Campaign Finance & Pressure Groups

Test yourself on Campaign Finance & Pressure Groups

Test your knowledge with free interactive questions on Seneca — used by over 10 million students.

Interest Groups

Interest groups in the UK and US both influence government and decision-makers.

Political involvement

In the US political parties are weaker and more decentralised, so citizens often turn to pressure groups for political engagement.
In the UK political parties are stronger and more centralised.
- However, pressure groups still represent issues that are not fully addressed by major parties.

Grassroots activity

Both the US and UK have outsider pressure groups that seek to influence public opinion.
One way outsider groups influence public opinion is through grassroots activity.
During 2011, both countries had ‘Occupy’ movements — ‘Occupy London’ and ‘Occupy Wall Street’ — which used similar protest methods to gain attention and support.

Executive branch

In both systems, pressure groups can influence the executive branch: ministers in the UK and cabinet members in the US may consult pressure groups during policy formation.

Courts

In the US pressure groups can bring cases to the Supreme Court.
Groups challenge laws on the basis that they are unconstitutional.
- Citizens United v FEC was brought by Citizens United, a conservative political campaigning organisation.
In the UK pressure groups cannot strike down legislation because parliamentary sovereignty means Acts of Parliament cannot be invalidated by the courts.
- However, groups can still influence outcomes through judicial review and Human Rights Act challenges.

Lobbying

In both the US and UK, corporations and pressure groups hire lobbyists to influence political decision-makers.
In the UK lobbyists may be more successful targeting cabinet ministers and political parties rather than individual MPs, due to party discipline.

Interest Groups: Party Discipline

In the US and UK, party discipline impacts how successful lobbyists are at influencing individual representatives. Both countries use whips in government, but the influence of whips varies.

UK party discipline

UK political parties have stronger discipline than US parties, and so UK MPs are more likely to follow leadership and party direction.
- Therefore, pressure groups are less likely to influence individual MPs.
- If MPs vote against the party line they risk being unable to sit in parliament as a member of that party.

US party discipline

Party discipline in the US is weaker than in the UK, and so individual representatives have more control over how they vote.
- The primary system means that voters can choose who they wish to nominate for a party, rather than the party choosing.
- So, representatives don’t have to worry about losing the party support for voting against them.

Campaign Finance

The UK and US do not have complete state funding of political parties - so they rely on donations to campaign.

US campaign finance and party funding 1

In the US, candidates fund campaigns using donations for travel, accommodation, polling and campaign staff.
The 2002 McCain-Feingold Act stopped party committees raising 'soft money' and required candidates to endorse all campaign advertising.
The 2010 Citizens United v FEC ruling gave corporations and unions the right to unlimited independent political expenditures in any election.
Super PACs spend unlimited money supporting or opposing a candidate without directly funding their campaign.

US campaign finance and party funding 2

Presidential candidates can receive some state funding through matching funds.
US campaigns are often reliant on money from wealthy individuals and companies, which many people see as being controversial.
- People argue that this means wealthy individuals and companies have influence over election policy.
- In 2018 Tom Steyer and his company Fahr LLC donated $41 million to the Democratic party.
- In 2018 the Koch brothers donated $9 million to the Republican party.

UK campaign finance and party funding

UK parties receive funding through membership fees and donations from individuals and organisations.
Short money is state funding for opposition parties, covering administrative costs and enabling scrutiny of the government.
The PPERA (2000) limited party spending at general elections; the Political Parties and Elections Act (2009) enabled the Electoral Commission to fine parties who broke the rules.
Controversies remain over large donations from wealthy donors and businesses.