National Association of Manufacturers

William Domhoff wrote, back in 1967:

There is one association conspicuous by its absence from our list which should be mentioned at this point - the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). This organization was at one time a leading spokesman for the dominant interests within the American upper class. Its early successes in lobbying were notorious. However, it now represents interests within the upper class which have failed to come to terms with the New Deal and the governmental needs of internationally oriented corporations. The battles over foreign policy between the NAM and the CFR-CED-BAC coalition, which the NAM usually loses, according to a decision-making study by David McLellan and Charles Woodhouse, are another piece of evidence for the division within the upper class between Mills's 'business liberals' and 'practical conservatives.' 20 However, a detailed study of the NAM by Richard Gable showed that it continues to be dominated by very large corporations, and that it was notably successful in its campaign to amend the National Labor Relations Act: 'There is a startling similarity between the numerous NAM labor proposals since 1937 and the final version of the Taft-Hartley Act.' ^[1] Indeed, Gerald D. Morgan (SR, NY), the lawyer hired by Fred A. Hartley to serve as special counsel to the majority members of the House committee, sought advice at one point from the NAM's general counsel.*

It is difficult to determine how successful these groups are in attaining their objectives. However, it is incontrovertible that they attempt to be influential within the government and in shaping public opinion on a wide variety of issues. It is also incontrovertible, we believe, that these organizations are arms of the power elite which have the function of attempting to influence the framework of the American polity.^[2]

References

• ^ G. William Domhoff, (1967) Who Rules America, Spectrum Books, pp. 76-7==