,” Nilles said.

“The coal industry has consistently refused to demonstrate how it can have a future in a world where we are trying to reduce global warming.”

Polarization and Other Data

Polarization in American politics.

The disappearing center.

But ... the news is not all bad.