AO1: Presidents are increasingly more likely to push for federal policy on issues Presidents may campaign on a populist or personally important issue that has national implications such as Obamacare or Biden’s Build Back Better which may strengthen federal power/reach at the expense of the states AO3: this suggests federalism may be declining. AO1: Congress has passed/attempted to pass a number of laws that have strengthened the power of the federal government Such legislation may be in support of presidential proposals, such as tackling national crises, or to consolidate minority rights across the whole of the US, such as Respect for Marriage Act AO3: this suggests federalism may be declining. AO1: High levels of partisanship in Congress This leads to a Congress that is more able to push for a national agenda, and be more successful in a time of united government- or to be more able to oppose proposals that impact on states’ rights in times of divided government AO3: this suggests federalism may be declining. AO1: Interest groups still focus much of their effort at a federal level This is true during the election cycle as well as during presidential terms/congressional sessions, demonstrated by high levels of expenditure, lobbying and the presence of iron triangles AO3: this suggests federalism may be declining, or alternatively that this demonstrates how the expansion of government over time has inevitably led to more focus on the federal government at the expense of states’ power. AO1: The role of the federal government has increased at times of national crisis This has been an issue for many years now but become more prominent with the threat of terrorism and the need to coordinate a national response to Covid- 19 AO3: this suggests federalism may be declining, or at least has to give way to federal government power temporarily in times of crisis. AO1: Campaign finance for elections/iron triangles gives interest groups disproportionate power in elections Candidates for Congress or the presidency must have a substantial amount of funding to have a realistic chance of success AO3: which may allow interest groups to have a negative impact on democracy. AO1: PACs/Super PACs gives interest groups too much influence over candidates The increase in the use of PACs/Super PACs has had a negative impact on democracy as they have fewer limits regulating them than political parties do AO3: which may have a negative impact on democracy. AO1: Lack of political party loyalty amongst voters allows interest groups to have more impact than political parties, despite not standing for office Interest groups may a negative impact on democracy because there is less political party loyalty amongst the electorate, both in terms of membership and, at times, voting behaviour AO3: which may have a negative impact on democracy. AO1: More able to mobilise mass support based on single issues, rather than matters of national priority Interest groups are able to exert influence through mobilising mass support on individual issues or broader ideological matters AO3: which may have a negative impact on democracy. AO1: Ability to influence SC decisions/bring cases may sway decisions made Interest groups can have significant influence on legal cases, particularly related to constitutional matters, through launching individual court cases AO3: which may have a negative for democracy.

AO1: Supreme Court rulings have ruled presidential attempts to impose federal rules unconstitutional This helps to reinforce the federal system designed by the Founders e.g. AO2: Biden was prevented from enacting his student loan forgiveness scheme AO3: which suggests that federalism is not declining. AO1: Divisions within Congress have made it difficult to pass legislation that limits states’ rights This ensures federalism performs as intended, as it prevents Congress from dominating the states e.g. it has proven difficult to find a federal agreement on legislation protecting the right to an abortion AO3: which suggests that federalism is not declining. AO1: States are increasingly pursuing individual policy in key areas This uphold the federal system as intended e.g. when Roe v Wade was overturned, large numbers of states adopted a vast range of policies on the legality of abortion. AO2: This also applies to other areas such as LGBT+ rights where there is a huge variety of laws across the states AO3: which suggests that federalism is not declining. AO1: Public opinion continues to show more trust and support in state/local government than federal government This reinforces the parochial nature of Congress in particular, as the need to appeal to state/local issues makes pursuing a national agenda less likely, and demonstrates that federalism is working as intended if the public rely on/trust their state/local representatives more AO3: which suggests that federalism is not declining and instead is working as intended. AO1: Federal programs/projects still rely on states to enact them as intended This demonstrates that even with a federal program such as Obamacare or Build Back Better, the federal government must work with the states to ensure such programs work in practice AO3: which suggests that federalism is not declining and is in fact working as intended. AO1: Limits on lobbying/campaign finance rules prevent interest groups from having too much influence therefore interest groups may actually enhance democracy Legislation designed to limit the impact of lobbyists have made it more difficult for interest groups to influence Congress or the federal government AO3: which means interest groups may not be negative for democracy and may in fact enhance democracy. AO1: Increasing partisanship Interest groups may have fewer opportunities to influence legislation during times when political parties are more unified around ideology and policy programmes AO3: which ensures they do not have a negative impact on democracy. AO1: The effectiveness of interest groups to affect any proposition/initiative/bill is limited by popular support and the willingness of elected officials to take action This means interest groups are reliant on gaining enough mass support to pressure the elected body into acting in the best interests of their group’s ideology/wishes AO3: which enhances democracy rather than having a negative impact. AO1: Pluralism allows a range of voices to be heard, but also ensures that only the largest/most popular interest groups can have influence which prevents less well-supported/smaller groups from having disproportionate influence which enhances democracy This means that interest groups who can demonstrate large-scale support can ensure that the public is well-informed and have a positive influence on elected officials by raising issues and holding government to account AO3: which enhances democracy rather than having a negative impact. AO1: Members of Congress may be more influenced by the needs of their constituents than interest groups This is particularly true of the House of Representatives, with very short terms of office, where introducing legislation or amendments that benefit constituents may have more impact on their chances of re-election than interest group support AO3: which may enhance democracy and prevent interest groups from having a negative impact.