Clinton, Canosa, Cuba...and Olsen

This article from 1994 discusses the influence that Jorge Mas Canosa had on President Clinton’s decision to overturn the U.S. foreign policy towards Cuban refugees. The Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 changed the legal status of Cuban immigrants in the United States; it treated them as political refugees and granted them political asylum. The act also provided immigrants with immediate privileges that no other group enjoyed, such as automatic permanent residence status without review and without the usual waiting time. However, on August 19, 1994 President Clinton announced that the United States new foreign policy would involve detaining any Cuban immigrants, “halting cash transfers to Cuba and curtailing charter flights to the island.” This article delves into reasons Canosa gives for his support of Clinton’s decision to reverse this foreign policy. Canosa’s involvement as leader of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF) interested me when reading this article. After a little more research on the topic, I found another article that intensified Canosa’s involvement in the Clinton Administration's foreign policy. This article argued that Clinton changed Cuban foreign policy as a way to gain electoral votes and money from Florida, Canosa, and the CANF.

In relation to our class discussion about Olsen’s By-Product Theory of Interest Groups, these articles provide a case of where a larger interest group was able to overcome organizational costs and benefit from political lobbying. The CANF is a Cuba exile organization devoted to removing Fidel Castro from power and transforming Cuba into a democratic, market-based society (the primary product of CANF). However, Canosa used political lobbying to influence US foreign policy and therefore hopefully benefit the primary goals of the CANF eventually (lobbying was a by-product).

Olsen argued that this lobbying by interest groups gives them advantages in democracy; he also states that political lobbying advances the interests of a small group over the interests of a much larger group. In this case, would the much larger group whose interests are being overlooked because of Canosa’s and the CANF’s political activity be the Cuban refugees who must now return to an economically depressed Cuba? Also, Olsen argues that interest groups are responsible for the decline of nations. Does that argument apply to this case, since technically Canosa and the CANF are ultimately trying to help the nation of Cuba? Is the democratic structure of America being harmed by this case of political lobbying?