Suppose you are a successful homebuilder with many employees, and like other builders, your company will soon face a burdensome new regulation: in order to help keep the air and water clean, construction companies will now be required to capture or minimize the airborne dust and also contaminated run-off from construction projects (such as that created by rains). Like your peers (who are also represented through a strong and well-funded builder's association), you would like to avoid this costly new requirement. You believe it will cause you to lay off employees to cover these new costs. How might you try to go about trying to undo what has already become law?

What will be an ideal response?

Varies. Although the policymaking process is complicated and involves many factors that would influence the final shape of a law and its chances for passage, this question is asking students to consider how they can have an impact on the political system, and specifically, how they can use group resources to change an existing law. Here, several factors would be important to consider: the "special interest" is represented by a professional association that is well funded, and the builder has "many employees." One approach might be to sponsor an initiative that would change the requirements for builders, and this would involve the association's involvement in sponsoring a petition drive as well as a massive public campaign to influence public opinion and the final vote on a ballot initiative. The builder's professional association might also consider a referendum on the law, which would also involve a petition drive and a subsequent campaign. The builder might also try to convince legislators to change the law or do away with it. The builder might try to use his or her status as an important employer to get a meeting with legislators and staff members to convince them that this law should be overturned or amended. With others, namely by working with the association, the builder would have a better chance of having an impact on the legislature. Thus, the association's lobbyists might write a new law that either overturns the previous one or work with a legislator to write an amendment to the law that will soften the impacts on the builder. They would engage in direct lobbying with members of the legislature and their staff, and testify before legislative committees. (Note that the question prompts students to consider how they would approach this task, but some students might become distracted with working out a solution to the issue mentioned; this would be off-topic.) To create the appearance of widespread support for changing or overturning the law, the lobbyist might work to create an "Astroturf campaign" which prompts members of the business community to call, write, and threaten to withhold campaign contributions to those who do not support the builders' cause. In this case, rallying or demonstrating would probably not be an effective strategy, because the general public would be unlikely to respond to this tactic, and builders themselves are not likely to participate. Public opinion may not be on the builders' side, so they might try to shape public opinion with a "public education campaign" about the negative effects on employment or housing prices, for example, but this would require significant resources that might not be successful ultimately. (An insightful student might also consider that the builder's professional association was initially trumped by stronger forces (because the law passed and presumably they must have objected to the law and worked against its passage); this might be worked into an answer that considers the most effective legislative strategy).