AO1: US interest groups more reliant on lobbying elected representatives e.g. K Street whereas UK pressure groups are less able to do this because of stricter regulations AO2: This allows US interest groups to try to influence individual elected representatives in a more high-profile, high-expenditure way e.g. campaign adverts and large-scale events, than UK pressure groups who may campaign more generally AO1: US interest groups are less limited in campaign tools e.g. campaigning during elections, donations to individuals or parties AO2: This means that US interest groups can try to influence electoral results more directly on federal, state and local levels, compared to UK pressure groups who tend to focus more on issues that elections AO1: US interest groups more able to form closer links with the executive and particularly executive agencies through iron triangles, whereas UK pressure groups more often have outsider status AO2: UK pressure groups do seek to gain insider status with the government to allow them to suggest policies and amendments to legislation, but fusion of powers makes this less effective than US iron triangles AO1: US interest groups have been historically more reliant on the use of the courts to address issues than UK pressure groups AO2: This is, however, changing, and UK pressure groups such a Liberty are able to make more use of the courts, but the broader state and federal system and use of amicus curiae can make US pressure groups more effective AO1: US interest groups are more likely/able to form specific political support group scalled AO2: PACs to influence elections and/or legislative action AO1: US interest groups are increasingly able to use PACs and Super-PACs to support individual elections or representatives or issues to influence outcomes and the legislative agenda, whereas UK pressure groups tend to use more traditional methods