published_or_final_version / Politics and Public Administration / Master / Master of Philosophy

Thesis (Ph. D.)--West Virginia University, 2009. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains v, 165 p. : ill. (some col.). Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 156-165).

No description available.

Thesis (M. Phil.)--University of Hong Kong, 1997. / Includes bibliographical references.

The relationship between South Africa and the United States was, historically, quite mutually profitable. The South African government regarded the United States as an ally in the world and sought continued friendship with them. The United States was mildly critical of the South African system of apartheid, but they, however, viewed South Africa as an ally. During the 1980's the relationship between the two countries became strained as the anti-apartheid voices in the United States grew louder and louder. The movement sought to end the atrocities of apartheid and change American foreign policy toward South Africa. The strongest diplomatic means available to them was imposing economic sanctions on South Africa in an attempt to force political change in the country. The anti-apartheid movement lobbied extensively gaining support among the American pub1ic and eventually the U.S. Congress. The sanctions campaign culminated in the enactment of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (CAAA) of 1986. Prior to the enactment of the CAAA the South African government and its allies launched their own campaign in an attempt to combat the imposition of sanctions. Lobbying played a key role in the process for those on both sides of the issue. For the anti- apartheid movement, lobbying was effective on the American public and the U.S Congress. For the South African government lobbying was effective on the conservative right wing and President Reagan and his administration.

Why do interest groups participate in state courts of last resort by filing amicus curiae briefs? Are they influential when they do? This dissertation examines these questions using an original survey of organized interests that routinely participate in state supreme courts, as well as data on all amicus curiae briefs and majority opinions in over 14,000 cases decided in all fifty-two state supreme courts for a four year period. I argue that interest groups turn to state judiciaries to achieve the dual goals of influencing policy and organizational maintenance, as amicus briefs can help organized interests achieve both outcomes. Furthermore, I contend that amicus briefs are influential in shaping judicial policy-making through the provision of legally persuasive arguments. The results suggest that interest groups do file amicus briefs to both lobby for their preferred policies and to support their organization's long-term viability. Additionally, the results indicate that organized interests also participate in counteractive lobbying in state courts of last resort by filing amicus briefs to ensure their side is represented and to dull the effect of oppositional amici. The findings also demonstrate support for the influence of amicus briefs on judicial policy-making on state high courts, as amicus briefs can influence the ideological direction of the court's majority opinions. Overall, this research extends our understanding of interest group lobbing in the judiciary and in state policy venues, and provides insight into judicial politics and policy-making on state courts of last resort.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This research explores what roles nonprofits play in political representation by applying the concept of the representational role to nonprofits. The representational role consists of representational focus and style. Representational focus shows those whom nonprofits aim to serve: members, constituents, or the general public. Representational style denotes the ways nonprofits advocate for their focal groups: the delegation, trusteeship, and educational styles. The survey and regression analysis results demonstrate that nonprofits serving their members are most likely to convey their members’ voices directly to policy makers: the delegation style. In contrast, nonprofits advocating for their constituents are likely to pursue what they independently identify as the interests of their constituents: the trusteeship style. Finally, nonprofits speaking for the general public are most likely to work toward educating the general public: the educational style. These results suggest that nonprofits play different roles in political representation, depending on the types of their focal groups.