Interest Groups Flashcards
(13 cards)
Examine the differences between pressure groups in the US and the UK
Paragraph 1: access points in governance
Paragraph 2: role of money
Paragraph 3: judicial influence and amicus briefs
Paragraph 1: comparison line
Pressure groups in the US benefit from a federal system and separation of powers, providing them with multiple avenues to influence policy, whereas in the UK, the fusion of powers and centralised governance restricts their opportunities for institutional access
Paragraph 1: US side
-multiple levels of government provide numerous access points for pressure groups. Maine Equality successfully campaigned for same-sex marriage laws at the state level. At federal level, the NRA effectively lobby Congress, ensuring that their interests, the protection of the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms), are represented
-the separation of powers allows pressure groups to tailor their lobbying efforts to specific policymakers or institutions. The National Association of Realtors spent $84 million on influencing policy.
Paragraph 1: UK side
- due to the fusion of powers, the UK’s parliamentary system combines the executive and legislative branches, limiting direct lobbying targets. Most lobbying efforts are concentrated on Parliament, government departments, or specific MPs. For example, the Coca Cola lobbying efforts directed to policymakers on the government’s introduced Soft Drink Industry Levy (2018).
- however, this centralised nature of UK governance often pushes groups toward public protests and direct action. Environmental organisations like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, have relied on disruptive tactics to gain attention due to the lack of institutional avenues for influence
Paragraph 1: closing line
-while the US system’s decentralised structure empowers pressure groups to operate across multiple levels and branches, more expansive influence, UK pressure groups must concentrate their efforts on more unified and centralised decision-making process in parliament
Paragraph 2: comparison line
-while money plays a central role in amplifying the influence of pressure groups in the US, the UKs tighter regulations and shorter election campaign periods diminish financial dependence, shifting the focus to grassroots activism and public mobilisatiion
Paragraph 2: US side
-campaign finance is integral to US politics, with members of congress and presidential candidates reliant on funding from pressure groups. There is a direct link between financial support and legislative action. In 2019-2020, the NRA via the NRA-PVF PAC and VF-SuperPAC spent $23 million campaigning for the Republican party campaign (donald trump). The AARP between 2022-2024, lobbied Ted Cruz, senator for Texas, for upholding Medicare and lower prescription drug prices. Congressmen are more receptive to pressure groups as more dependent on the funding for their elective campaigns.
- the reliance on superPACs made possible by the supreme court ruling in citizen united v FEC which amplifies the role of money in lobbying
Paragraph 2: UK side
-campaign finance is far less critical given the shorter election campaign duration and the nature of “short money” which is where political parties receive public funding to support their parliamentary activities, reducing their dependence on donations from pressure groups. For example in 2022, the labour party received over £6 million in short money. As a result, UK pressure groups place more emphasis on grassroots activism and mobilisation. This is evident in the activities of the B5 Business Lobby Groups, which in 2023, attempted to strike against the proposed increase of national insurance and contributions announced in the government’s budget.
Paragraph 2: closing line
-ultimately, the US’s reliance on financial contributions for political influence contrasts sharply with UK’s emphasis on grassroots movements and public demonstrations as the primary means of exerting pressure
Paragraph 3: comparison line
- the US judiciary’s significant constitutional authority makes it a key target for pressure groups, particularly through the use of amicus briefs, whereas the UK’s judiciary’s limited scope under parliamentary sovereignty reduces its appeal as a tool for systemic influence
Paragraph 3: US side
- the judiciary in the US plays a pivotal role in shaping policy, and pressure groups often seek to influence landmark cases. the US sc’s ability to interpret the constitution grants pressure groups with a unique avenue for long-term influence. Amicus briefs are a key tool in this process, offering detailed legal arguments to sway justices. For example, in DC v Heller, the NRA’s amicus brief was directly cited during oral arguments by Kennedy, a swing justice who holds the decisive vote, and contributed to the court’s decision to strengthen second amendment protections. In dobbs v Jackson, over 140 amicus briefs filed, and NARAL’s being one of them, highlighting the substantial influence interest groups have over the judiciary
Paragraph 3: UK side
-the UK judiciary, constrained by parliamentary sovereignty, offers limited opportunities for pressure groups to effect constitutional change. The UK SC primarily rules on the compatibility of laws with the HRA, resulting in less dramatic shifts. For example, the pressure group, HLPR, successfully campaigned for stronger legal safeguards to protect against discriminatory practices in policing and data use. Here, it demonstrates how pressure groups’ influence over the judiciary lies within the parameters of balancing collective and individual rights rather than making sweeping legal changes.
Paragraph 3: closing line
- the US judiciary’s significant constitutional authority makes it a key target for pressure groups, particularly through the use of amicus briefs, whereas the UK judiciary’s limited scope under parliamentary sovereignty reduces its appeal as a tool for systemic influence.
