This paper examines social media use by cause and sectional interest groups in the European Union. The literature suggests that cause groups should focus on building a constituency more than sectional groups, because they do not offer exclusive benefits to their members. Cause groups face collective action problems more than sectional groups, so they have to take a proactive approach to community building. The nature of the causes cause groups lobby for is also more suitable for protest and thus calls to action. An in‐depth analysis of a random sample of 1,000 tweets by cause and sectional groups reveals differences with respect to social media use. Cause groups use social media to pursue two‐way communication with the public slightly—albeit not significantly—more than sectional groups. Cause groups mobilise the public to take action significantly and substantively more than specific interests.

No abstract

No abstract

We use an experimental survey design to measure how campaign finance regulation influences perceptions of political corruption and trust in politicians when citizens are exposed to information about regulation. Unlike most observational studies, results of this experimental study suggest that knowledge of campaign finance regulation substantially reduces citizens’ perceptions of corruption but has only limited effect on trust in politicians. Findings have crucial implications for public policy. At a time when public cynicism about politics is high, a significant reduction in perceptions of political corruption through successful dissemination of campaign finance regulation would be a boost to the legitimacy of democracies.

This review article suggests that there is a new school of comparative lobbying emerging. However, this development is taking place only gradually. Unlike the earlier studies, which studied corporatism/pluralism, outside lobbying and lobbying regulations, the new comparativists are mainly focusing on inside lobbying strategies and success as a function of country-level factors. Yet, the literature still suffers from underdeveloped theories. I stress that our knowledge can be improved with better theorizing. Better theories, in turn, can be formulated by improving the use of quantitative data gathering, qualitative research, formal models and better communication between researchers working with different methodologies in different disciplines.