The National Congress of American Indians: The Founding Years

Wunder, John R.; Philip, Kenneth R.; Cowger, Thomas W.

doi:10.2307/2651697

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an effort to resist further regulation and retain the rights of their governments and members, Indian tribes often engage in state‐ and national‐level political advocacy. They make campaign contributions and independent expenditures, offer committee testimony, mobilize American Indian voters, and contribute to agency rulemaking (Boehmke & Witmer, 2012; Carlson, 2021; Carpenter, 2017; Cowger, 2001; Hoxie, 2012; Viola, 1995; Wilkinson, 2006). The passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988 provided many tribes with the resources to significantly expand the scope and viability of these efforts; Indian tribes now constitute over 40% of the population of national social, racial, and economic justice–oriented lobbying registrants, and since 1978, American Indian lobbying has increased by 600% (Carlson, 2022; Dwidar, 2022b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tribal coalitions and lobbying outcomes: Evidence from administrative rulemaking

Dwidar

Marchetti

2023

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American Indians are among the most underrepresented, yet heavily regulated, groups in national politics. While Indian nations maintain statuses as sovereign nations, they, and their people, remain affected by national policies addressing their treaty, land, resource, and civil and political rights. Theories of American Indian political incorporation suggest that Indian nations thus deploy interest group tactics to maintain or achieve favorable policy outcomes. We argue that coalition building, a ubiquitous lobbying strategy, enhances tribal policy advocacy and that “Native‐dominant” coalitions—those in which Native interests constitute a majority of members—are more influential than their non‐Native‐dominant counterparts. We test these claims using data from administrative rulemaking and find support for our hypotheses. We conclude that the unique particularities of tribal advocacy distinguish Native coalitions from those of other groups, and that their strategic lobbying choices may help to mediate representational disparities in policymaking by the executive branch.

show abstract