In recent years, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the lobbying of wealthy corporations that have an undue influence on government policy. The recent Owen Patterson scandal illustrated the ability of big businesses to 'buy’’ politicians. ‘Influence’ refers to actual change to policies to serve the interest of that company. This essay will compare the influence of corporations and pressure groups within government policy, examining successful pressure groups and corporations as well as those that fall short. Ultimately, this essay will conclude that it is clear that apart from a few influential pressure groups, corporations have a much greater influence on government policy.

The first argument draws upon influential pressure groups. These are typically the groups with insider status i.e groups that enjoy close access to government agencies and officials. One example is the British Medical Association (BMA) which is the trade union and professional body for doctors in the UK. One recent success for the BMA is the winning of the judicial review which overturned regulations that gave the UK Secretary of State for Health & Social Care the power to suspend the payment of pensions benefits to any doctor or NHS professional charged with certain criminal offences – but not yet convicted. It can be argued that the BMA have a disproportionate influence on government policy in comparison to other trade unions due to their high status and class. Their influence has arguably amplified during the COVID pandemic as the government cannot afford to lose public support as a consequence of seeming anti-doctor. Another example is Stonewall, a pressure group advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. Since Thatcher’s government and the introduction of Section 28, Stonewall have contributed to numerous policies and laws regarding the LGBTQ+ society. Their successes include: LGBTQ+ inclusive teaching in the national curriculum, protection from discrimination at work, the right for same-sex couples to get married and many more. This can be accredited to the change in norms and values within society since the 80’s resulting in a more inclusive and progressive government. Supporters of pressure groups suggest that this is sufficient evidence to support the claim that pressure groups are more influential than corporations in influencing government policy.

However, this is a weak argument as these insider pressure groups are exceptions. The majority of pressure groups, in particular outsider groups, do not enjoy these privileges. For example, environmental pressure groups like Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion despite gaining much media coverage have not had a great influence on the government due to their radical aims which aren’t in line with the government’s priorities. Another instance is CAGE UK. They are a group campaigning to empower Muslims and against anti-terror laws. They have had little influence on government policies mainly due to their lack of electoral power. With only 4.3% Muslims in the UK, they only account for a small minority lessening the likelihood of the government listening to their views. This, therefore, undermines the strength of pressure groups thus we can maintain the view that corporations have more influence than pressure groups.

An argument in support of corporations is their power in the economy. For example, a bank rescue package totalling some £500 billion was announced by the British government on 8 October 2008, as a response to the global financial crisis. The management of the economy is arguably one of the best measurements of the success of a government. This means that corporations are too powerful for the government to allow them to fail consequently leading to the influence on decisions in order for their business and the economy to flourish. Another example is the £1 billion in support for businesses most impacted by Omicron across the UK by Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak. Pressure groups don’t have the same level of influence in the economy resulting in a lack of power within political discourse. This is another strong argument that defends the view that corporations have more influence than pressure groups. 

This argument could be undermined by the instances where pressure groups achieved their goals despite the views of big corporations. For instance, Greenpeace and numerous environmental pressure groups were successful in delaying the decision for a third runway at Heathrow. This was despite support from major airlines such as British Airways, EasyJet and Virgin Atlantic. This is relevant evidence to be considered however is not strong enough in comparison to the various examples of billions of pounds spent for corporations so we can maintain the view that corporations are more influential in government policy. 

Even if one were to accept that their role in the economy is not a strong enough argument, the strongest argument for corporations is their use of political lobbying. According to The Times, from 2015-2017, £25 million was spent on lobbying by big businesses. As mentioned prior, there are numerous instances of politicians being ‘bought’ by these wealthy corporations. One example is the Greenshill scandal. To summarise, in 2020, David Cameron lobbied the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak via a series of text messages in attempts to allow Greensill to join the Covid Corporate Financing Facility scheme to keep the company afloat. This highlights how ex-ministers continue to have unsavoury connections and lobby on behalf of their interest. Another example is Patricia Hewitt and Stephen Byers reaching out to lobbying firms before their resignation. Stephen Byers was exposed by Channel 4, claiming that he was “a taxi for hire” for £5,000 a day. Owen Patterson, a Conservative MP, recently had to resign after he was suspended from the House of Commons for flagrantly lobbying on behalf of his company, where he had a second job. These examples outline how corporations, through their wealth and resources, can lobby politicians and gain influence via this route. It is unlikely that pressure groups would have this same level of wealth and thus cannot compete for influence on an equal playing field. 

However, the opposition may attempt to undermine this argument by emphasising the laws made against political lobbying. For example, the ‘Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014’  was made to enhance the transparency surrounding lobbying. Defenders of the new register claim it will protect ministers and their senior civil servants from confusion and conflicts, as they will now know all the different interests represented by the influencers for hire they meet. On the surface this seems to resolve the undemocratic influence lobbying holds however through further examination it is evident that this system only creates a false sense of transparency because it will not be possible to tell from the information disclosed who is lobbying whom, on what issues, how much time and money is being devoted to influencing the political process, and what tactics are being used. Moreover, the register only covers consultant lobbyists’ direct contacts with ministers and high-ranking officials which in practice is only a small part of lobbying activity. David Cameron did not break his own law, because it is too weak. This allows us to maintain the view that through lobbying, corporations have significantly more influence on government policy than pressure groups. 

In conclusion, despite relevant points arguing for the influence of pressure groups, they’ve been consistently undermined by arguments in favour of corporations so we can conclude that corporations have more influence than pressure groups in government policy. The strongest argument arises from corporations’ use of lobbying as even policies to reduce this influence have been proven unsuccessful. Unless parliament tightens up the laws regarding lobbying and money in politics, corporations will have undue influence. 

By Denise Vidal