Exam-style question
Try this first
What evidence would allow a candidate to assess Super PACs electoral finance — the role and significance of Political Action Committees and Super PACs in electoral finance? Use the relevant political concepts and evidence from Pressure groups.
- A.a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route linked to the comparison and its consequence for pressure-group influence.
- B.A definition of pressure-group influence with no UK-US application.
- C.A fact from another Politics component with no comparative link.
- D.A vague assertion that both countries work in the same way.
Model answer
What a good answer should say
- The correct answer is a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route linked to the comparison and its consequence for pressure-group influence.
Explanation
Why this works
a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route linked to the comparison and its consequence for pressure-group influence. This is correct because political evidence must connect a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route to the stated UK-US claim.
Apply insider access, outsider campaigning, lobbying, consultation, congressional committees, litigation and campaign finance precisely. UK pressure groups often target ministers, Parliament and consultation, whereas US groups also use Congress, federal courts and campaign finance routes.
A structural viewpoint emphasises formal rules; however, a rational or cultural viewpoint may explain how actors use those rules. Overall, judge the evidence from a named campaign, consultation, court case, congressional hearing or lobbying route and explain whether institutional access changes which lobbying method is effective for "Analyse and evaluate the role and significance of Political Action Committees and Super PACs in electoral finance.".
Common mistake
No common mistake is linked to this question yet.