Rather than being a solution, in fact, hyperpluralists decry iron triangles as the most damaging part of the modern interest group politics. Iron triangles are more generally known as lesser governmental organizations, in which interest group leaders join with relevant government agencies and congressional members to control policy decisions and implementation. This cooperation between leaders of interest groups, agencies, and congressional committees constitutes an unfair monopoly of power– or so hyperpluralist theorists allege. Members of Congress draft and sponsor favorable laws and government agencies carry out and uphold these directives, so that by banding together, these individuals together are able to wield far-reaching control over government activities. Each of these three groups thus forms one side of the triangle, while the so-called “iron” is provided by the inflexible stores of power which the triangle’s members amass.

Elitist theorists believe that the government is, in fact, controlled by a small circle of select elite individuals whose monetary resources allow them to reign all-powerfully behind the scenes in Washington, D.C. Due to this belief, elitist theorists therefore take a derisive view of lobbying, dismissing the practice as ineffective, corrupt, and useless. The average citizen, no matter how passionately he or she may lobby the government, is helpless to even match, let alone truly combat, the massive bases of power and influence which the elite inner circle enjoys. Large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals are able to hire entire units of highly skilled lobbyists to continually assail the government on their employers’ behalf, so that ordinary people, who have no great collection of money, perks, or influence to offer, are hopelessly drowned out. By and large, elitist theorists thus denounce lobbying as a futile practice, which only ends up benefitting those already in the best position to profit– aka the elite.

The problem faced by most interest groups is that the majority of people who benefit from the policies of the interest group can do so without actively participating in the interest group. This is known as "The Free Rider Problem." One of the main things that interest groups try to accomplish is to convince those who benefit from their policies and goals is that it benefits them so much that it behooves them to get involved and help accelerate the movement.

In recent years, the government has placed limitations on the amount of money one individual can contribute to a political campaign. One of the consequences of this ruling has been the increased use of bundling. Bundling is when one individual or organization campaigns for and collects contributions from a large group of people within a community.

When it comes to assessing a particular interest group’s chances of success, three factors are key: funds, intensity, and size. Adequate funding is quite naturally necessary in order for a group to promote its goals among both governmental figures and the larger public audience. But financial wealth alone is not enough to guarantee victory, especially in the competitive world of lobbying. Intensity is also crucial– members of a group must truly believe in the issue for which they are advocating. The law of intensity applies to the public as well, because if a group chooses a topic which has great emotional resonance (such as abortion or gun control), regular citizens are more likely to offer their support and are more willing to navigate the messy avenues of politics to promote their cause. A group’s size is also key but, contrary to common perception, larger groups are not in fact necessarily more effective. Practice has proven that it is quite difficult to adequately mobilize massive numbers of people, both in terms of gleaning participation and in sustaining enthusiasm. Interest groups with smaller membership rosters actually tend to achieve their goals more often, because it is much easier for them to organize themselves, to continually generate intensity, and to share in the benefits of success together.

While interest groups employ many tactics to accomplish their goals, the four most popular (and proven effective) tools of their trade are: direct public appeals, lobbying, litigation, and electioneering. Corporate welfare, on the other hand, is instead one of the benefits which interest groups sponsored by corporations reap as a result of their efforts to win over members of Congress. Common examples of corporate welfare include tax exemptions, fee rebates, and loopholes written into bills passed by Congress, all advocated for and put forward by those Congressional members who gratefully received corporate interest group support and now are motivated to return the favor.

The bases of support for the Republican and Democratic Parties have shifted significantly in the past seventy five years. While more conservative political interest groups have flocked to the Republican Party, groups like Labor Unions and Community Organizations have found a home in a Democratic Party that has increasingly focused on governmental solutions, civil rights, and liberal social issues. Labor Unions are one of the older, pre-New Deal Era coalition members that has remained firmly Democratic in the modern era.