LAUSR

This study revives the “two faces of power” conceptualization to consider whether common interest group measures are valid proxies for interest group strength. The “two faces of power” model proposes that power enables not just influence on decisions, but also influence from controlling the agenda. Using the case of state-level teachers’ unions, I test whether measures of a group’s ability to set the agenda (the second face of power) have a stronger relationship with policy outcomes and stakeholder perceptions of influence than do measures of a group’s engagement with legislators (the first face of power). I find support for this proposition. The second face, operationalized with union membership rates, is associated with policy proposal, policy passage, and stakeholder perceptions of influence, while open contestation, operationalized with campaign contributions, is not. This suggests that operationalizations of power based on surface-level measures such as campaign contributions may not accurately capture interest group influence.