A Level Politics – Comparing Electoral and Party Systems- Similarities and differencesbetween the UK and the USA concerning campaign and party finance

A Level Politics – Comparing Electoral and Party Systems- Similarities and differences

between the UK and the USA concerning campaign and party finance

Comparative Campaign Finance: UK vs. USA - Study Guide

This study guide analyzes similarities and differences in campaign finance between the UK and the USA, utilizing three comparative theories (which are not explicitly defined in the provided text, and will need to be researched separately).

I. Similarities:

• High Costs: Both UK and US elections are expensive. Costs include advertising (print, online, potentially TV in the USA), website maintenance, venue hire, and staff salaries. This necessitates significant fundraising efforts.
• Spending = Success (Assumption): Both systems operate under the assumption that competitive spending, particularly in key electoral areas (swing states in the USA), is crucial for victory. Outspending opponents is often viewed as a significant advantage.
• Potential for Undue Influence: The large sums of money involved create opportunities for undue influence. While small donations are accepted, reliance on wealthy donors creates a risk that substantial contributions will buy preferential access or influence policy decisions.

II. Differences (Further Research Needed):

The text highlights significant differences in the political cultures surrounding campaign finance in the UK and USA. To fully understand this section, you must research and apply three comparative theories to analyze these differences. These theories will likely address factors such as:

• Regulatory frameworks: Compare the legal regulations governing campaign donations, spending limits, and transparency in each country.
• Party systems: Analyze how the structure and organization of political parties (e.g., two-party vs. multi-party systems) impact fundraising strategies and the role of money in politics.
• Electoral systems: Investigate the effects of different electoral systems (e.g., first-past-the-post vs. proportional representation) on campaign finance patterns.
• Cultural norms: Explore the differing societal attitudes towards money in politics in both countries.

III. Study Questions:

1. Identify three comparative theories relevant to analyzing political systems and apply them to the UK and US campaign finance systems. (Requires external research).
2. Compare and contrast the legal frameworks governing campaign finance in the UK and the USA. (Requires external research).
3. Discuss the potential for undue influence in both systems. How do the different regulatory environments mitigate or exacerbate this risk?
4. Analyze the role of wealthy donors in both UK and US elections. What access or influence do they gain?
5. Evaluate the assumption that outspending opponents guarantees victory. Consider examples where this assumption has held true and where it has been disproven.

This study guide provides a framework for understanding the provided text. Remember to consult additional resources to complete your understanding, especially regarding the three comparative theories and the specifics of UK and US campaign finance laws and regulations.

Campaign Finance: A Comparative Study of the UK and USA

I. Campaign Expenditure Caps

A. UK:

• Strict Limits: National parties have a £30,000 spending cap per candidate, resulting in a total national limit of slightly over £19 million. Individual candidates face limits calculated as £8,700 plus 9p or 6p per registered voter (depending on constituency population density).
• Transparency: Donations exceeding £7,500 must be publicly disclosed.
• Enforcement: The Electoral Commission enforces these rules, issuing fines for breaches (e.g., Plaid Cymru's £29,000 fine in 2020 for late donation reporting).

B. USA:

• Complex and Loopholes: While laws like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) limit direct donations ("hard money"), court rulings (Citizens United, SpeechNow) have weakened restrictions on indirect or independent expenditures ("soft money").
• Self-Funding: No limits exist on candidates spending their own money.
• Constitutional Challenges: The First Amendment's protection of free speech frequently leads to legal challenges against campaign finance regulations.

II. State Funding of Campaigns

A. UK:

• Government Assistance: The government provides significant, politically neutral support for election costs, including centralized voter registration and free postage for election literature (e.g., £42 million in 2017).

B. USA:

• Limited State Support: Party resources are heavily invested in voter registration drives. Attempts at "matched funding" have failed due to court challenges (Bennett cases) and candidate reluctance to accept voluntary spending caps. No major presidential candidate has accepted matching funding since 2008.

III. Pressure Groups

A. UK:

• Strict Regulation: The Charity Commission tightly regulates pressure group political activities, prohibiting charities from campaigning for or against specific parties or candidates. Political activity must directly support a charity's stated charitable purpose.

B. USA:

• Significant Involvement: Pressure groups actively participate in campaigns through Political Action Committees (PACs) and 501/527 groups, often donating, endorsing, and campaigning for candidates. 501 groups offer more donor anonymity, while 527 groups are more directly involved in political campaigning.

IV. Legal Framework

A. UK:

• Key Legislation: Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000, Communications Act 2003, Charity Act 2011.
• Television Advertising: Political advertising on television is prohibited; parties receive free airtime.

B. USA:

• Key Legislation: Federal Election Campaign Act 1971, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002.
• Television Advertising: No restrictions exist; parties and candidates aggressively purchase airtime (estimated $10.8 billion in 2020).

V. Summary Table (Table 20.5 Equivalent)

Feature	UK	USA
Main Laws	PPERA 2000, Communications Act 2003, Charity Act 2011	Federal Election Campaign Act 1971, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002
Landmark Court Cases	None	McConnell v FEC (2003), Citizens United v FEC (2010), Arizona Free Enterprise Club v Bennett (2011)
Expenditure Restrictions	Strict limits on party and candidate spending; transparency requirements.	Limited restrictions on "hard money"; weak restrictions on "soft money"; no limits on self-funding.
Role of Other Groups	Pressure groups have limited or no involvement in election campaigns.	Pressure groups heavily involved through PACs and 501/527 groups.

Campaign Finance: A Comparative Study of the US and UK

.

I. Donor Involvement and Rationale:

• USA: Significantly higher levels of spending and involvement by interest groups and wealthy individuals than in the UK. This is due to greater opportunities for influence. Billionaires (e.g., Sheldon Adelson, George Soros) are major players. Donations are driven by political alignment and securing favorable policies. Donors often gain increased access to political figures.
• UK: While opportunities are more restricted, wealthy individuals (e.g., Lubov Chernukhin) and groups (e.g., Leader's Group, trade unions like Unite) still make substantial donations to parties. Motivation mirrors the US: political empathy and self-interest. Access to political figures is also a likely benefit.

II. Regulatory Frameworks: A Comparison

Feature	USA	UK
Party Fundraising (outside election periods)	No limits	No limits
Election Spending (national & candidate)	Limits exist	Limits exist
Large Donor Disclosure	Required (though "dark money" exists)	Required
TV Airtime Purchase	No restrictions on additional broadcasts	No scope for additional purchases
Funding/Expense Reporting	To Federal Election Commission (FEC)	To Electoral Commission
Direct Donations to Parties/Candidates	Limits exist	Limits exist
Self-Funding by Candidates	No restrictions	No restrictions
Independent Expenditures (Super PACs)	No limits	Subject to regulations (no direct equivalent to Super PACs)

Key Differences Summarized: The US system features far greater financial influence, despite limitations. "Dark money" (undisclosed funding) remains a significant challenge to transparency. The UK system imposes stricter limits on spending, enhancing transparency but not eliminating wealthy donor influence entirely.

III. Electoral Strategies and Spending:

• Spending and Success: Neither country guarantees electoral success based on spending alone. Examples include Trump's 2016 campaign (spending less than Clinton) and the Remain campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum (outspending Leave). This suggests voters are not always swayed by the highest spenders.
• Targeting Electoral Battlegrounds: Both countries focus spending disproportionately on key electoral battlegrounds (swing states in the US, specific constituencies in the UK). The US allows for vastly more spending in these areas. Digital advertising and data-driven targeting are increasingly important in the UK, enabling more effective hyper-local campaigning despite tighter overall spending limits.

IV. Study Questions:

1. Compare and contrast the rationales behind political donations in the US and UK. Consider both altruistic and self-interested motivations.
2. Analyze the regulatory frameworks of campaign finance in both countries. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each system? How effectively do they address issues of transparency and influence?
3. Discuss the role of "dark money" in US campaign finance. How does it undermine the transparency goals of campaign finance regulation?
4. Evaluate the statement: "Superior funding does not guarantee political success." Use evidence from the text to support your answer.
5. Explain how digital advertising has changed the landscape of campaign finance in the UK.

Campaign Finance: A Comparative Study of the US and UK

This study guide compares and contrasts campaign finance cultures in the US and UK, highlighting key differences and commonalities.

I. US Campaign Finance Culture

• Explicit and pervasive: Fundraising is a constant and highly visible aspect of US politics. Examples include virtual fundraising events with high-dollar donation tiers (e.g., Biden's 2020 virtual receptions). The scale is massive, with the 2020 election costing approximately $14 billion.
• Individual rights and freedoms: The First Amendment's emphasis on individual rights extends to political donations, viewed as a form of political expression (especially post-Citizens United). This fosters a "right to spend" mentality, with less aversion to government interference among wealthy donors.
• "Spoils system": This system allows presidents to appoint campaign donors to prominent positions, such as ambassadorships (estimated 30% of diplomatic posts). This practice is less controversial in the US compared to the UK.
• Legal challenges: The US legal system is frequently used to expand the scope of political donations.

II. UK Campaign Finance Culture

• More nuanced: While a tradition of political donations exists (e.g., trade unions to Labour, individuals to Conservatives), there's greater acceptance of government regulation, though comprehensive reforms (like increased state funding) remain stalled.
• Less legal recourse: Compared to the US, legal challenges are less frequently used to expand donation scope.
• "Cash for honours" controversies: Similar to the US, allegations of exchanging political favors for donations ("cash for honours") exist, but they are perceived as more problematic in the UK's political culture.
• Greater acceptance of regulation: UK politicians demonstrate a higher level of acceptance for leveling the playing field in campaign finance compared to their US counterparts.
• Smaller scale: The 2019 UK general election's total spending was around £30.7 million – significantly less than the US.

III. Key Differences Summarized

Feature	US	UK
Culture	Explicit, pervasive, individualistic	More nuanced, greater acceptance of regulation
Scale	Billions of dollars (e.g., $14B in 2020)	Millions of pounds (e.g., £30.7M in 2019)
Legal Approach	Frequent use of courts to expand donations	Less frequent use of courts
"Spoils System"	More prevalent and less controversial	Less prevalent and more controversial
State Funding	Limited state funding	Reforms stalled, but some acceptance exists

IV. Key Terms

• Citizens United: A landmark US Supreme Court case that significantly expanded the role of money in US politics.
• Spoils system: A system where political appointments are given as rewards for political support.
• Cash for honours: The allegation of trading political favors (e.g., titles or positions) for financial donations.

V. Study Questions

1. How do First Amendment rights influence campaign finance in the US?
2. Compare and contrast the "spoils system" in the US and the "cash for honours" controversies in the UK.
3. Why is there a greater acceptance of government regulation of campaign finance in the UK compared to the US?
4. What are the potential consequences of the vast difference in scale between US and UK election spending?
5. What are the arguments for and against greater state funding of political parties in both countries?