A Level Politics-Pressure Groups -Pressure Group Funding of Elections

A Level Politics-Pressure Groups -Pressure Group Funding of Elections: A Study Guide
I. Pressure Group Influence on Elections:

• General Pattern: Pressure groups heavily fund candidates aligned with their interests. Unions, pro-choice, LGBTQ+, and gun-control groups tend to support Democrats, while conservative religious groups, pro-life groups, and gun-rights groups typically support Republicans. However, exceptions exist; groups may support candidates outside their usual political alignment if those candidates hold specific views (e.g., the SBA List supporting pro-life Democrat Dan Lipinski).
• Financial Scale: Collectively, US pressure groups spend millions, significantly impacting election outcomes. The 2018 Lipinski example illustrates how even $100,000 and grassroots canvassing can be decisive in close races.

II. Case Study: The NRA

• Power and Strategy: The NRA (National Rifle Association), with ~5 million members, is a highly influential pressure group, primarily due to its campaign funding strategy. This strategy has evolved; initially supporting Democrats (37% in 1992), it has become increasingly partisan, favoring Republicans (98% in 2016).
• Strategic Spending: The NRA doesn't exclusively support one party. It strategically opposes moderate Republicans (e.g., Richard Lugar in 2012) and occasionally supports Democrats from the "Blue Dog" faction (e.g., Henry Cuellar). This can be controversial and lead to returned donations (as seen with the Blue Dog PAC in 2018).
• Financial Resources and Impact: In 2016, the NRA spent a significant $52.5 million, including substantial television and radio advertising (one in eight ads in Ohio that October). However, its massive spending hasn't guaranteed proportional influence. Membership revenue declined after the 2016 election, resulting in reduced spending in 2018. Gun control groups (Giffords and Everytown) even outspent the NRA in 2018 midterms.
• Relationship with Trump: Despite supporting Trump’s 2016 campaign ($30 million), the NRA didn't enjoy unconditional support. Trump publicly criticized the NRA's influence and even suggested confronting the organization. Furthermore, the NRA expressed disappointment over the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks. This highlights that significant spending doesn't guarantee complete control or unwavering support.
• Legal Challenges: Legal challenges in 2020 regarding financial impropriety affected the NRA's ability to spend at the same level as 2016. Despite this, they still spent over $16 million on Trump’s campaign.

III. Broader Impacts of Pressure Group Funding:

• Targeting "Washington Insiders": Pressure groups prioritize funding key figures in Washington, especially during presidential elections and for influential members of Congress (committee chairs, rising stars). Senate races receive more funding than House races due to longer terms and greater individual influence. The NRA's 2016 spending pattern exemplifies this (96% on six Senate races and the presidential campaign).
• Reinforcing Incumbency: Funding insiders reinforces the incumbency advantage. Incumbents benefit from higher profiles, existing relationships with constituents, and easier access to campaign donations, increasing their re-election chances (typically >90% for House and a similar rate for Senate).
• Iron Triangles: The "iron triangle" describes the close, mutually beneficial relationship between interest groups, Congress, and the executive branch. Each player benefits from supporting the others, potentially leading to decisions not necessarily in the public interest. Examples include the defense and pharmaceutical industries.
• Limits of Money and Influence: While money plays a significant role, Hillary Clinton's 2016 loss despite raising more funds than Trump demonstrates that pressure group funding and money don't guarantee victory.

Key Terms: Iron triangle, incumbency advantage, Blue Dogs, pressure groups, PACs

To Learn more about A Level Politics Click Here