AO1: Interest groups often have more access to finances for donations to individual campaigns AO2: Presidential candidates receive little in the way of funding from their political party and are so reliant on such fundraising AO3: The support and finances provided by interest groups can allow candidates to focus on campaigning more than fundraising AO1: Interest groups can produce targeted adverts for/against individuals, within legislative campaign finance limits AO2: This is particularly true of PACs and Super-PACs who are able to raise and spend large sums of money for the purpose of influencing key elections AO3: The fact that their right to do so has been confirmed by Supreme Court rulings allows them to play a bigger role than political parties who have much stricter limits on expenditure AO1: Interest groups may have closer ties with individual candidates than political parties, and can demonstrate support for throughout the invisible primary AO2: During this stage of the electoral process there is less likely to be party unity behind a candidate, which allows interest groups to form ties through shared interests and/or donations AO3: The nature of the US system and electoral college system means that interest groups can endorse candidates who share their beliefs early in the process, thus influencing the selection process as well as electoral outcomes AO1: Interest groups with strong public support and a national presence may be more influential in persuading their members to vote for candidates who align with their goals AO2: This allows such interest groups to use their organisation to organise campaign events or voter drives before and on election day AO3: This contrasts with political party efforts, where there tends to be a reliance on individual candidates to organise their own campaign events and voter drives on a local or state level rather than a national level

AO1: Arguably, the contributions and lobbying of interest groups focus more on gaining the support of prospective presidents during legislative sessions rather than on helping them win elections AO2: This means that interest group efforts may be focused more on incumbents who they believe will be re-elected regardless AO3: This suggests that interest group activity is more about influencing the legislative process subsequent to elections rather than the balance of power AO1: The majority of presidential candidates rely on the party label and ideology to campaign in elections, rather than relying on interest group campaigns AO2: While interest group funding is necessary and welcomed by individual candidates, this is a feature of the decentralised nature of US party politics rather than a lack of influence by parties AO3: This suggests that electoral candidates rely more heavily on party recognition alongside interest group donations and are less likely to succeed without the well-known party name AO1: Parties are still a source of funding and support for presidential candidates AO2: This is particularly for mobilising the party faithful e.g. at the National Party Convention where presidential candidates are confirmed AO3: Therefore parties can and are still a major influence on the outcome of elections, especially in more ideological times when individual candidates rally the party faithful around their individual platform AO1: Parties also play a major role in mobilising the electorate on behalf of candidates AO2: Local or state-based party units do this by organising voter drives to mobilise the party faithful and to recruit new voters, which can be especially vital in swing seats/states AO3: This shows that candidates cannot discount the party label completely, as it can be essential for voter recognition and encouraging support for their individual campaign