Campaign and Election Reform (Library in a Book)

LIBRARY IN A BOOK

CAMPAIGN ANDELECTION REFORM

Harry Henderson

CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION REFORM

Copyright © 2004 by Harry Henderson

Graphs © 2004 by Facts On File, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form

or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or

by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from

the publisher. For information contact:

Facts On File, Inc.

132 West 31st Street

New York NY 10001

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Henderson, Harry, 1951 –

Campaign and election reform / Harry Henderson.

p. cm.—(Library in a book)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-8160-5136-4 (acid-free paper)

1. Elections—United States. 2. Election law—United States. 3. Campaign

funds—United States. 4. Campaign funds—Law and legislation—United States.

I. Title. II. Series.

JK1976.H46 2004

324.6′3′0973—dc21 2003006485

Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk

quantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call

our Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755.

You can find Facts On File on the World Wide Web at http://www.factsonfile.com

Printed in the United States of America

Graphs by Jeremy Eagle

MP Hermitage 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

To my fellow citizens

PART IOVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC 1

Chapter 1Introduction to Campaign and Election Reform 3

Chapter 2The Law and Campaigns and Elections 45

Chapter 3Chronology 104

Chapter 4Biographical Listing 124

Chapter 5Glossary 134

PART IIGUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH 153

Chapter 6How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform 155

Chapter 7Annotated Bibliography 174

Chapter 8Organizations and Agencies 239

CONTENTS

PART IIIAPPENDICES 261

Appendix AStatistics Related to Campaign Contributions 263

Appendix BBuckley v. Valeo (1976) 268

Appendix CThe Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 286

Appendix DLegislative Summary of the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act of 2002 291

Index 298

PART I

OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC

INTRODUCTION TO CAMPAIGN

AND ELECTION REFORM

In recent years, both political scientists and ordinary voters have become in-creasingly concerned about how the process by which Americans choosetheir political leaders works—or does not work. This concern involvesmany facets of the electoral process.

Most readers approaching the topic of campaign and election reform prob-ably think first of the issue of campaign finance reform. Since the mid-1990s,there has been renewed public interest and concern about the role that an in-creasingly large stream of campaign contributions from special interests playsin the electoral process. In all the elections of 2000 (state, local, and federal),about $3 billion was spent by the two major parties, an estimated $460 mil-lion of it being the unregulated funds called “soft money.” Concerns aboutcampaign finance and proposed reform measures include the following:

• how candidates raise campaign funds, and what contributors expect fromthem in return

• whether there should be legal limits on how much money candidates canraise or spend

• the role of corporations, unions, and other well-funded interest groups inraising campaign contributions

• the many loopholes (including so-called soft money) that have made ex-isting campaign finance regulations increasingly ineffective

• how to ensure prompt, timely disclosure of campaign contributions andexpenditures

• whether campaigns should be publicly financed in order to reduce specialinterest contributions while putting candidates on a more nearly levelplaying field

3

CHAPTER 1

• whether media outlets should be required to provide some free airtimefor qualified candidates

Although campaign finance reform was the aspect of electoral reformthat captured the most public attention in the 1990s, it is equally importantto consider how the actual elections are run. In autumn 2000, many votersmay have been concerned with the influence of money in politics, and manyeven felt that issues that really concerned them were not being addressed bythe two major candidates. Nevertheless, most people believed that theirvotes would be properly counted at the polls. The voting technology wasgenerally old-fashioned (employing levers, pencils, or punch cards), butseemed to be basically reliable.

On election night many Americans watched with fascination—and in-creasing dismay—as what had started out as an already close election wasfirst “called” by the media for Republican George W. Bush after havingcome down to the battle for the state of Florida. Late that night Democra-tic candidate Al Gore made the traditional phone call of concession to Bush.About an hour later, however, Gore, having learned that the vote was tooclose to call, withdrew his concession.

In the days that followed a tiny margin of just a few hundred votes infavor of Bush fluctuated as the two sides battled in court over whether therewould be a recount of the votes—and whose votes would be recounted.Amidst all the minutiae dealing with dimpled, hanging, or pregnant“chads,” (partially punched pieces of ballot cards) some important questionsfrom U.S. history could be seen emerging like troubling ghosts.

Much puzzlement surrounded the Electoral College, an institution thatin most elections amounts to a mere formality. Most people had to be reac-quainted with the fact that technically voters do not choose the presidentand vice president directly but rather vote for a slate of electors chosen bythe party. And because in all but two states the electoral vote is awarded ona winner-take-all basis, a candidate could win the popular vote but not getenough electoral votes to become president. (Indeed, with either a systemof proportional allocation of electors or a direct popular vote for president,the battle in Florida would not have happened, and Al Gore would havewon the election, albeit by a narrow margin.)

Another element of the Constitution emerged in the protracted legalduel between the Gore campaign, which asserted the primacy of the rightto vote (and to have one’s vote counted), and the Bush campaign, which re-sponded that selective recounts without uniform standards would result insome voters being denied the “equal protection of the law” guaranteed bythe Fourteenth Amendment. Meanwhile, the alleged “purging” of voterrolls (mainly in heavily minority communities) based on apparently faulty

C a m p a i g n a n d E l e c t i o n R e f o r m

4

criminal records data brought forth the specter of the many subterfuges thathad been used in the old South to keep African Americans from reachingthe polls despite the guarantees given them by the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Bush’s point of view (by abare 5-4 majority) and ordered the recount stopped, effectively giving himthe presidency. This result was decried both by many people who felt thatthe Court had “stolen” the election for Bush and by a number of legal schol-ars who had problems with the reasoning, but of course it stood. However,the 2000 election left enduring issues about the voting process:

• Are many citizens being denied access to the voting booth because offaulty or cumbersome registration procedures?

• Does the use of faulty (or even legitimate) criminal record data dispro-portionately keep blacks and other minorities from voting?

• Are minorities and the poor being disproportionately affected because theirvoting places tend to have the oldest, least reliable voting technology?

• Should there be uniform standards to make sure ballots and voting pro-cedures are not confusing, particularly to first-time voters?

• Is there a way, consistent with the First Amendment, to discourage themedia from predicting the results of an election while some people arestill voting?

• Should there be clear and uniform standards for determining valid votesduring a recount?

Beyond campaign finance reform and addressing the defects in the electoralprocess, there is the question of whether the fundamental way in whichnearly all U.S. legislative elections are organized is truly fair and democra-tic. The Electoral College system of indirect voting seems to many to beanachronistic in an age where citizens are linked by electronic communica-tion, as well as being fundamentally undemocratic.

Both the current Electoral College system and the single-seat legislativedistrict that is the American norm imply a “winner takes all” vote in whicha minority vote, even one of 49 percent, brings no representation. Such asystem makes it almost impossible for third parties and independents to se-cure a lasting foothold in the political arena, since a vote for a minor candi-date is generally perceived to be a wasted vote.

Proposed forms in the fundamental structure of elections include:

• choosing presidential electors either by district or proportionately, ratherthan by a statewide winner-take-all vote

In t r odu c t i on t o Campa ign and E l e c t i on Re f o r m

5

• abolishing the Electoral College entirely and going to a direct popularvote for president

• having larger congressional or state legislative districts with multiple can-didates, with seats awarded to each party in proportion to its vote

• using a preference or cumulative voting system in which voters can markcandidates in order of preference so they can vote for the candidate theytruly favor rather than for “the lesser of two evils”

These three major areas of possible reform—campaign finance, electoralprocedures, and election mechanics—all have potential interactions. For ex-ample, if elections were not winner-take-all, candidates would presumablytarget their spending differently, perhaps focusing more on “selling” theirown qualifications rather than launching negative attacks against theirmajor opponent. This in turn might affect the amount of spending (and thusof contributions) needed.

Concerns about campaigns and elections did not suddenly arise in thelast quarter of the 20th century. To better understand all the issues involvedin election and campaign reform, it is useful to survey how campaigns andelections have changed through the United States’s more than two centuriesof existence.

A SHIFTING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

There is a remarkable continuity in U.S. politics, evidenced by a stream of43 presidents, each duly elected without subsequent violence (except in thecase of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War). Today’s major political partiestrace their origins to the early to mid-19th century. Most of the printed bal-lots used at the polls have changed little in more than 100 years. People stillchoose a single representative to go to the U.S. House of Representativesfrom their district, and they still vote for a slate of electors who havepledged to vote for their party’s candidate for president.

Yet this continuity can be deceptive. Much about the electoral processhas changed in two centuries, including the extent and nature of politicalcampaigning, who pays for campaigns and how, and, perhaps most impor-tant, who is allowed to vote.

“THE PEOPLE” . . . BUT WHICH PEOPLE?

The Declaration of Independence claims to speak for “the People” of theUnited States. Thirteen years later, the Constitution described itself as aneffort of “We, the People” to form “a more perfect Union.” The framers of


6

these documents, following in the footsteps of 17th-century politicalphilosopher John Locke, did indeed believe they were creating a new andmore fitting sort of government based on popular sovereignty and not di-vinely anointed kings.

This government, however, was quite consciously not a democracy in themodern sense. While the ultimate consent of the people lay at the heart ofthe legitimacy of the state, the government would operate through thevoices of a relatively small and select group of people who were consideredto have the education, temperament, and experience to make sound deci-sions about governance and who possessed personal resources that gavethem a stake and responsibility in the community. This elite groupamounted initially to a relatively small number of white males who owned asignificant amount of property.

The now obscure and controversial Electoral College was actually the re-sult of a compromise by the drafters of the Constitution. Fearful that thewhims of a popular majority might threaten liberty and property, some del-egates at the Constitutional Convention wanted Congress to elect the pres-ident, but others believed that this would destroy the balance between thelegislative and executive branches. Others suggested having the state legis-latures choose the nation’s chief executive, but this in turn might make himtoo beholden to the states, weakening the federal government. The solutionthat was adopted, the Electoral College, was closer to the second plan, butplaced a sort of “buffer” in the form of electors between the state legisla-tures and the presidency.

As originally envisaged, each state legislature would choose its slate ofelectors from among the state’s prominent and respected leaders. The elec-tors would then choose the president, based on their assessment of the can-didates and supposedly in a way that would minimize factionalism. Perhapsthe closest modern analogy to this system might be how the board of direc-tors of a corporation is chosen indirectly by the stockholders but in practiceby the chief stakeholders.

Until the 1820s electors were usually chosen by the state legislature, notby a popular vote of the state’s citizens. The hope of avoiding “factions,” aspolitical parties were then called, proved to be overoptimistic. By the early1800s, for example, those who followed Jefferson’s principles had foundedthe Democratic-Republican Party and were opposed by the more conserv-ative Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton.

Nevertheless, political campaigns as we know them today scarcely ex-isted. It is true that candidates had since colonial times been expected tothrow parties for the voters (George Washington’s ledgers, for example, in-clude a 1758 entry for £39 for beer, wine, and liquor to be distributed onelection day for a colonial legislature.) Campaigning was via speeches before


7

small audiences and through the press. The newspapers or broadsheets ofthe day made no pretense of objectivity, mounting vigorous rhetorical (andoften personal) attacks against candidates.

Campaigns were on a small scale, in keeping with the electorate beingsmall and the means of communication limited. Campaigning was much lessnecessary than today, because candidates were drawn from the dominantmen in the community whose influence already guaranteed them the alle-giance of many of the voters. Before the 1820s, when property qualificationsfor voting were common, small “freeholders” who had just enough propertyto be allowed to vote were strongly motivated to follow the wishes of thepowerful merchants and landlords upon whom they depended economically.

In general there were fewer elections than today. Many candidates ran un-opposed because the consensus among the small number of people directlyconcerned had already made its choice—George Washington, for example,was an overwhelming selection. Also, many officeholders (such as judges)were appointed by the governor rather than elected as they are today.

Given these factors, the laws prohibiting outright bribery and vote-buying were probably reasonably effective. Such corruption as existed wasunsystematic and on a small scale.

POPULISM AND THE EXPANDED FRANCHISE

By the 1820s, however, the political landscape was beginning to change.Property or taxpaying requirements for voting were being eased or eliminatedin many states, including New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kentucky. This re-sulted in the franchise, or right to vote, being extended to most white males.

Meanwhile, regional interests began to diverge, and political issues suchas tariffs and slavery began to separate the industrializing, trade-centeredstates of New England from the agrarian slaveholding South and the ex-pansion-minded West. This meant that national parties had to appeal to avariety of conflicting constituencies. Presidential hopefuls had to thinkmore strategically in order to have the best chance at garnering a majorityof electoral votes.

As a result of having to appeal to a larger and more varied constituency,political campaigns became more complicated. Thus in 1828, Martin VanBuren served Democratic challenger Andrew Jackson as what we wouldtoday call a campaign manager. In the Jackson campaign, newspapers werecultivated and fed suitable material, special pamphlets were widely distrib-uted, and speaking tours were organized. This coordinated campaign suc-cessfully spread Jackson’s populist message, securing him the presidency in1828 over incumbent President John Quincy Adams, a National Republicanwho ran a more traditional campaign.


8

Naturally the new style of campaigning cost considerably more money.By the 1830s most congressional seats were being regularly contested by thetwo major parties (Democrats and Whigs), with perhaps $2,000–3,000 in allbeing spent on a given race. Most contributions to a candidate came from afew wealthy backers. However, corporations also became involved in cam-paigns: in the election of 1832 the Bank of the United States spent $42,000to try to defeat Andrew Jackson in the 1832 election. (After his victory, Jack-son abolished the bank.)

RECONSTRUCTION AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Following the defeat of the South in the Civil War, three constitutionalamendments were ratified. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.The next two, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, would eventuallyhave a momentous effect on voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment guar-anteed the right to vote to all citizens regardless of race (though in practiceit was limited to men); it was, of course, specifically intended to give the voteto freed black slaves of the South. The Fourteenth Amendment did not di-rectly refer to voting, but its language would be ultimately applied to manyaspects of electoral law (as indeed to many other legal issues):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the ju-risdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein theyreside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priv-ileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State de-prive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nordeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 1876 election, in which electoral votes were disputed in South Car-olina, Florida, and Louisiana, and the presidency eventually awarded byCongress to Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel J. Tilden, resulted in a po-litical accommodation that led to federal troops being withdrawn from theSouth. This effectively ended the Reconstruction period in which manyblacks had participated in politics for the first time, even holding legislativeand congressional seats. White domination quickly returned, and the effec-tive disenfranchisement of southern blacks would endure until the 1960s.

THE GILDED AGE AND THE RISE

OF MONEY POLITICS

The 1880s is often called the Gilded Age because of the opulent furnishingsavailable to the wealthy new industrial class of coal, steel, oil, and railroadbarons. The population and economy had expanded rapidly in the decades


9

following the Civil War. Companies such as Carnegie Steel and Standard(Rockefeller) Oil enjoyed monopolies, but those monopolies depended inpart on government acquiescence and help in suppressing labor unrest. Therailroads counted on large government subsidies for expansion and on theability to “fix” freight rates. This interdependence between the big businessand the federal government naturally led to large amounts of corporate con-tributions to officeholders, usually favoring the Republicans, who tended tosupport business interests.

There were other sources of political power in the Gilded Age. Thegrowing immigrant communities in cities such as New York and Chicagowere organized by political bosses who provided jobs and various services inexchange for votes. The city political machines, usually Democratic, wouldbe considered corrupt by modern standards, with the bosses siphoning offhuge amounts of public funds for private use. However, the arrangementdid give immigrant and other working-class communities some stake in thepolitical process. The wiser bosses knew that they had to continue to pro-vide benefits for the voters in order to retain their loyalty.

Under the bosses, electoral corruption can be regarded as systematic andinstitutionalized. The most notorious, Boss Tweed and his cronies, mayhave diverted as much as $200 million from New York City’s coffers be-tween 1865 and 1871. In the heyday of New York’s Tammany Hall (roughly1860–1930) there was little suspense as to the outcome of city elections orin who would be sent to the state house in Albany.

At the federal level, by the 1880s “assessments” or regular fees paid bygovernment workers to the party in power were commonplace. Indeed, it isestimated that by 1878, 90 percent of the money raised by Republican con-gressional campaign committees came from assessments. The Democratslagged behind but mainly because of lack of opportunity given the Repub-lican dominance during the period.

The political corruption of the Gilded Age inspired new political reformefforts, however. After President James A. Garfield was assassinated in 1881by a disappointed job seeker, reformers began to call for the establishment ofnew federal and state civil service systems, and they met with some success.

The Pendleton Act of 1883, which established the federal civil servicesystem, prohibited political parties from assessing contributions from gov-ernment workers in exchange for their continued employment. (There hadbeen modest previous efforts to outlaw such assessments, such as an 1867law prohibiting the collecting of assessments from workers in navy yards.)The civil service reforms moved a gradually increasing number of govern-ment jobs from being appointive (and thus subject to patronage, or the ap-pointing of supporters after a party comes to power), to being selected onthe basis of merit examinations.


10

Beyond the dominance of big-city politics by political machines, corrup-tion at the polls could also be carried out in piecemeal fashion. In one no-torious case in the 1888 election, a letter from the Republican NationalCommittee to Indiana party officials recommended that “floaters,” or vot-ers willing to sell their votes to the GOP candidate, be organized intogroups of five, each to be escorted into the polling place by a party workerwho was to make sure they voted as promised.

Vote-selling schemes worked because voting was not done in private andballots were not secret. The ballots were printed by each party using a dis-tinctive size and color, and a voter chose either a Democratic or Republicanballot to drop into the ballot box in full view of bystanders. It was thus easyfor the buyer of votes to verify their receipt.

Starting in the late 1870s, however, and thanks to the efforts of reformerssuch as Richard Henry Dana III in Massachusetts, an increasing number ofstates began to adopt the “Australian” ballot (named for its first being adoptedby that country). In this system, all voters are given a ballot printed by theelection authorities, not the political parties. The ballot lists the candidates foreach office and is usually marked by the voter in an enclosed polling booth.Since party poll-watchers could not tell how someone had actually voted, out-right vote-buying became increasingly difficult.

States also began to fight voting corruption by what were called “public-ity laws” (today they would be called disclosure laws). These laws requiredcandidates to report their campaign expenditures. However, the electoralreform campaign at the state level made slow headway. By the end of the19th century, 18 states had enacted disclosure laws of some sort, but threehad then repealed them.

Corruption in cities was also being fought by new groups. In 1875, Gov-ernor Samuel Tilden appointed James Coolidge Carter to draw up a newmodel charter for city governments in New York State. In 1894, Carterfounded the National Municipal League to promote better city governments.

Following the corruption-plagued 1888 election, reformers began tomake bolder calls for campaign regulation. The liberal magazine The Nationeditorialized that “the next step in reform” should be “a comprehensive lawlimiting the expenditures of candidates and requiring a sworn statement ofall such expenditures after election.”1

THE PROGRESSIVE ERA AND THE BEGINNINGS OF

FEDERAL CAMPAIGN REFORM

The modest state and local electoral and campaign reforms of the late19th century had addressed some of the “retail” vote-buying and otherpolling place corruption. However, the reformers had been able to do


11

nothing to curb what many observers saw as the growing corporate influ-ence on, if not control of, the federal government. The huge industrialand railroad trusts and the wealthy individuals who controlled them hadbegun to make a growing number of contributions of $50,000 or more.Contributors included famous names such as John Jacob Astor, Jay Gould,and John Wanamaker.

Party committees increasingly turned to such “fat cat” contributors forthe major part of their campaign funds. For example, Mark Hanna, WilliamMcKinley’s campaign manager, successfully raised millions of dollars for the1896 and 1900 campaigns, mostly from big businesses that wanted favorabletreatment from government.

In the 1904 campaign, Democratic contender Judge Alton B. Parker ac-cused his opponent, the flamboyant and popular President Theodore Roo-sevelt, of having accepted large contributions from big corporations.Roosevelt denied the charge at first, but after the election several majorcompanies admitted that they had contributed to the Republicans. The re-sulting uproar galvanized Roosevelt, who had previously in his career cam-paigned to reform New York municipal and state government, to call forfederal campaign finance reform. Meanwhile, a citizens’ group called theNational Publicity Law Organization (NPLO) was founded by reformerPerry Belmont to lobby for disclosure and limits on campaign spending.

Such grassroots activism was typical of what became known as the Pro-gressive Era. Other Progressive reform efforts would lead to the adoption ofthe initiative and referendum in many states, allowing voters to enact laws di-rectly, bypassing legislatures that they believed to be corrupt and ineffectual.The passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in1913 also promoted a more direct form of democracy by requiring that sen-ators be elected directly by popular vote rather than by the state legislature.

In 1907, Congress finally responded to the growing pressure for federalcampaign reform. Congressman Benjamin “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, re-marking that congressmen had become “instrumentalities and agents ofcorporations,” reintroduced and successfully passed a campaign finance billthat had stalled in an earlier Congress. The law, called the Tillman Act, pro-hibited corporations and national banks from contributing to federal cam-paigns. However, it did nothing to curb contributions from wealthyindividuals.

A number of modern-sounding proposals were voiced by those seekingfurther reform. For example, William Bourke Cockran, a Democratic rep-resentative from New York, suggested that public money be used to pay forat least a portion of campaign expenses. President Theodore Roosevelt ex-pressed some interest in the concept, but it would not be taken up by Con-gress until the 1970s.


12

Meanwhile the NPLO had continued to agitate for campaign disclosureregulations. The Republican majority in Congress passed the Publicity Actof 1910, which required the reporting of all receipts and expenditures by na-tional party committees or committees operating in more than one state.However the reports did not have to be made until after the election.

After the 1910 election, when the Democrats took control of the Houseand had gained seats in the U.S. Senate, they tried to amend the PublicityAct so that reports would have to be filed before the election. At this pointthe Republicans tried to finesse the Democrats by proposing that disclosurerequirements be extended down to individual congressional districts and toparty primaries as well as the general election. The Republicans believedthat such intrusion would never be acceptable to southern Democrats whoespoused states’ rights, and so the bill would become dead.

However, the Republican strategy backfired. Congress adopted the 1911Amendments to the Publicity Act, incorporating the “extreme” provisionsthat had been inserted by the Republicans. The new provisions included thefirst federal campaign-spending ceilings—$10,000 for Senate races and$5,000 for the House, or the amount established by state law, whichever wasless.

In 1918, however, Truman Newberry, who had defeated Henry Ford inthe Michigan Republican primary, was convicted of massively violating thestate limit on spending in the primary election. Newberry challenged hisconviction in court, and the Supreme Court in Newberry v. United States(1921) ruled that the authority given Congress in the Constitution to regu-late the electoral process did not extend to primary elections held by the po-litical parties.

TEAPOT DOME AND LEAKY LAWS

During the 1920s, corruption again surfaced on a large scale during theTeapot Dome scandal, in which oil companies gave large amounts of money(in a nonelection year) to federal officials in exchange for leases allowingthem to extract oil from federal land. Public outcry again put pressure onCongress, which passed the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925.

The new law largely kept the framework of the 1910–11 regulations, ex-cept for dropping the regulation of primaries to conform to the SupremeCourt’s ruling and patching up the loophole used in Teapot Dome by re-quiring that all multistate political committees must file quarterly reportsthat included all contributions of $100 or more, including in nonelectionyears. (The spending limits for Senate and House races were raised to$25,000 and $5,000, respectively, unless lower amounts were specified bystate law.)


13

Although the requirements of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act soundedtougher than their predecessors, in practice the regulations had little effecton the flow of money from special interests to campaigns. The required dis-closures had only to be filed, not published for the general public, and re-porters or reformers seeking them often ran into delays and obstacles.Further neither an enforcement mechanism nor specific penalties for viola-tions were included in the 1925 law, so parties and committees often simplyignored the requirements. The spending limits were equally ineffective anddid very little to curb the flow of campaign money. Because the limits ap-plied only to each individual committee, parties could simply create severalcommittees for the same race and thus spend multiples of the limits. Moneycould also be shuffled around or contributed in multiple small amounts toevade disclosure. All in all, no one ever went to jail for violating the FederalCorrupt Practices Act during the nearly 50 years it was in effect, and onlytwo representatives were expelled from office for violations.

REGULATING UNIONS

Corporations were not the only major donors to political campaigns. Dur-ing the 1930s, the ascendancy of President Franklin Roosevelt and his NewDeal policies brought labor unions into greater political involvement. Fur-ther, the growing legion of federal government workers recruited by theNew Deal became a natural source for contributors and volunteers for theDemocratic Party.

Roosevelt’s Republican opponents responded to this growing Democra-tic power base by seeking to limit the political power of unions. Gainingsome Democratic allies, advocates of regulating unions passed the HatchAct of 1939 (also called the Clean Politics Act), which included provisionsthat targeted the political activities of government workers.

The Pendleton Act of 1883 had prevented government workers frombeing forced to contribute to political campaigns and forbade them to solicitcontributions. However, the Pendleton Act and its later extensions did notcover all federal workers. The Hatch Act made it illegal for any governmentemployee to solicit political contributions, drying up a major source of con-tributions to state and local party committees (mainly Democrats).

The 1940 amendments to the Hatch Act imposed a contribution limit onindividuals of $5,000 per year total to all federal candidates and campaigncommittees. Multistate party committees were also limited to receiving orspending a total of no more than $3 million a year. But while the restrictionson government workers were reasonably effective, the contribution andspending limits, like those in the 1925 law, were ineffective because theycould be easily evaded by setting up multiple committees or sending the


14

money directly to state and local party committees, which were not subjectto the regulations.

Meanwhile, unions outside the government sector were still free to makepolitical contributions, and they increasingly saw a stake in supporting thepro-labor New Deal coalition that Roosevelt had built. One major union,the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), devised a new vehicle forcontributing to election campaigns, the political action committee, now fa-miliarly known as a PAC. By bundling together many small contributions, aPAC can gain greater attention from politicians on matters that its membersconsider to be important. PACs would soon be adopted by corporations anda variety of nonprofit groups as well.

During World War II the Republicans had made gains in Congress, andin 1943 they succeeded in passing the Smith-Connally Act (a law giving thepresident the power to take control of defense plants during strikes or lock-outs) over President Roosevelt’s veto. Although the Smith-Connally Act wasa wartime measure that expired automatically after the war, in 1946 the Re-publicans, having gained control of Congress, passed the Taft-Hartley Actof 1947 (also called the Labor Relations Act of 1947). A provision of Taft-Hartley made the ban on political contributions from union treasuries per-manent, achieving symmetry with the ban on use of corporate treasuryfunds, which dated back to 1907.

In practice, banning direct political contributions from unions has nothurt their political power very much. A union member who disagrees withthe union’s political positions can choose to pay only the portion of his orher dues that is associated with the union’s core functions such as collectivebargaining, representing workers in disputes with the employer, and so on.Because most workers do not make this distinction, it has not deprivedunions of significant political funds, which can be funneled to candidatesthrough a PAC.

EXPANDING THE ELECTORATE

None of the attempts at campaign reform in the late 19th and early 20thcenturies touched the fact that only a minority of American adults (mostlywhite males) could vote. The expansions of the electorate would be achievedonly through protracted struggle.

Female Suffrage

The largest group in the population, women, could not vote in most elec-tions. The unfairness of this situation in a country whose founding docu-ment said that “all men are created equal” was remarked upon by manyreformers, including Abigail Adams, wife of President John Quincy Adams.


15

In 1848, the first U.S. women’s rights convention was held, at SenecaFalls, New York. Early leaders such as Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth CadyStanton articulated the connection between the abolition of chattel slaveryand the political and legal subordination of women. When slavery was abol-ished and the vote extended to African Americans following the Civil War,many women activists believed that it was only a matter of a short time be-fore women, too, would be “emancipated.” But because the newly ratifiedFifteenth Amendment did not mention sex, and the courts did not find thatdenying women the right to vote violated the equal protection clause of theFourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing all American women the right tovote seemed to require adding explicit language to the Constitution.

Because the conduct of elections is primarily a state responsibility, stateswere free to give women the vote. By 1890, women had full suffrage—theability to vote in all elections—only in four western states: Idaho, Wyoming,Utah, and Colorado. About half the states in the union, however, did allowwomen limited voting rights. This often meant that women could vote instate and local, but not federal, elections. In more extreme cases, it meantthat women could only vote in certain elections, such as those for schoolboards, since children were considered to be part of the proper “province”of women.

In 1890, suffrage activists such as Susan B. Anthony and Carrie ClintonLane Chapman Catt united two earlier groups to form the National Amer-ican Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Lobbying for a suffrageamendment now became more effective, in part because as more states al-lowed women to vote for congressional candidates, more representativeshad to consider the wishes of their female constituents.

In 1914, the attempt at passing a suffrage amendment failed to gain a sim-ple majority, let alone the two-thirds majority needed to pass an amendmenton to the states for ratification. But the service of millions of women in warindustries and military support functions during World War I provided apowerful new argument for giving women the full rights of citizenship.

Finally, in 1920, 14 years after Susan B. Anthony’s death, the NineteenthAmendment to the Constitution was ratified, giving women the right tovote in all elections. The victorious suffrage activists promptly founded theLeague of Women Voters to help educate newly enfranchised women aboutpolitical issues. The organization would also become an influential voice forpolitical reform.

Although predictions that women’s suffrage would lead to a more en-lightened politics (because of the supposed ameliorating influence of the“nobler sex”) did not come to pass, the swelling of the electorate by millionsof women did have an effect on political campaigns. Besides now having totake women’s concerns more into account, candidates also needed to run


16

larger campaigns in order to reach a much larger electorate. New technol-ogy was employed as the telephone and radio were used to carry politicalmessages. Larger campaigns meant the necessity of securing more andlarger campaign contributions.

Voting Rights for African Americans

African Americans supposedly had been granted the right to vote after theCivil War by the Fifteenth Amendment—and the same Fourteenth Amend-ment that affirmed their citizenship was also intended to protect them fromdiscrimination by public officials, including in such matters as registration andvoting. The reality, particularly in the South, would prove quite different.

Following the end of Reconstruction in 1876, southern legislatures,often in the guise of electoral reform, instituted a number of measures cal-culated to keep African Americans (who were already restricted by regula-tions called “black codes”) away from the polls. These mechanisms includedthe poll tax (which also excluded poor whites) and the literacy test. The lat-ter was often combined with a “grandfather clause” that exempted from theliteracy requirement all persons who had (or whose ancestors had had) theright to vote before 1866. This in effect exempted all whites.

Another tactic was to exclude blacks from the primary election. Since theDemocratic Party was so dominant in the South, this meant that even if ablack person could somehow vote in the general election, his vote would notreally have any effect. If all else failed, there was always physical intimida-tion or outright violence.

Gradually, however, the dormant words of the Fourteenth and FifteenthAmendments began to have their effect. Although in Sproule v. Fredericks(1892) the Supreme Court showed a disinclination to come to terms withthe discriminatory effect of southern electoral laws, a group of cases in the20th century revealed a gradually changing course. In Guinn v. United States(1915) the grandfather clause was declared to violate the Fifteenth Amend-ment guarantee of suffrage for blacks. The “white primary” was declaredunconstitutional in Nixon v. Herndon (1927), which had the important fea-ture of applying the more general principles of the Fourteenth Amendmentrather than the Fifteenth.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first federal civil rights legislation sinceReconstruction, gave the attorney general of the United States the power tofile suits in federal court against state or local authorities that denied blackstheir right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment. However, there seemedlittle political will to enforce the act—only four suits were filed in the firstthree years after its passage. A 1960 federal civil rights act fared little better.As of 1965, only 35.5 percent of eligible black voters were registered to votein the southern states, about half the percentage of whites.


17

In the mid-1960s, however, the civil rights struggle that had been wagedon a broad front by African-American leaders and citizens and their whitesupporters bore much more substantial legislative fruit. The federal CivilRights Act of 1964 outlawed racial discrimination in education, public ac-commodations, and employment. One provision also outlawed the use ofliteracy tests as a qualification for voting unless they could be shown to benondiscriminatory.

The electoral equivalent of this monumental civil rights law was the Vot-ing Rights Act of 1965. It included a blanket prohibition against any votingqualification, standard, or procedure that had a discriminatory effect againstany racial group. In specially designated jurisdictions that had the most ex-plicit record of discrimination, the use of literacy tests was suspended forfive years and any new state voting regulations would now have to be ap-proved as nondiscriminatory by a federal court. Federal observers were sentto registration offices and polling places to watch for discrimination.

In 1970 and 1975, further amendments to the Voting Rights Act madethe ban on literacy tests permanent and extended protection against dis-crimination to ethnic as well as racial groups. In some cases, ballot materi-als would also have to be provided in non-English languages.

Unlike the previous civil rights legislation, the 1965 act and its amend-ments were aggressively enforced by the Department of Justice in the late1960s and 1970s. As a result of this enforcement and registration drives inblack communities, the percentage of blacks who were registered to vote in-creased by more than 50 percent in just a few years.

Dividing the Electoral Pie

Being able to vote does not guarantee that a group can elect members of itscommunity to office. Congressional races are organized by district, and aslong as most whites continued to vote for white candidates, a white major-ity in a district meant that blacks would probably not be elected.

Traditionally the reapportionment, or redrawing of congressional dis-tricts after each 10-year census, was done to favor the party in power by try-ing to arrange district boundaries so voters for that party have a majority inas many districts as possible—or conversely, supporters of the opposingparty might be packed into just a few districts. (This practice is called “ger-rymandering,” after Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, who approvedthe first such scheme in 1812.)

Starting in the 1960s, courts began to rule that legislative districts couldnot be drawn in a way that discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity. InGomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) the Supreme Court ruled that black voterscould not be excluded by redrawing the boundaries of Tuskegee, Alabama,


18

because that violated the rights of all citizens to equal protection of the lawsunder the Fourteenth Amendment. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) theSupreme Court went farther, agreeing with the argument of political scien-tist Chandler Davidson that judges had a legitimate interest in making surethat districts were not redrawn in such a way as to minimize or “dilute” thevoting power of blacks and other minorities. In Reynolds v. Sims (1964) theequal protection principle had also been extended to requiring that districtshave the same population. For example, suppose one legislative district hada population of 400,000 and another had only 80,000, with each districtelecting one representative. This means that each voter in the more popu-lous district has a 1/400,000 share in the electoral process, while a voter inthe district with the smaller population would have a 1/80,000 share. Eachof these latter voters could be said to have five times the voting power—orput another way, the votes in the more populous district had been “diluted”to one-fifth strength. This unequal treatment was held to violate the Four-teenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

Scholars and advocates such as Laughlin McDonald pushed to extend theapplication of the Voting Rights Act through their writing and litigation. Aspart of the interpretation and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, theJustice Department began to require that past discrimination be remediedby drawing districts in such a way as to increase (or at least preserve) thenumber of seats held by blacks and other minorities. This has been done bycreating districts with enough minority voters so that if they vote more orless as a bloc they can elect a member of their group.

Creating such “majority-minority” districts through so-called racial ger-rymandering has been controversial, however, especially when the resultingdistricts had bizarrely distorted shapes. In Shaw v. Reno (1993) the SupremeCourt ruled that a North Carolina district was unconstitutional because itsdrawing was motivated by racial concerns to the exclusion of such factors ascompactness, contiguousness, and the historical contours of communities.State reapportionment commissions are now often caught between the needto comply with Justice Department directives and not going “too far” acrossa poorly defined boundary of acceptability.

REFORM IN THE MODERN ERA

As more potential voters entered the electorate, the scope and complexity ofelection campaigns continued to increase. As the 1950s and 1960s pro-gressed, the existing campaign finance regulations became less effective dueto important changes in how campaigns were conducted and how moneywas spent.


19

One significant trend was the increasing extent to which candidates op-erated independently of party leadership. Candidates increasingly estab-lished their own committees to raise campaign contributions, and thedecentralization and proliferation of the money-raising machinery made iteven harder for regulators and watchdog groups to determine whether con-tributions were proper.

Meanwhile, television was becoming increasingly important as a means ofcommunicating with voters. Television changed the way voters perceived can-didates. In the first televised presidential debate, the 1960 confrontation be-tween John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the youthful-looking Kennedywas perceived by a balance of television watchers to have bested an older,strained-looking Nixon. However, radio listeners and newspaper readers gavethe edge in their assessment to Nixon. Increasingly, though, candidates inorder to be competitive had to buy significant amounts of television time.

The brief television ads that became a staple of modern campaigning wereconsiderably more expensive than radio or print advertising. Especially be-fore the advent of cable, space on the three broadcast networks was a scarceresource that was sold at a premium. The need for campaigns to be compet-itive in the television “air wars” in turn raised their need for money. In the1956 election, out of a total of about $155 million in campaign spending,only $9.8 million (about 6.5 percent) was used for radio and television ad-vertising. Just 12 years later, in the 1968 election, total spending had nearlydoubled to $300 million and, at $58.9 million, spending on broadcast mediahad soared to 20 percent. Additionally, more and more campaigns were hir-ing expensive professional pollsters, speechwriters, media consultants, andother specialists in an attempt to gain an edge over the opposition.

In the early 1960s, President Kennedy formed the Commission on Cam-paign Costs and charged it with determining how the high cost of cam-paigning and the resulting distortions in the political system might bebrought under control. In 1962, the commission’s report offered far-reach-ing proposals for reform, including providing public funding for candidatesthrough a system of matching funds. However, Congress did not respond tothese recommendations. Even when Senator Russell Long (Dem.-Louisiana) managed to get a bill creating a presidential election campaignfund through Congress in 1966, a coalition of opponents managed to effec-tively kill it by postponing its effect indefinitely.

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1971

Despite the failure of the Long bill, the high cost of campaigning remained aconcern, especially to the politicians themselves. Indeed, the Democrats inparticular were concerned that they might no longer be able to compete with


20

the Republicans, who had outspent them by more than two to one in the 1968presidential election, mainly by attracting more support from big business.

In 1971, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed the beginnings of thefirst comprehensive campaign finance reform since 1925. The Federal Elec-tion Campaign Act (which went into effect in time for the 1972 election) at-tempted to address the main failures of the existing system. It included alimit on how much money wealthy candidates could give to their own cam-paigns (ranging from $50,000 for the presidential race down to $35,000 forSenate candidates and $25,000 for the House.)

Since broadcast media was the fastest-growing campaign expense, limitswere placed on how much candidates could spend on television and radio: amaximum of $50,000 or $0.10 times the voting-age population of the rele-vant district. Further, no more than 60 percent of the media spending couldbe on broadcast as opposed to print media. Disclosure was also made moreeffective with a requirement that all contributions of $5,000 or more be re-ported within 48 hours of receipt.

Despite the new limits, the torrent of campaign money continued togrow, to a total of $425 million in 1972. Evidently the system still had suf-ficient loopholes to allow special interests to make their presence felt. How-ever, when the Watergate scandal broke, with its revelation of secret slushfunds used to finance break-ins and electronic surveillance of Nixon’s oppo-nents, Congress stepped up the spending restraints through a series ofamendments to FECA.

The FECA amendments of 1974 essentially rewrote the law, setting spe-cific limits on the contributions and expenditures allowable for each type ofcampaign entity—individuals, national party organizations, and politicalcommittees. The restrictions on media spending were replaced with limitson the total spending by presidential, Senate, and House campaigns. Therestrictions were to be enforced by a new agency, the Federal ElectionCommission (FEC).

The new provisions even included the first actual federal system of pub-lic campaign financing, in which candidates who met certain requirementswould qualify to have their contributions matched from funds from a vol-untary taxpayer check-off. Taxpayers could also deduct part of their smallcontributions to candidates and certain committees—local and state as wellas federal. (This system had originally appeared in the Revenue Act of 1971and the language was resurrected from the stalled Long bill of 1966.)

However just as the 1976 election campaign was well under way and ob-servers were waiting to see whether the new dike against excessive spendingwould hold, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in. In its Buckley v. Valeo deci-sion (1976), the Court ruled that because contributions to candidates wereonly indirectly related to their ability to communicate with voters, limiting


21

them did not impermissibly infringe on First Amendment free speechrights. The limits on spending by candidates were declared to be unconsti-tutional. The Court, by a narrow 5-4 majority, ruled that spending was,given modern realities, essential to getting a political message to the public.Thus “a restriction on the amount of money a person or a group can spendon political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expressionby restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration,and the size of the audience reached.” The public interest in reining in cam-paign financing abuses could not be allowed to override a candidate’s rightto speak effectively, and effective speech required money.

With its spending restrictions gutted, FECA would not be watertightenough to prevent campaign spending from continuing to increase dramat-ically. The public financing provision did encourage some candidates to ac-cept voluntary spending limits, and with the disclosure requirements andreports now being systematically compiled and made available by the FEC,the public at least had a better idea of how much each candidate was re-ceiving and from what types of sources.

THE ERA OF “SOFT MONEY”

After FECA took effect, party leaders began to complain that its restrictionstoo greatly limited the amount of money they could spend on “party-build-ing” activities such as registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns. Such ac-tivities were an obviously important way to support the party’s entire ticket,even though they were not associated with any particular candidate.

Further, because the cost of media representation kept increasing, partieshad to spend an increasing percentage of the funds they were allowed togive to candidates on media advertising. Increasingly, media “buys” wouldcome from independent committees that were not under the control of theparty leadership and (theoretically, at least) not supervised by the candi-dates. FECA thus seemed to have the unintended consequence of reducingthe importance and effectiveness of the political parties. This in turn meantthat platforms and issues were likely to diminish in importance compared to“personality politics.” Complaints about a deterioration in the quality of po-litical discourse followed.

In 1979, Congress adopted additional amendments to FECA. Many ofthem amounted to simplifying and streamlining the reporting and disclo-sure procedures. The complaints about the choking-off of party influencewere addressed by creating an exception to the party spending limits. Theparties would now be able to spend “federal” (that is, FECA regulated)funds on party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote programs with-out having to count it within the limit for direct contributions to candidates.


22

One problem was that many states allowed types of contributions (suchas from corporations and unions) that were not permitted for federal cam-paigns. However, in a typical election, a local party organization is workingfor local and state candidates as well as trying to coordinate with the na-tional party organization to support the party’s federal candidates. Certaincosts such as office expenses and administrative costs were necessary for allthese levels of campaign but could not be easily parceled among them.Therefore, in a 1976 advisory opinion, the FEC said that a portion of “non-federal” funds (those not legal under federal law) could be used for such ag-gregate expenses, with the portion determined by a complicated formulabased on the proportion of federal to state elections being held in a givenyear. The use of nonfederal funds was not allowed for general party-build-ing activities.

About two years later, however, when the Republican State Committeeof Kansas asked the FEC to approve the use of nonfederal funds for voterregistration and get-out-the-vote activities, the FEC relented and allowedsuch use under a similar proportional scheme. (This decision was contro-versial even within the FEC, with one commissioner, Thomas E. Harris,warning that party-building activities would now be able to be largely fi-nanced using money not regulated by the federal government as long as sep-arate federal and nonfederal accounts were maintained.)

This ability to divert contributions outside the purview of federal regu-lations soon opened the floodgates wide, and the resulting torrent wouldgrow in the coming two decades. Under the new dispensation, a nationalparty committee could solicit unlimited donations and redistribute them tostate committees to pay for registration, get-out-the-vote, and other activi-ties in the races where they would do the national ticket the most good andhelp secure key congressional races. Since state restrictions on campaign fi-nance were often much weaker than federal ones, such “strategic redeploy-ment” met few obstacles. The resulting funds that were no longer subject tofederal regulation became known as soft money. In turn, by using softmoney to pay for party expenses that previously had to be paid for with hard(regulated) money, a considerable amount of hard money was now freed upto be given directly to candidates.

Critics were soon observing that weak oversight and enforcement by theFEC was only adding to the new money glut. The FEC gave parties manypossible options for allocating money, and thus parties could pick whicheverone was most advantageous in a given situation. Watchdogs trying to trackthe flow of money were stymied because soft money was not subject toFECA disclosure rules, only to the laws of the state where the money wasspent, which were often weak or even nonexistent. Not surprisingly the useof soft money became a growing staple of political campaigns starting in the1980s.


23

As a result of pressure from the court in Common Cause v. Federal ElectionCommission (1987) the FEC did tighten the disclosure rules in 1991, requir-ing that all party committees using soft money in federal elections file reg-ular reports listing all contributors of $200 or more. The permissibleallocation methods and formulas were also tightened. Nevertheless, theflow of soft money continued to increase—in the 1992 election cycle, thetwo major parties together raised about $83 million in soft money, aboutfour times that raised in 1984.

WHO ARE THE CONTRIBUTORS?

By the mid-1990s, both parties had perfected the solicitation and spendingof large soft-money donations from corporations, unions, and wealthy indi-viduals. According to the watchdog group Common Cause,2 the 10 largestcontributors of soft money from 1989 to 1998 came from the following in-dustries or sectors:

Securities: $37,434,557Real Estate: 32,279,066Entertainment and Media: 30,799,694Insurance: 30,020,891Labor Unions: 29,460,380Oil and Gas: 29,336,098Lawyers and Lobbyists: 24,063,874Telecommunications: 19,134,767Transportation: 18,026,928Pharmaceuticals: 17,991,586Tobacco: 17,789,601

Industry groups generally make contributions because of proposed regula-tions or other issues (such as favorable tax treatment) affecting their industry.But who are the people who make individual contributions to candidates?

According to a 1997 study by the Joyce Foundation of Chicago of indi-vidual contributors to the 1996 elections, 95 percent of the contributorswere white and 81 percent had incomes of more than $100,000—makingthem less than ten percent of the population.3 Thus the overwhelming ma-jority of Americans do not make political donations.

Donors can have a variety of motivations—to express their opinion on anissue, to gain access or attention from a candidate, or even to socialize withother donors. According to the Joyce survey, only a minority of donors saidthat their main motivation was to “secure favorable treatment or to advancesome economic interest.”


24

PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD CAMPAIGN

FINANCE REFORM

Whatever the motivations of group or individual donors may be, the ma-jority of voters believe that donors have access to the government that or-dinary people do not. A detailed survey of North Carolina voters, forexample, found that 91 percent of respondents agreed that money fromcampaign contributions influences the public policy decisions their electedofficials make, and 72 percent felt that politicians spent more time raisingmoney than working to solve their constituents’ problems. Thirty-two per-cent of survey respondents agreed that high campaign costs kept averagecitizens from running for office, while 31 percent agreed that there was aproblem with special interest groups giving money to gain influence withcandidates. As to what to do about the situation, the largest proportion (29percent) thought that the most effective measure would be to limit theamount of money candidates can spend in an election. Nineteen percent fo-cused on full, prompt disclosure of all contributions, and nine percent fa-vored providing public financing for candidates who did not accept privatecontributions from special interests.4

When respondents to a 1996 Gallup poll were asked whether they fa-vored or opposed particular reform provisions, 79 percent favored a limit onspending by House and Senate candidates, with only 19 percent opposed.Eighty-one percent supported a ban on campaign contributions from “busi-ness and industry,” 69 percent opposed contributions from labor unions, 71percent wanted to limit contributions by individuals, and 67 percent favoredlimiting a candidate’s ability to contribute to his or her own campaign.5

One paradox about campaign finance, however, is that while voters seemto agree that it is a problem, when asked to rank campaign reform amongmore specific issues such as abortion, social security, or tax reform, theygenerally place it near the bottom of the list. It is perhaps more a chronicissue than a crisis. After all, interest in the process of politics tends to be thepreserve of “policy wonks,” not the average voter, except perhaps when out-rage is provoked by revelations such as that the Clinton campaign had al-lowed large contributors to stay overnight in the White House’s Lincolnbedroom.

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM DEBATE

The debate over campaign finance includes a variety of aspects and issues, butthe most basic one is whether campaign contributions and/or expenditures


25

should be limited at all. If so, what kinds of activities should be regulated orprohibited entirely?

SHOULD SPENDING BE LIMITED?

The growth of campaign spending in general and the use of soft money inparticular have resulted in a perceived failure of campaign finance reform asembodied in the FECA of 1971. Indeed, by the mid-1990s the situation insome ways seemed almost like that of the early part of the century, with theadded dimension of the spending now being on a huge scale. As LarryMakinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics,lamented: “In the world we live in today, practically speaking, there are nolimits on what you can give to a campaign. . . . We are looking at a shrink-ing pie of reportable money, and it’s frightening.”6

Politicians themselves also complained about their frustration with hav-ing to continually play catch-up with the demand for campaign funds. AsRepresentative Charles W. Stenholm (Dem.-Texas), complained: “Goingdown, having to spend hour after hour on personal calls, I hate doing that.I did it [in 1998] because I had to.”7 Stenholm, who had unsuccessfully at-tempted to pass new reform laws in the 1980s, added, “I don’t think you canbuy public policy. I’m more concerned about the time spent raisingmoney.”8

As the debate on the campaign finance issue heated up in the later 1990s,a number of arguments were raised for and against strict new regulations.Advocates for reform, among them Cass R. Sunstein, offered a variety ofimportant philosophical arguments such as:

1) The need to protect the electoral process from both the appearance and thereality of “quid pro quo” exchanges between contributors and candidates.

2) Political equality, or “People who are able to organize themselves in sucha way as to spend large amounts of cash should not be able to influence pol-itics more than people who are not similarly able.”

3) Campaign finance laws might promote the goal of ensuring political de-liberation and reason-giving. Politics should not simply register existingpreferences and their intensities, especially as measured by private will-ingness to pay.

4) The sphere of politics must be kept distinct from the market, because thetwo spheres have quite different understandings. People can purchasethings because they want them, and they need not offer or even have rea-sons for their wants. Markets embody their own conception of equality in-sofar as they entail a principle of “one dollar-one ‘vote’”; but this is notthe conception of equality appropriate to the political sphere.9


26

Opponents of reform legislation have their own philosophical and policy ar-guments. Libertarian groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union orACLU (which has litigated against some campaign laws) are critical of mostforms of campaign finance regulation, seeing it as a restriction on freedomof speech. In particular, they argue that contribution limits would limit theamount of money that can be spent to put a message across (and thus limitthe potential effectiveness of the message).

Free speech advocates generally have fewer problems with disclosureregulations, provided that they are not unduly burdensome. Their generalattitude is that everyone should be free to speak as long as listeners know forwhom they are really speaking.

Other opponents of reform suggest that the issue of campaign spendingis overblown. Law professor and Cato Institute analyst Bradley A. Smith,for example, notes that “Americans spend two to three times as muchmoney each year on potato chips as on political campaigns.” He also sug-gests that uniform limits tend to favor incumbents, who already have a num-ber of built-in advantages over their challengers:

Contribution limits favor incumbents by making it relatively harder forchallengers to raise money to run their campaigns. The need to solicit cashfrom a large number of small contributors benefits incumbent candidateswho have in place a database of past givers, an intact campaign organiza-tion, and the ability to raise funds on an ongoing basis from political actioncommittees.10

Similarly, minor parties and independent candidates also complain thathaving to go through complicated regulatory hoops might easily soak up adisproportionate amount of a small party’s funds, and that major partieswould try to set thresholds for public campaign funding that small, new par-ties would find hard to meet.

Political Science professor Steven Schier looks at the matter from an-other perspective, and believes that it is the major parties that would be theloser under comprehensive campaign reform, and that this would be bad fordemocracy:

The attack on soft money is appropriately an attack on corruption, but it’s alsoan attack on political parties themselves. Throughout American history, po-litical parties have performed vital services for our democracy. . . . First,strong parties bring people into politics. By distilling the choice among a va-riety of candidates to a selection between one of two partisan “teams,” partieslower information costs for voters, thus encouraging those with less educationand less income to vote. . . .


27

Strong and stable parties are essential to the stability of democracy itself. Mostof the world’s democracies that have survived 25 years or more have had sta-ble party systems with a low number of parties. . . . By encouraging contri-butions to parties instead of to individual candidates, we can actually limitcorruption in American politics. . . . By sending money to the parties, we cancreate a “buffer” between campaign contributions and the individuals thosecontributions seek to influence.11

Schier suggests that the proper thing to focus on is further restricting directcontributions to candidates, as well as banning issue ads.

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND “ISSUE ADS”

In the 1980s, the two major parties discovered that they could now engagein “independent expenditures” through a multiplicity of committees notconnected with the national party committees, but “coordinating” their ex-penditures with selected candidates. When this was combined with schemesfor “bundling” many contributions together and the growing number of po-litical action committees (PACs) funneling money from interest groups, theresult was a baffling maze that confused experts and politicians themselves,not to mention voters. Critics were finding that the dike restraining virtu-ally unlimited campaign spending had sprung many leaks, and the FEC wasat least ineffectual at plugging them, if not complicit in allowing them. Asone critic suggests:

Congress made the FEC too weak to enforce the law. The agency can’t con-duct random audits or issue injunctions to stop violations in progress. Start-ing even a small investigation requires the votes of four of the FEC’s sixcommissioners, as does every step in an inquiry. Defendants can appeal atevery turn. If the agency finds a violation, even then its hands are tied: For30 days the law requires the FEC to ask nicely for a fine, using “informalmethods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.”12

Much of the independent expenditures are used to buy so-called issueads. A typical television issue ad might sound something like this: “Joe Blowthinks it’s a good idea to make it harder for a woman to exercise her right tochoose. He’s backing tough new restrictions on abortion advocated by ex-treme right-wing fundamentalists. Tell Joe Blow that a woman’s choice isnot negotiable.” The ad would then flash a phone number.

Although nominally about an issue such as abortion, Social Security, orhealth care reform, the real purpose of the ad is to portray a candidate ashaving a position that is extreme and out of touch with the voters. But be-


28

cause the ad does not “expressly advocate” that Joe Blow be defeated in theelection, or that viewers should vote for his opponent, the FEC ruled thatsuch ads could be paid for using soft money or, at worst, a proportional mixof soft and hard money.

Critics of banning issue advocacy ads suggest that such regulations mightactually reduce the diversity of political speech available to voters. During apolitical campaign, just when the public is most focused on the vital issuesof the day, most groups would be unable to discuss them without riskinghaving their speech deemed too political by regulators. Another possibilitywould be that because of independent advocates being restrained fromspeaking, only the media would still be free to advocate (such as through ed-itorials), since its speech would still be protected by the First Amendment.Thus the media might end up with too much power over the politicalprocess.

FREE ACCESS TO THE MEDIA?

Since the cost of broadcast media is such a major factor in campaign costs,some reformers have proposed requiring that the media provide a certainamount of free or subsidized time to candidates. They argue that broad-casters use the public airwaves and should thus be required to contribute tothe public interest, particularly when the amount of time devoted to newsand public affairs by the broadcasters seems to have declined considerably.(According to a study by the Annenberg School for Communication at Co-lumbia University, in the final three months of the 1998 California gover-nor’s race, local television coverage of the race amounted to only one-thirdof 1 percent. In 1974, the coverage had been 10 times greater.)

According to the Center for Public Integrity, media companies re-sponded to the threat that they might lose political advertising revenues(about $600 million in 2000) with some concerted lobbying:

The dirty little secret is that from 1996 through 1998, the NAB [NationalAssociation of Broadcasters] and five media outlets—ABC, CBS, A.H. BeloCorp., Meredith Corp., and Cox Enterprises—cumulatively spent nearly$11 million to defeat a dozen campaign finance bills mandating free airtimefor political candidates.13

The broadcast industry believes that they should not be singled out topay for political speech. As one spokesperson noted: “Free political ads arebasically picking the pockets of a select group, namely television broadcast-ers. They [candidates] already get the lowest available rates, and that’s theway we think it should stay.”14


29

Today the media includes cable and satellite television as well as the In-ternet. Some reform advocates believe that this wide new spectrum of com-munication also ultimately derives from the public and that the public hassome claim on its use. Like their broadcast counterparts, the “new media”companies on the Internet resist the idea that they should have to subsidizepolitical messages.

One interesting idea proposed by political scientist Norman Ornstein isthat media companies should be required to provide a certain number ofhours to a “time bank.” Political parties and candidates would then be givenvouchers that they could use to obtain a share of that time. To promote bet-ter political discourse, no ad could be shorter than 60 seconds, and the per-son appearing and speaking in the ad must be the actual candidate.15

STATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION

Until the 1990s, state campaign regulations (which varied greatly from stateto state) were generally weaker than those in the federal system. However,grassroots groups began to put reform initiatives on state ballots even asfederal reforms stalled in Congress. For example, the Maine Clean Elec-tions Act, passed in 1996, established public funding for candidates whocould demonstrate grassroots support by collecting a modest number of in-dividual $5 contributions. Nick Nyhart, executive director of the reformgroup Public Campaign, was energized by this development:

We’re excited by what’s happening in Maine, because now Clean Money is nolonger an abstraction. And this is motivating people across the spectrum whobelieve in strengthening grassroots politics. Our biggest challenge now is fan-ning the flames so that Congress starts feeling the heat.16

Around the same time, Florida also established campaign contributionlimits. The California Political Reform Act of 1996 (Proposition 208) lim-ited political fund-raising to no more than six months before the electionfor jurisdictions with a population of less than 1 million and 12 months forthose areas with more than 1 million. Fund-raising must be stopped 90 daysafter the election, and funds can be used only to repay election-relateddebts.

In California and Arkansas, specific limits are set for contributions tolocal races. The California initiative allows localities to set local spendinglimits not exceeding one dollar per registered voter. These measures arebeing challenged in federal court (citing the Supreme Court’s overturningspending limits in Buckley v. Valeo); as of 2003 a district court has upheld the$100 contribution limit in Arkansas.


30

THE BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002

Progress in federal campaign reform has been slow. Besides the growing ac-tivity in the states, the 1990s saw a number of high-profile efforts to makecampaign finance reform a national issue.

In 1992, independent candidate H. Ross Perot captured 19 percent of thepopular vote for president with an idiosyncratic populist campaign in which,ironically, his attack on the moneyed interests could be heard only becausehe was a billionaire who could pay for his own access to the media.

At the end of the decade, consumer advocate Ralph Nader took on whathe characterized as two major parties that both served global corporate in-terests, not the needs of the people. Nader, who had little money, ended upwith a vote that was many felt was only large enough to tip the election fromAl Gore to George W. Bush.

Doris Haddock, a self-described “grandma,”decided to walk across theUnited States, asking thousands of people what they thought was wrongwith U.S. politics and promoting campaign finance reform. After striking achord with so many of her fellow citizens, Haddock concluded: “It is saidthat democracy is not something we have, but something we do. But rightnow, we cannot do it because we cannot speak. We are shouted down by thebullhorns of big money. It is money with no manners from democracy, andit must be escorted from the room.”17

None of these efforts had a direct impact on the making of new campaignreform legislation. It proved to be a more mainstream crusader, SenatorJohn McCain of Arizona, who, working with his colleague Russell Feingoldof Minnesota and representatives Martin Meehan and Christopher Shays,finally got Congress to pass the first major campaign reform bill in a gener-ation, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002.

Although there are adjustments and additions to the hard money limits,the key thrust of this latest round in federal campaign legislation is aimed atsoft money. Under the BCRA, national party committees will no longer beable to receive or allocate soft money, although state and local committeeswill be able to use soft money in their local elections.

Additionally, there are restrictions intended to limit the ability of partiesto shuffle money around to evade restrictions. For example, independentexpenditures and those that “coordinate” between the party and the candi-date can no longer be combined. “Get out the vote” campaigns cannot beassociated with specific candidates. Federal officeholders can still attendfund-raising meetings, but they cannot explicitly solicit soft money. Giventhe vagueness of these provisions, a lot will depend on how (and how much)the FEC interprets and enforces them.

The problem of issue advocacy advertising is addressed to a limited ex-tent. If an ad mentions or depicts a specific candidate, it must now be paid


31

for with hard money. Anyone who spends $10,000 or more producing “elec-tioneering statements” must report them to the FEC within 24 hours. In-dependent expenditures of $10,000 or more must also be reported.

It remains to be seen whether the new restrictions on soft money contri-butions will actually bring the torrent of money into U.S. politics undercontrol, or whether, like other raging rivers, it will simply cut a new chan-nel through the weakest part of its banks.

Meanwhile, the very future of the hard-won campaign reform legislationof 2002 has been cast into doubt by the results of the first round of legalchallenges. In May 2003 a three-judge federal district court panel upheld(and even broadened) the prohibition on issue ads but said the parties couldraise and spend soft money for other purposes, such as get-out-the-vote andother “party building” activities.

All major parties in the case immediately appealed to the Supreme Court.These include the authors of the 2002 bill, Senators John McCain and Rus-sell D. Feingold and Representatives Martin T. Meehan and ChristopherShays, who believed the appeals court was wrong in declaring the generalban on soft money to be unconstitutional. Senator Mitch McConnell (Rep.-Kentucky), who has been one of the bill’s biggest opponents, filed his ownappeal, arguing that the appeals court was wrong in upholding portions ofthe soft money ban. The Justice Department also filed an appeal defendingthe BCRA in general. Appeals were also expected from a variety of advocacygroups including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the AmericanCivil Liberties Union (ACLU). Most civil liberties and advocacy groups as-serted that the BCRA impermissibly burdened free speech and thus violatedthe First Amendment.

The Supreme Court will likely take up the matter in its fall 2003 term.Meanwhile, the strategists of both major parties as well as interest groupsbegan to search furiously for legal ways to put soft money to work in timefor the 2004 campaign.

In May 2003, attempts by political parties and interest groups to take ad-vantage of the overturning of the BCRA limits suffered a serious blow whenthe federal appeals panel stayed its ruling pending Supreme Court action.In particular, this meant that restrictions on soft money and issue advertis-ing would likely remain in effect during the crucial early fund-raising for the2004 campaign.

BALLOT REFORM

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, electoral reform includes notonly campaign finance reform but also a number of possible reforms in howpeople actually vote and how candidates are elected.


32

IMPROVING THE VOTING PROCESS

Jury duty and voting perhaps have something in common. The civicrhetoric in both cases stresses participation as a civic duty and privilege. Thejuror and the voter are both hailed as essential to maintaining the rule oflaw. However, jurors and voters both seem in practice to be treated quiteshabbily, subjected to confusing and seemingly arbitrary procedures, andleft largely ignorant of how things are really decided. Alexander Keyssar, ahistorian specializing in social policy, suggests that the problem is that theelectoral system is not really designed with the needs of voters in mind:

What the confused procedures and mechanics reflect, in fact, is an electoralsystem that functions to serve the major parties rather than voters. The de-tailed laws governing election procedures in most states were not designed asa nonpartisan effort to make sure that the “voice of the people” was heard.They evolved instead as the rules of engagement between two hefty adver-saries, each seeking to maximize its own turnout and minimize outrightcheating by the other party.18

The machinations by both parties revealed in Florida in 2000 seemed toconfirm this cynical point of view. For example, in Seminole County, Re-publican election officials permitted Republican poll workers to correctmistakes in Republican absentee ballots, but the officials did not inform theDemocrats that this service might be available.

Another example of disparate treatment occurred in connection withFlorida’s absentee ballots. Rules requiring that such ballots be postmarkedon or before election day were ignored in some Republican-dominatedcounties but enforced in Democratic ones.19

The infamous “butterfly” ballot that may have cost Gore the presidencywas actually designed by a Democratic official. However, the practice of“usability testing,” common in the computer and home appliance industries,which might have revealed the confusing nature of the layout, is not typi-cally employed by election officials.

Leaders in minority communities have suggested that many of the prob-lems in Florida in 2000 may have been modern-day versions of the tacticsused in the old South to disenfranchise black voters. These include havingthe old punched-card machines in the populous but poor counties with highminority populations. Another charge is that “purging” of voter rolls, some-times based upon inaccurate criminal record information, may have been adeliberate attack on minorities. (Another observation is that a dispropor-tionate number of blacks, particularly young males, have been disenfran-chised by being convicted of felonies.)


33

The controversial Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore raised morequestions than it answered. The primary justification the Court majorityused for stopping the Florida recount is that it would violate the equal pro-tection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. With no clear standardsfor determining valid votes during the recount, voters in counties thatmight, for example, count a partly punched chad as a vote would be treatedmore favorably than those in counties that required that the chad bepunched all the way through.

Critics expressed a mixture of puzzlement and incredulity with this formof equal protection analysis. The puzzlement came from the fact that theSupreme Court had normally only applied equal protection analysis whenthere was clear-cut damage to a well-defined group, particularly a “pro-tected group” such as a racial minority. Here, however, there seemed to bea new right for individual voters to have their votes counted uniformly. Butgiven the differences in voting technology used in the various counties, theoriginal votes had already been registered with considerably different de-grees of accuracy and reliability. According to constitutional scholar Lau-rence Tribe:

“far more ballots were rejected in the twenty-four punch-card counties (3.9percent) than in the twenty-four optical-scan counties with second-chance ca-pability (0.6 percent), [and] in the fifteen optical-scan counties without sec-ond-chance capability, the rejection rate was highest of all (5.7 percent).”20

Given that, Tribe wonders why the Supreme Court singled out only therecount for equal protection considerations. Further, the Court declaredthat the Bush v. Gore decision applied only to that election and was not tobe considered to be a general precedent. This was highly unusual, sincelower courts normally expect to receive guidance on critical issues from thenation’s highest court. It remains to be seen whether the “individualized”equal protection argument from Bush v. Gore is nevertheless used to chal-lenge future elections and to demand greater uniformity in voting technol-ogy and procedures.

At any rate the situation in Florida (and similar problems found in otherareas) spurred an effort to modernize voting equipment, and Congress en-acted a modest effort, the Voting Modernization Act of 2002. It is unclear,however, whether enough federal and local money will be available to pro-vide the nation’s polling places with equipment such as touch screen com-puter systems that give voters positive indication of how they voted and givethem the opportunity to make corrections. To the extent that technology ismodernized but poorer counties with large minority populations lag be-hind, new equal protection challenges are likely to be made.


34

Concern with opening the electoral process to more potential voters hasalso been expressed in proposals to streamline the registration system. TheNational Voter Registration Act of 1993 (known as the “motor voter” act),for example, requires states to make voter registration forms available at thesame offices where drivers’ licenses are renewed. In general, Democratstend to support easing voter registration procedures, while Republicans ex-press concerns about increasing the potential for vote fraud by not requir-ing identification and other documentation from voters.

The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, formed in thewake of the 2000 election and cochaired by former presidents Jimmy Carterand Gerald Ford, has issued a series of recommendations for reforming theelectoral system. These include:

• standardizing the procedures for statewide voter registration

• letting voters who believe they are qualified cast a provisional ballotrather than turning them away from the polls

• simplifying and streamlining absentee and overseas voting

• requiring that all voting systems meet standards for usability and accuracy

• having each state establish statewide standards for counting disputedvotes

• providing greater federal aid for improving election systems

• moving elections to a national holiday, or making Election Day a nationalholiday, to make it easier for voters to get to the polls

• encouraging the media to not project election results while the polls arestill open21

Many of these recommendations are relatively uncontroversial in principle,but the details would likely cause considerable debate.

SHOULD TERMS BE LIMITED?

Another ballot-related reform that had some vogue in the 1980s is term lim-its. The argument for term limits by proponents such as political scientistMark Petracca is that limiting how long someone can stay in office will helpprevent politicians becoming too well connected with lobbyists and so wellfunded and entrenched that no one can oust them.

Opponents of term limits believe that the decision of whether to retainsomeone in office should belong to the voter on Election Day. They alsoargue that forcing people out of office just when they have learned theropes may not be the way to promote an effective legislature, and that a


35

perpetually inexperienced legislature is more likely to turn to lobbyists(and the experts they provide) for advice.

Term limits persist in some states (such as California), but the impetus toimpose new ones seems to have died out. (Term limits for Congress wereruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v.Thornton (1995), with the Court saying that only Congress has the power tospecify the conditions for serving.)

REFORMING PRIMARY ELECTIONS

Although primary elections have been somewhat neglected by reformers,they are quite important, given the dominant two-party system. In recentyears, the number of independent or “decline to state” voters has grownconsiderably, presumably as an expression of dissatisfaction with the majorparties.

However, in the traditional “closed primary” system, voters who did notregister with a political party could not vote in the primary election for anypartisan race. (Such voters could still vote for ballot propositions and non-partisan offices.) In an effort to give independent voters greater participa-tion in the primary election, reformers have passed ballot propositions in anumber of states that provide for either an “open primary” or, in the case ofCalifornia, a “blanket primary.”

In an open primary, an independent voter may, upon arrival at the polls,choose a primary ballot for any one party and vote it, without having to for-mally register with the party. The blanket primary extends this idea by let-ting any voter vote for any candidate in any primary race, regardless ofparty. (This means that the voter might choose a Democrat in the primaryfor governor but a Republican in the race for senator.) Reformers argue thatopening the primary election process to independent voters might make theparties more responsive to the majority of voters and less likely to nominatecandidates who reflect the efforts of activists with more extreme ideologies.

However, most parties (major and minor) oppose the open or blanket pri-maries because of the potential that a party might end up with a nomineewho does not reflect the party’s principles. Democrats might, for example,enter the Republican primary and deliberately vote for a weak candidatewhom they feel could be easily defeated in the general election. Small partiesin particular fear that some fringe group might come in and, in effect, hijackthe party by imposing nominees on it. The Supreme Court has generallyagreed with the parties’ concerns and upheld their right to control how theirnominee is chosen. Thus, in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) theCourt ruled that the California blanket primary was unconstitutional.


36

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: CHANGE OR ABOLISH?

However the voting process might be improved, there is still the questionof whether vote tallying can be improved. Even if there had been no dis-putes surrounding the 2000 election, Bush would have won even thoughGore had received about 540,000 more popular votes. Candidates who hadlost in the popular vote had been elected president before. In the disputed1876 election’s popular vote, Democrat Rutherford B. Hayes had fallenabout 250,000 votes short of the total amassed by his Republican opponentSamuel Tilden. Yet when the dust had settled, Hayes had been awardedenough Electoral College votes to eke out a 185-184 victory. Disputed votesaside, Hayes had won most of the smaller states, and because each state hasat least three electoral votes, the smaller states have a slightly higher pro-portion of electoral votes in relation to their population. This helped Hayesovercome his disadvantage in the popular vote.

In 1888, incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular voteby a 90,000 vote margin, but lost the Electoral College tally, with 168 votesto Republican Benjamin Harrison’s 233. However, most of Cleveland’s pop-ular majority came from lopsided victories in southern states. Supporters ofthe Electoral College system have suggested that the electoral outcome inthis case properly reflected Harrison’s more widespread national support.

In modern times the closest election (until 2000) came in 1960, whenJohn F. Kennedy won in the popular vote by about 120,000 (only 0.2 per-cent of the total votes cast). There have been charges that Illinois (with aKennedy margin of only 9,000 votes) had been “stolen” from Nixon by theactions of the Democratic Party machines in a few districts, but Kennedy’selectoral vote margin of 303-219 indicates that he would have won evenwithout the 22 electoral votes from Illinois. This type of result is caused bythe fact that in all but two states, all the state’s electoral votes are given as ablock to the candidate who gets a plurality in the state’s popular vote.

Some political thinkers defend the Electoral College as preserving feder-alism, or the balance of power between the states and the federal govern-ment. Having an electoral vote contest in each state may help promoteregional interests and diversity by requiring that candidates address states in-dividually. People seeking to reform or abolish the institution usually beginwith the assertion that it is obsolete and undemocratic. The American BarAssociation, for example, is on record as declaring that the institution is “ar-chaic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous.”22 Reformers point outthat the Electoral College violates the “one person, one vote” principle thatthe Supreme Court has applied in other areas of the electoral system, such asthe drawing of legislative districts. Each state gets both a fixed allotment ofelectoral votes (two, one for each senator) and an allotment that varies with


37

population (one per congressional district). Thus, a voter in Alaska, whichhas three electoral votes, has proportionately more influence than a voter inCalifornia or New York.

This winner-take-all system in the Electoral College has also essentiallylocked out third-party candidates. Ross Perot, for example, received about19 percent of the popular vote in 1992, but did not get a single electoral votebecause he did not win the popular vote in any state. Supporters of the Elec-toral College argue that this reinforcement of the two-party system pro-motes political stability.

Another argument against the Electoral College is that it is arbitrary, inthat in many states there is nothing to prevent a so-called faithless electorfrom voting for someone other than the candidate to whom he or she hadbeen pledged. In fact, only a few individual electors have made such a switchin the nation’s history.

Assuming that reforming the Electoral College is desirable, there areseveral possible routes that could be taken. The simplest method, whichcould be enacted by initiative in each state, would result in electoral votesbeing distributed in rough proportion to the state’s popular vote. This couldbe done by having the electoral vote corresponding to each congressionaldistrict awarded to the candidate winning in that district, with the two elec-toral votes corresponding to the state’s two senate seats being determined bythe statewide vote. Alternatively, the electoral votes could be simplyparceled out according to each candidate’s percentage of the statewide pop-ular vote. (The Lodge-Gossett Amendment, which would have imple-mented that system, passed the Senate in 1950 with the required two-thirdsmajority, but failed in the House.)

More radically, the Electoral College could be abolished in favor of a di-rect popular vote for president. However, this would require an amendmentto the U.S. Constitution, which is a steep hill to climb, requiring both atwo-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and the subsequent ratifica-tion by three-quarters of the state legislatures.

What would be the effects of having a proportional electoral or directvote for president? John F. Kennedy, a senator at the time of the debate onthe 1950 amendment, suggested that the proposed reform would mean sail-ing into uncharted waters:

It is not only the unit vote for president that we are talking about, but a wholesolar system of governmental power. If it is proposed to change the balance ofpower of one of the elements of the solar system, it is necessary to consider allthe others. . . . What the effects of these various changes will be on the fed-eral system, the two-party system, the popular plurality system and the largestate-small state checks and balances system, no one knows.23


38

According to some experts, these effects might be surprising and unfor-tunate from some points of view. For example, although the current systemweighs votes more heavily in small states, it is actually the voters in large,populous states who have the most influence on the election, because can-didates must focus on winning the large number of electoral votes at stakein states such as California or New York. Since large states with populousurban areas tend to favor the Democrats, shifting to a uniform distributionof voting power would likely favor the Republicans.

Further, in large states where the race is close, groups of swing voters orkey constituencies (such as blacks or Hispanics) have more power becausetheir votes might well make the difference in the all-or-nothing quest forthe state’s electoral votes. With direct voting, according to Vernon Jordan,president of the Urban League, “the importance of being black melts away.Blacks, instead of being crucial to victory in major states, simply become 10percent of the electorate, with reduced impact.”24 Thus, paradoxically, a re-form that might be expected to make elections more democratic might ac-tually actually give many voters less influence over the political process.

One compromise that might ameliorate these effects is known as the“Bonus Plan.” This plan would award an additional 102 “bonus” electoralvotes to the winner of the national popular vote. The result would be thatthe winner of the popular vote would be virtually certain of becoming pres-ident, but (according to proponents) the influence of the more populousstates would still be preserved.

Because of this uncertainty and the potential threat to important con-stituencies, it seems unlikely that the present winner-take-all Electoral Col-lege will be changed in the foreseeable future.

ALTERNATIVE BALLOT SYSTEMS

Two alternative ways of organizing elections have attracted interest in thepolitical science community, even though most voters have not yet heard ofthem. Both attempt to address the lack of choices perceived by many votersin a system where there seem to be only two viable candidates in most races.

Preference (Cumulative) Voting

Preference voting, also called cumulative voting or “instant runoff,” allowsthe voter to rank the candidates for a given office in order of preference—first place, second place, and so on. When the votes are counted, if one can-didate has an absolute majority, that candidate is elected. Otherwise, thecandidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated, but the second-place votes on those ballots are added to the respective candidate’s first place


39

totals. The process is continued until a candidate gets a majority of thevotes.

For example, consider a race in which four candidates—A, B, C, and D—are running and 100 votes are cast. When the ballots are tallied, it turns outthat the first-place votes are:

A 31B 37C 24D 8

Thus far B is in the lead, but no one has achieved a majority of 51 of the 100votes. Therefore, candidate D is eliminated, and the second-place votes onD’s ballots are examined. Suppose these are five for A, two for B, and onefor C. These amounts are added to the respective candidates’ first-placevotes, giving:

A 36B 39C 25

Now B is in the lead and C is now eliminated, and the procedure is repeated.Suppose C’s 25 ballots have 15 votes for A and 10 for B. When these areadded in, the totals become:

A 51B 49

Thus, A emerges with a narrow victory.One advantage of this system is that voters would feel more confident in

voting first for the candidate that truly appeals to them, even if it is a minorcandidate. By including a second-place vote for the least undesirable majorcandidate, the voter can express a true preference without being forced intoa “lesser of two evils” choice. Minor candidates (and minor parties) mightgain some influence because the support for their candidates (expressed infirst-place votes) would become evident even if these candidates do not ul-timately win the election. Another practical advantage is that the cost andeffort of having a run-off election is eliminated, since there is always a win-ner in the main election.

A possible disadvantage of cumulative preference voting is that some-times (as in the example just given) the candidate who had initially receivedthe most votes (but not a majority) ends up losing to a candidate who re-


40

ceived more second-place votes from voters for other candidates. It could beargued, though, that the winning candidate will at least have been the firstor second choice of most voters. Perhaps the main disadvantage of this sys-tem is that it is unfamiliar and hard to explain.

Proportional Representation

The other alternative that appeals to many people seeking a more respon-sive politics is proportional representation. In the current system legislativedistricts (such as for the House of Representatives) have only one seat tovote for, so there can be only one winner. According to Steven Hill, associ-ate director and cofounder of the Center for Voting and Democracy, thiswinner-take-all system confronts voters and candidates with the followingdilemmas:

If I win . . . you loseIf I have my representation . . . you don’tIf I vote for my favorite candidate, who has no chance of winning . . . I’ll help

elect my least favorite candidateDo I vote my hopes . . . or do I vote my fears?If I drive away voters from their candidate . . . the only choice left is our

candidateIf I run to the center to attract swing overs . . . I will alienate my baseIf I appeal to my base . . . I’ll drive away swing votersIf we’re for it . . . then they’re against itIf we’re against it . . . then they’re for it.25

Thus, to critics such as Hill, winner-take-all legislative races for single-seat districts encourage bitter partisanship while narrowing the discussionof issues as both parties aim to capture the middle ground. This in turn dis-courages voters. Also, people living in districts heavily dominated by oneparty feel less incentive to vote.

Proportional representation offers a way in which more voters’ votes ineffect “count.” With proportional representation there are several seats fora given district, and they are awarded to the various parties in proportion toeach party’s portion of the vote. Thus in a 10-seat district, if the Democratsget 50 percent of the votes, the Republicans get 40 percent, and the GreenParty manages to get 10 percent, the Democrats get five seats in the legis-lature, the Republicans four, and the Greens one.

The biggest advantage of proportional representation is that voters forminor parties are no longer in a hopeless position. The government, as inthe British parliamentary system, would usually be formed by a coalition of


41

several parties. The Greens, for example, might be able to promote theirideas by winning concessions from the Democrats in return for joiningthem to form a majority coalition in Congress.

The likelihood of proportional representation being adopted in the nearfuture (at least perhaps beyond the municipal level) seems low. Besides theopposition of the two major parties that currently control the politicalprocess, a parliamentary system would be alien to most U.S. voters. Criticsalso worry that proportional representation and a true multiparty systemwould lead to gridlock (if no one can form a coalition) or political instabil-ity, as party alignments rapidly fluctuate.26

REFORM AS AN ONGOING PROCESS

Interest in politics and elections tends to be seasonal, waxing toward elec-tion time and waning between elections. It is hard for most people to focuson the political process when there usually seem to be more pressing issuessuch as a possible war or measures to shore up a failing economy. However,the consequences of how campaigns work will affect how these higher-pro-file issues will be decided.

The effectiveness of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act remainsto be seen, and the same can be said for the attempts to modernize votingsystems and procedures. Meanwhile, it remains worthwhile for citizens toinvest some time in thinking about how the campaign process might be im-proved and made more accountable to voters, the quality of political dis-course enhanced, and voting made more meaningful.

As pointed out in Chapter 6, there are many organizations that offer re-sources to help voters find out how candidates are being funded, and who iscontributing the most. Thanks to the World Wide Web, the informationthat must now be legally disclosed is becoming available in a more accessi-ble and usable form.

1 E. L. Godkin. The Nation, January 24, 1889.2 “Wall Street Interests Pushing for Social Security Privatization Gave $53 Millionin Political Contributions during Past Decade, According to Common Cause.”Common Cause News February 1999. Available online. URL: http://216.147.192.101/publications/securities.htm.

3 John Green, Paul Hernson, Lyndal Powell, and Dyle Wilcox. “Individual Con-gressional Campaign Contributors: Wealthy, Conservative—and ReformMinded.” Joyce Foundation, A summary of the report is available online at theJoyce Foundation Web site: URL: http://www.joycefdn.org/current/news/9806_PR_campaigndonors. html. Posted June 9, 1998.


42

4 North Carolina Center for Voter Education. “Campaign Reform 2001: Examin-ing Issues.” Available online. URL: http://www.ncvotered.com/downloads/PDF/3_01_survey_report.pdf. Downloaded January 19, 2003.

5 Summary of poll conducted November 21–24, 1996. Gallup Organization citedin Public Campaign “Public Support for a Clean Money, Clean Elections Ap-proach.” Available online. URL:http://www.publicampaign.org/pollsumm.html.Downloaded March 4, 2003.

6 Karen Foerstel, Peter Wallenstein, and Derek Willis. “Campaign OverhaulMired in Money and Loopholes,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 58,May 13, 2000, p. 1084.

7 Foerstel, Wallenstein and Willis, p. 1084.8 Foerstel, Wallenstein and Willis, p. 1084.9 Cass R. Sunstein, “Political Equality and Unintended Consequences,” ColumbiaLaw Review, vol. 94, May 1994, p. 1390–1414. Also in Anthony Corrado et al, ed-itors. Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: Brookings In-stitution Press, 1997, p. 113–120.

10 Bradley A. Smith, “Campaign Finance Reform: Faulty Assumptions and Unde-mocratic Consequences,” USA Today, vol. 126, January 1998, p. 10ff.

11 Steven E. Schier, “One Cheer for Soft Money,” Washington Monthly, July 2000, p. 21.12 Joshua Wolf Shenk, “Designed for Impotence: Why the Federal Election Com-

mission Is a Lap Dog for the Political Class,” U.S. News and World Report, vol. 122,January 20, 1997, p. 30ff.

13 Lewis, Charles. “Profiteering from Democracy.” Center for Public Integrity.Available online. URL:http://www.public-i.org/breakingnews_id_mmddyy.htm.Posted August 30, 2000.

14 Lewis.15 See Norman J. Ornstein et al. “Reforming Campaign Finance.” Brookings Institu-

tion. Available online. URL: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cf/reformcf.htm. Issued December 17, 1996, revised May 7, 1997. (Later released by the Leagueof Women Voters under the title “5 Ideas for Practical Campaign Reform.”)

16 Marc Cooper. “A New Public-Funding Law Has Prompted Many Reformers toRun for Office: Clean Money in Maine,” The Nation, vol. 270, May 29, 2000, p. 22.

17 Doris Haddock and Dennis Burke. Granny D: Walking Across America in MyNinetieth Year. New York: Villard Books, 2000, p. xi.

18 Alexander Keyssar, “The Right to Vote and Election 2000,” in Jack N. Rakove,editor, The Unfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp.90–91.

19 See David Barstow and Don Van Natta, Jr., “How Bush Took Florida: Mining theOverseas Absentee Vote,” New York Times, July 15, 2001, p. 1ff.

20 Laurence H. Tribe. “Freeing eroG v. hsuB from Its Hall of Mirrors” in RonaldDworkin, editor. A Badly Flawed Election: Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court andAmerican Democracy. New York: New Press, 2002, p. 129 (see throughout for ap-plication of equal protection analysis).

21 Jimmy Carter et al. To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process: Report ofthe National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Washington, D.C.: BrookingsInstitution Press, 2002.


43

22 Quoted in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., “How to Democratize American Democ-racy,” in Ronald Dworkin, editor, A Badly Flawed Election: Bush v. Gore, theSupreme Court and American Democracy. New York: New Press, 2002, pp.224–225.

23 Quoted in Schlesinger, Jr., “How to Democratize American Democracy,” p. 224.24 Quoted in Schlesinger, Jr., “How to Democratize American Democracy,” p. 224.25 Steven Hill, Fixing Elections: The Failure of America’s Winner Take All Politics.New

York: Routledge, 2002, p. 43.26 For more information on the variations and nuances possible in electoral systems

see Douglas Amy, Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems. West-port, Conn.: Praeger, 2000.


44

THE LAW AND

CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS

Because the electoral process is fundamental to the operation of democracy,it involves an interplay of state, local, and federal systems and regulations,as well as sparse but important mention in the Constitution of the UnitedStates.

Elections in the Constitution

In the United States, the conduct of elections is primarily a state and localprocess. However, the U.S. Constitution does prescribe certain require-ments for federal elections for the executive (president) and legislative(Congress) branches.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The House of Representatives was intended to be the part of the federallegislature that most directly reflected the popular will. Thus its composi-tion is tied by the Constitution to state populations and is ultimately af-fected by growth or shifts in population.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2 (EXCERPTS)

Clause 1:The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every sec-ond Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each Stateshall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerousBranch of the State Legislature.

45

CHAPTER 2

Clause 2:No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Ageof twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, andwho shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shallbe chosen.

Clause 3:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among theseveral States which may be included within this Union, accordingto their respective Numbers. . . . The actual Enumeration shall bemade within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of theUnited States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in suchManner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shallnot exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have atLeast one Representative . . .

Note that the qualifications for electors (voters) of the House of Repre-sentatives are derived from those set by the states for elections to theirown legislatures. Not surprisingly, the framers of the Constitution builtupon the state electoral system, adding only the time of elections (everytwo years) and specific qualifications for membership in the House (ageand residency). The mechanism for apportioning (distributing) Houseseats among the states requires an enumeration (census) every 10 years,with states to receive a number of representatives proportional to theirpopulation. (Note that in these excerpts from the Constitution text set inroman indicates language that was removed or revised by subsequentamendments.)

The actual drawing of congressional districts reflecting the states’ alloca-tion of representatives would, starting in the mid-20th century, become a po-litical and legal battleground over the question of equal and fair treatment ofvarious groups within the population, particularly the access of minorities tothe political process and their ability to choose representatives reflectingtheir community.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: SENATE

The Senate was intended to reflect the power of the states as a counterbal-ance to the popular vote. Its composition is thus independent of populationand is fixed at two members per state.


46


Clause 1:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from eachState, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senatorshall have one Vote.

Clause 3:No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age ofthirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and whoshall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shallbe chosen.

The qualifications for being a senator are similar (but a bit stricter) thanfor being a representative. Notice that in the original language senatorswere not chosen directly by the people of their states but by the state leg-islature. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment (ratified1913), which specifies that senators, like members of the House, be cho-sen directly by the people. The qualifications for the electors (voters) areagain tied to those for the state legislature. The Constitution goes on tospecify how procedures or regulations for federal elections are to beestablished.


Clause 1:The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Repre-sentatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but theCongress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except asto the Places of chusing Senators.

This little paragraph is the basis for the power of Congress to regulate fed-eral elections. The legislature of each state still has the primary responsibil-ity for regulating federal elections, but Congress can create uniformregulations as it sees fit, subject, of course, to the constitutional scrutiny ofthe courts.

Note that ultimately Congress is the final judge of the “elections, returns,and qualifications of its members” (Article 1, Section 5, clause 1).

T h e L a w a n d C a m p a i g n s a n d E l e c t i o n s

47

EXECUTIVE BRANCH: PRESIDENTAND VICE PRESIDENT

Article 2 of the Constitution deals with the electoral procedure for the ex-ecutive branch, namely the president and vice president.

ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1

Clause 1:The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States ofAmerica. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, to-gether with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Clause 2:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may di-rect, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Rep-resentatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but noSenator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profitunder the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 2 creates the Electoral College, that transient institution that ac-tually elects the president and vice president every four years. The numberof electors (and thus electoral votes) of each state is equal to the state’s totalrepresentation in Congress (two senators plus a number of representativesproportional to population.)

The procedure for the electoral vote was originally specified in Clause 3,but was superceded by the Twelfth Amendment (ratified 1804). In the orig-inal system the person who received the most votes would become the pres-ident, and the second-place finisher would become vice president. To allowfor partisan reality, this was amended to have separate ballots for the two of-fices, though normally each elector was pledged to vote for a party’s candi-dates for both offices.

As threatened to happen in the 2000 election, it is possible for no candi-date to receive sufficient electoral votes to become president. In that case:

if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest num-bers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House ofRepresentatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choos-ing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each


48

state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member ormembers from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall benecessary to a choice . . .

The Right to Vote

A number of amendments either directly affect the electoral process orspecify rights that must be protected in elections as in all other matters oflaw. The right to vote might be said to flow from these guarantees as inter-preted by the courts.

FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro-hibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of thepress; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Gov-ernment for a redress of grievances.

For electoral disputes, the relevant portions of the First Amendment usuallyinvolve speech and assembly. Electoral laws that unduly burden the ability ofcandidates, parties, or the public to express their views on political issues willlikely run afoul of the First Amendment. Many provisions of campaign re-form laws (such as restrictions on who can contribute and how much, or howmuch candidates can spend) are attacked on First Amendment grounds. Theright of assembly is considered to be a broad right of “association,” and re-strictions on the operation of political parties (including especially their pri-mary elections) are often attacked as violations of freedom of association.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed following the Civil War. It assertsthe supremacy of the rights of citizens under the Constitution over any con-flicting legislation that might be passed by the states.

Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the ju-risdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State whereinthey reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge theprivileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any Statedeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nordeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


49

“Due process of law” means that the specified procedures of the law mustbe applied and afforded to all persons, avoiding arbitrary action. “Equalprotection of the law” means that all persons (regardless of characteristicssuch as race) must be treated the same. The Fourteenth Amendment (par-ticularly the equal protection clause) would be increasingly brought intoplay to secure voting rights and equal representation for minorities.

Because the Fourteenth Amendment is addressed to the states it requiresthat states’ actions under their own laws meet the standards of due processand equal protection. Further, the phrase “privileges and immunities of cit-izens of the United States” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court toinclude many of the rights guaranteed in the first 10 amendments, includ-ing freedom of speech and association. Disputes over how electoral laws af-fect voters, candidates, and political parties often end up as legal questionsabout the application of the First and Fourteenth amendments.

FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Fourteenth Amendment specified that all persons “born or naturalizedin the United States” were citizens. Theoretically, that included blacks andother racial minorities, who would thus be afforded equal protection of thelaws. However, to make this more explicit, the Fifteenth Amendmentspecifically guarantees the voting rights of the former slaves (and all citizens,regardless of race). Note, however, that gender is not included in theamendment’s language, and women were unsuccessful in using eitheramendment in the courts to obtain the right to vote.

Section 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied orabridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or pre-vious condition of servitude.

OTHER AMENDMENTS

The following features of the electoral system have also been changedthrough constitutional amendments:

• direct election of senators (Seventeenth Amendment)

• women guaranteed the right to vote (Nineteenth Amendment)

• presidents limited to two terms (Twenty-second Amendment)

• electors provided for the District of Columbia (Twenty-third Amendment)

• poll taxes forbidden (Twenty-fourth Amendment)


50

• new rules for presidential succession (Twenty-fifth Amendment)

• minimum voting age lowered to 18 (Twenty-sixth Amendment)

In conclusion, the U.S. Constitution affects electoral procedures in two pri-mary ways: First, it establishes basic parameters for federal elections, suchas qualifications and terms for office and the composition of voting con-stituencies. Second, by guaranteeing certain rights to all citizens, it providesan avenue for legal action by reformers who can try to show that currentelectoral practices violate those rights.

Federal Political Reform Legislation

Concern with political corruption in the late 19th century led to agitationfor reform. A number of federal laws have attempted to reduce political cor-ruption by regulating the allowable political activities of groups such as cor-porations, labor unions, and government workers; limiting the amount andtypes of campaign contributions; and requiring disclosure of contributionsand expenditures. Important legislation has also secured voting rights, par-ticularly for minorities.

PENDLETON ACT (1883)

The Pendleton Act (also called the Civil Service Act) established the federalcivil service, in which employment was on the basis of merit (including pas-sage of examinations) rather than appointment. This meant that an increas-ing number of federal positions could no longer be awarded by the party inpower to its supporters (political patronage). In addition, it became illegalfor civil service employees to either solicit campaign contributions or to becoerced into making contributions.

TILLMAN ACT (1907)

Concern about corporate influence on politics grew in the latter part of the19th century. The Tillman Act was the first federal legislation that tried toregulate federal political campaigns. It prohibited campaign contributionsby corporations and national banks. This prohibition would remain in effectfor the rest of the century but would be undermined by the development ofindirect methods of contribution—political action committees (PACs) andindependent “soft money” expenditures.


51

FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT OF 1910Also called the Publicity Act, this law responded to the growing demand fordisclosure of political contributions. It required that national party commit-tees (and multistate campaign committees) report their receipts and expen-ditures—but only for House races, and only after the election in question.

In 1911, amendments were passed that extended the disclosure require-ments to candidates in Senate races, included primary elections, and re-quired reporting of receipts and expenditures both before and after thegeneral election. The law included the first spending limits—set at a total of$5,000 for House campaigns and $10,000 for Senate campaigns, or theamount established by state law, whichever was less. However, the SupremeCourt in Newberry v. United States (1921) ruled that it was unconstitutionalfor Congress to regulate party primaries.

FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT OF 1925The 1925 act kept the basic framework of the 1910 law. The reporting re-quirements were extended to multistate political committees as well as candi-dates, required quarterly reporting of all contributions of $100 or more—evenin nonelection years—and increased the maximum spending limits for Senateraces to $25,000. (The regulations concerning primary elections were droppedbecause of the Supreme Court ruling in Newberry v. United States, which statedthat Congress could not regulate party primary elections.)

In general, the 1925 act was ineffectual—the disclosures did not actuallyhave to be made available to the public, and there was neither an enforce-ment mechanism for the spending limits nor penalties for violating them.

HATCH ACT OF 1939The Hatch Act (also called the Clean Politics Act) expanded the prohibitionof political solicitation to cover federal workers, who had not been includedin the Pendleton Act. It also included new, explicit prohibitions against po-litical fundraising by federal employees.

Amendments to the Hatch Act passed in 1940 added a limit of $5,000 toindividual contributions to federal candidates and national party commit-tees. The total amount that could be received or spent by a multi-state partycommittee was capped at $3 million. However, there was no limit on thenumber of separate committees that could be formed to allow for multiplesof that limit.

SMITH-CONNALLY ACT (1943)This measure, also called the War Labor Disputes Act of 1943, was passedover President Franklin Roosevelt’s veto. With regard to political activity, it


52

prohibited labor unions from using their treasuries to make contributions tofederal candidates. A wartime measure, the Smith-Connally Act expired sixmonths after the end of World War II.

TAFT-HARTLEY ACT (1947)

Also called the Labor Relations Act of 1947, this law included a provisionmaking permanent the prohibition on political contributions by unions,limiting them in the same way corporations had been limited since 1907.However, corporations and unions can make contributions from voluntaryfunds that are kept separate from the general treasury.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

This act, and its amendments in 1970 and 1975, banned all practices thathad the effect of discriminating against racial or ethnic minorities. Jurisdic-tions that had a history of significant discrimination (as in many southernstates) were essentially placed under federal supervision, and any changes oradditions to state electoral regulations had to pass muster in federal court.Literacy tests were banned (at first temporarily, then permanently).

LONG ACT (1966)

This bill, passed by Congress in 1966, would have set up the first systemfor public financing of presidential candidates through a taxpayer check-offsystem. It was essentially blocked from implementation by opponents inCongress.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

(FECA) OF 1971

Signed into law in 1972, this comprehensive campaign finance law is still inforce today as amended in 1974 and by the Bipartisan Campaign ReformAct of 2002. Its key provisions include:

• limits on contributions by a candidate or his or her immediate family:$50,000 for president and vice president; $35,000 for Senate; $25,000 forhouse candidates

• limit on media (newspapers, radio, television) spending to $50,000 or$0.10 times the voting-age population of the district for which the elec-tion is being held, whichever is greater


53

• no more than 60 percent of media spending could be used for televisionor radio

• quarterly disclosure of receipts and expenditures by every candidate andpolitical committee, plus additional reports during election year

• all contributions of $5,000 or more must be reported within 48 hours ofreceipt

It must be noted that the spending limits were declared unconstitutional bythe Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976).

REVENUE ACT OF 1971

As a companion to FECA, the Revenue Act established a system of publicfinancing for presidential elections through a voluntary taxpayer check-off.There were also individual tax credits for a portion of small contributions tofederal, state or local candidates. (These were increased and sometimeseliminated by succeeding amendments.) The receipt of public funding forpresidential candidates was conditioned on their compliance with the vari-ous limits and requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

AMENDMENTS OF 1974

Although in the form of amendments to FECA of 1971, the provisions ofthis extensive law amounted to a considerable expansion of the original law.The specific limits on media expenditures were replaced by strict generalexpenditure limits. Senate candidates were limited to $100,000 or $0.08times the voting-age population in their state for primary elections, and$150,000 and $0.12, respectively, for the general election. House candidateswere limited to a total of $70,000 each for the primary and general election,except for states that had only a single district, which followed the Senatelimits.

Presidential candidates were limited to $10 million for the primary (plusper-state limits equal to that state’s limit for Senate candidates) and $20 mil-lion for the general election. All limits were indexed for inflation to theConsumer Price Index. Various limits were also imposed on total spendingby party national committees.

The contribution limits from the 1971 act were retained, with the addi-tion that an individual was limited to contributing no more than $1,000 percandidate per election (primary, runoff or general), with an aggregate limitof $25,000.


54

Presidential candidates were offered public matching funds if they metcertain fundraising requirements, and parties could receive public fundingfor their national convention. (Minor parties could receive smaller amountsdepending on their vote in a previous election.)

To enforce this elaborate new scheme the Federal Election Commission(FEC) was created. It was given considerable powers to investigate abuses,subpoena witnesses and issue reports, but in practice its sanctions couldoften be delayed or avoided by the major parties.

Finally, all the spending limits, as with those in FECA of 1971, were ren-dered inoperative by the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision. TheSupreme Court also rejected limits on a candidate’s contributions to his orher own campaign, unless they were accepted voluntarily in return for fed-eral matching funds.

LATER FECA AMENDMENTS

FECA was amended several times. The 1976 amendments were designed tobring the law into compliance with Buckley v. Valeo. In addition, disclosure wasnow required for independent expenditures of more than $100 (those not byor in coordination with a candidate). Expenditures not used to explicitly ad-vocate the election or defeat of a specified candidate were exempt from dis-closure, creating a loophole into which large amounts of money would bepoured for funding such activities as “party-building” and “get out the vote.”

The 1979 amendments eased and streamlined many of the reporting re-quirements imposed by the 1976 amendments. Candidates and committeeswith small overall expenditures (under $5,000) were exempted from reporting.Expenditure by state and local party committees on party-building and “getout the vote” in connection with the presidential election was made unlimited.

NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly known as theMotor Voter Act, was designed to make voter registration easier and moreaccessible, in the hope of increasing voter turnout and broadening the elec-torate to all segments of the population. It requires that state motor vehicleoffices (and certain other state agencies such as welfare and services for thedisabled) provide voter registration forms and assistance. It also requiresstates to develop and accept mail-in voter registration forms.

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002Debated in Congress for several years as the McCain-Feingold bill, the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) attempts to address a


55

number of perceived funding abuses and weakness in FECA, notably thegrowth of unregulated “soft money”—independent expenditures not di-rectly associated with a candidate.

Structured as an amendment to FECA, important provisions of theBCRA include:

• “Soft money” can no longer go to national party committees, but it can goto state and local party committees (but not for use in federal elections).

• Federal officeholders can no longer specifically solicit soft money contri-butions, either for themselves or on behalf of a committee, although theycan still attend and speak at meetings where solicitation is done by others.

• Parties cannot combine independent expenditures and those coordinatedwith candidate committees.

• A wider variety of broadcast ads must now be counted against the hardmoney limits—including so-called issue ads that clearly identify or depictspecific candidates.

• There are stricter requirements for using soft money for voter registra-tion and “get out the vote” campaigns. For example, they cannot be iden-tified with a specific federal candidate.

• Maximum individual contribution per candidate per election for bothHouse and Senate races is raised to $2,000. Total individual contributionto a national party committee is raised to $25,000. Both limits are indexedfor inflation.

• Persons spending $10,000 on producing or airing “electioneering state-ments” must report them to the FEC within 24 hours and file a new re-port for each additional $10,000 spent.

• Independent expenditures of more than $10,000 must be reported within24 hours (expenditures of more than $1,000 must be reported if made inwithin 20 days of the election).

• Contribution limits for Senate candidates are raised if their opponent isspending large amounts of personal funds on the campaign.

In May 2003, the first legal test of the BCRA resulted in a lengthy (1,638pages) and rather convoluted ruling by a three-judge federal appeals courtpanel. The court majority upheld the prohibition on parties and party com-mittees spending soft money on activities directly related to electing federalcandidates. The court also upheld the ban on interest groups using softmoney for so-called issue ads that mentioned the names of candidates nearelection time.


56

However, the court ruled that the parties could spend soft money onparty-building and get-out-the-vote activities, which had also been bannedby the BCRA. The parties are now faced with the decision of whether to re-sume such expenditures at the risk that the Supreme Court might eventu-ally reverse the appeals court’s decision. In May 2003, the federal appealspanel stayed its ruling, allowing the BCRA provisions on soft money to re-main in force until the Supreme Court makes its decision.

STATE CAMPAIGN FINANCEREGULATIONS

Most states have their own regulations for state election campaigns. Thespecific provisions are too numerous to list here, but handy summary chartsof the key features of state regulations are available on the Federal ElectionCommission web site at http://www.fec.gov/pages/cflaw2000.htm.

The site for the Campaign Finance Information Center, at http://www.campaignfinance.org/states/index.html, includes an interactive map of theUnited States. Clicking on a state gives a summary including the relevantregulatory agency, regulations, and data.

COURT CASES

There have been numerous court cases dealing with many aspects of elec-tions and election campaigns, including voting rights, party activities, andcampaign finance. As an aid in categorization, the featured cases and somerelated cases are listed here under general topics. Note that some cases arelisted under more than one topic.

Cases by Topic

Apportionment (Districting)Colegrove v. Green, Reynolds v. Sims, Shaw v. Reno, Wesbury v. Sanders

Association, Freedom of (First Amendment)Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, California DemocraticParty v. Jones, Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette, Smith v. Allwright, Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, Tim-mons v. Twin Cities Area New Party


57

Campaign Finance RegulationsBrown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, Buckley v. Valeo, Citi-zens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, Day v. Holahan, First NationalBank of Boston v. Bellotti, Landell v. Sorrell, McConnell v. FEC, Shrink Mis-souri Government PAC v. Maupin

CorporationsFirst National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti

Equal Protection of the Law (Fourteenth Amendment)Bush v. Gore, Nixon v. Herndon, Shaw v. Reno, Smith v. Allwright

Federal Authority to Regulate ElectionsNewberry v. United States, United States v. Classic

Labor UnionsUnited Public Workers v. Mitchell, United States v. Congress of IndustrialOrganizations

Minor Parties and IndependentsArkansas Educational Television v. Forbes, Timmons v. Twin Cities Area NewParty

Political PartiesCalifornia Democratic Party v. Jones, Democratic Party of the United States v.Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, Smith v. Allwright, Tashjian v. Republican Partyof Connecticut

Poll TaxesHarper v. Virginia Board of Elections

Primary ElectionsCalifornia Democratic Party v. Jones, Democratic Party of the United States v.Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, Newberry v. United States, Nixon v. Herndon,Smith v. Allwright, United States v. Classic, Tashjian v. Republican Party ofConnecticut

Speech, Freedom of (First Amendment)Arkansas Educational Television v. Forbes, Citizens Against Rent Control v.City of Berkeley, Day v. Holahan, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin

Term LimitsU.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

Votes, Counting ofBush v. Gore

Voting Rights for MinoritiesGuinn v. United States, Nixon v. Herndon, Shaw v. Reno, Smith v. Allwright,Gomillion v. Lightfoot, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections


58

GUINN V. UNITED STATES,238 U.S. 347 (1915)

Background

In 1910, the state of Oklahoma added a “grandfather clause” to its votingregulations. This provision read as follows:

No person shall be registered as an elector of this State or be allowed to votein any election herein, unless he be able to read and write any section of theconstitution of the State of Oklahoma; but no person who was, on January 1,1866, or at any time prior thereto, entitled to vote under any form of gov-ernment, or who at that time resided in some foreign nation, and no linealdescendant of such person, shall be denied the right to register and vote be-cause of his inability to so read and write sections of such constitution.

Although this language makes no explicit mention of race, since only whiteswere allowed to vote before 1866 (before the Fifteenth Amendment waspassed), the effect of the language is that whites and their descendants (in-cluding newly arrived immigrants) were exempt from meeting the literacyrequirement. Blacks, on the other hand, were forced to take the test, andthrough a combination of lack of education and trickery on the part of theelection officials, were unlikely to gain the right to vote.

Several Oklahoma election officials were convicted for violating a federalstatute that prohibited anyone from depriving (or conspiring to deprive) cit-izens of their rights under the Constitution—in this case, the right to voteunder the Fifteenth Amendment. The conviction was appealed, and the caseeventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

Generally the Constitution gives states primary control over the electoralprocess. However, the Fifteenth Amendment guarantees all otherwise eligi-ble citizens the right to vote regardless of “race, color or previous conditionof servitude.” The issue is whether the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits astate from imposing a scheme that has the indirect effect of disenfranchis-ing most blacks.

Decision

The Court opinion, written by Chief Justice Edward Douglass White,forthrightly rejected the Oklahoma grandfather provision. The Court couldfind no other reason for the peculiar use of the 1866 cutoff date except topredate the Fifteenth Amendment and thereby bypass its effect.


59

Impact

This case is straightforward but interesting in a couple of respects. Whileupholding the effectiveness of the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court did nothave recourse to the Fourteenth Amendment, which would also seem topreclude setting up a scheme that would treat one group of citizens differ-ently from another. The Fourteenth Amendment was not yet a majorweapon in the arsenal for dismantling barriers to voting for minorities. Also,the Court found no constitutional problem with the literacy test itself, see-ing it as an ordinary and proper exercise of the state’s power to regulate elec-tions. Literacy tests would be used for another 50 years as an effectivebarrier to keep blacks out of the voting booth. However, their use in mostparts of the South would be banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, andthis ban would be upheld as a proper use of the Fifteenth Amendment inSouth Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966).

NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 232 (1921)

Background

Truman H. Newberry, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Michi-gan, was convicted for violating an early federal campaign reform statute,the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, that prohibited exceeding a spendinglimit for a primary election. He appealed the conviction to federal court.

Legal Issues

Under Article 1, section 4, of the U.S. Constitution “The times, place andmanner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be pre-scribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may atany time by law make or alter such regulation, except as to the places ofchoosing Senators.” This constitutional language seemed to give Congressgreat latitude in regulating elections for members of Congress, but New-berry argued that “elections” here referred only to the final election, notprimary elections where parties choose their nominees. (The Constitution,it must be remembered, is silent on the subject of political parties and theirprocedures.)

Decision

In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned Newberry’s con-viction, but only four justices agreed with Newberry’s argument that theconstitutional power of Congress to regulate the election of its members did


60

not extend to primary elections. (The opinion supporting Newberry’s posi-tion stated that primary elections “are in no sense elections for office, butmerely methods by which party adherents agree upon candidates.”

Impact

The Newberry decision would seem to preclude federal regulation of pri-mary elections, which were increasingly the method by which the candi-dates for the final ballot were selected. However, the Newberry decisionwould be overturned in United States v. Classic (1941).

NIXON V. HERNDON,273 U.S. 536 (1927)

Background

As part of a strategy for keeping African Americans from access to politicalpower, a number of southern states instituted so-called white primaries. Byexcluding black voters from the primary election for the dominant Democ-ratic Party, white primaries effectively rendered any black votes in the gen-eral election meaningless, because the Democratic nominee who had beenselected in the whites-only election almost invariably won the office.

To challenge this system, the plaintiff, “a Negro, a citizen of the UnitedStates and of Texas and a resident of EI Paso, and in every way qualified tovote,” sued the Judge of Elections in EI Paso for $5,000 damages, allegingthat he had been unlawfully denied the right to vote in a Democratic pri-mary election. Texas had passed a statute in 1923 stating that “in no eventshall a Negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary elec-tion held in the State of Texas.” The plaintiffs’s suit was dismissed in thelower court and then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The defendant argued that the Court had no jurisdiction over the Texas law,because it involved a “political” matter not subject to judicial review. Theplaintiffs argued that the Texas law violated both the Fourteenth Amend-ment to the U.S. Constitution (which guarantees equal protection of thelaws) and the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing citizens the right to voteregardless of race.

Decision

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, quickly dismissedthe idea that political matters were not subject to judicial hearing. He pointed


61

out a number of settled cases in which political action could cause damage toan individual that could be the subject of a lawsuit. Holmes further noted that“If the defendants’ conduct was a wrong to the plaintiff the same reasons thatallow a recovery for denying the plaintiff a vote at a final election allow it fordenying a vote at the primary election that may determine the final result.”

Moving on to the constitutional question, Justice Holmes said that it wasunnecessary to even apply the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee of votingrights to racial minorities. This is because the Fourteenth Amendment “notonly gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to persons of color,but it denied to any State the power to withhold from them the equal pro-tection of the laws. . . .” Under equal protection, the laws cannot treatwhites and blacks differently, and blacks cannot be excluded from electionsthat are open to white voters.

Impact

This decision outlawed white-only primary elections. Although Nixon dealswith constitutional rights of voters and not regulation of elections, it alsomarks a milestone on the road from Newberry (1921), which had suggestedthat primary elections were not subject to regulation, and United States v.Classic (1941), which clearly viewed primary elections as an integral part ofthe electoral process.

Unwilling to give up, Texas Democratic officials had a statute passed thatgave the executive committee of the Democratic Party the right to set qual-ifications for voting in its primaries. The party promptly enacted a white-only rule, and Nixon promptly sued again. In Nixon v. Condon (1932), theSupreme Court overturned the new law, saying that the state had simplytried to use an agency (the executive committee) to accomplish a purposethat was forbidden under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Smith v. Allwright (1944) the Court would hold that restricting partymembership to whites and thus denying blacks access to a primary electionwas also a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. Finally, the attempt of seg-regationists to get around Nixon by having an unofficial white-only “strawpoll” before the official primary would be ended by Terry v. Adams (1953).

UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC,313 U.S. 299 (1941)

Background

A group of Louisiana election officials were convicted of violating a federallaw against ballot tampering and reporting false vote counts in a primaryelection for Congress.


62

Legal Issues

The district court, in accordance with the position of four justices in New-berry v. United States (1921), overturned the conviction, ruling that Con-gress had no power to regulate party primary elections. The prosecutorsappealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that the power of Congress to regulate federalelections did extend to primary elections, overturning Newberry v. UnitedStates (1921). By the 1940s, the integral role of primary elections in theprocess of choosing legislators had become so clear that the majority of theCourt could no longer see a way in which Congress could carry out its con-stitutional responsibility to oversee federal elections without including pri-mary elections.

Impact

Beyond the immediate issue, United States v. Classic set an important prece-dent, that the federal interest in ensuring the integrity of the electoralprocess must sometimes require the extension of federal power into electoralprocesses that had traditionally been the purview of state or local authorities.

COLEGROVE V. GREEN,328 U.S. 549 (1946)

Background

Traditionally, congressional districts have been drawn along geographicaland historical lines, reflecting the earliest settlements and centers of politi-cal power. Although the early districts might have been roughly equal inpopulation, as urban populations grew some districts became much morepopulous than others. The political clout of rural districts often inhibitedany redrawing of districts to reflect the changes in population. This meantthat a person living in a city might share a congressional representative with600,000 fellow voters, while the 150,000 people living in a rural district alsohave one representative in Congress.

Legal Issues

To challenge such disparities in the weight of votes, three Illinois voters,from the state’s more populous districts sued the state’s governor, secretaryof state, and other officials, claiming that the current apportionment of dis-tricts, which had not been substantially changed since after the 1900 census,


63

violated the 1901 State Apportionment Act as well being inconsistent withthe equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-tion because voters in populous districts were being treated differently(being given less representation) than those in less populous areas.

Decision

Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter declared that the Courtshould not intervene in matters of districting:

We are of opinion that the petitioners ask of this Court what is beyond itscompetence to grant. This is one of those demands on judicial power whichcannot be met by verbal fencing about ‘jurisdiction.’ It must be resolved byconsiderations on the basis of which this Court, from time to time, has refusedto intervene in controversies. It has refused to do so because due regard for theeffective working of our Government revealed this issue to be of a peculiarlypolitical nature and therefore not meet for judicial determination.

In other words, the separation of powers means that the judicial branchshould not become involved in how the political branch chooses to arrangeto constitute itself. The Constitution gives Congress the power to deter-mine how representatives should be chosen (and thus how congressionaldistricts should be constituted), and the plaintiff’s only remedy therefore lieswith Congress (or possibly through amending the Constitution).

Justice Hugo Black vigorously dissented, pointing out that:

The 1901 State Apportionment Act if applied to the next election would thusresult in a wholly indefensible discrimination against petitioners and all othervoters in heavily populated districts. . . . The probable effect of the 1901 StateApportionment Act in the coming election will be that certain citizens, andamong them the petitioners, will in some instances have votes only one-ninthas effective in choosing representatives to Congress as the votes of other citi-zens. Such discriminatory legislation seems to me exactly the kind that theequal protection clause was intended to prohibit.

Impact

As with many other aspects of Supreme Court jurisprudence, this initial refusalto become involved in a question would not be the end of the story. In Bakerv. Carr (1962), the Supreme Court would declare that “malapportioned” dis-tricts were subject to judicial scrutiny, and eventually even malapportioned dis-tricts in state legislatures would be struck down in Reynolds v. Sims (1964).


64

UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL,330 U.S. 75 (1947)

Background

The federal Hatch Act precludes government employees from “taking anypart in political management or political campaigns.” Among other casesthat came to the Supreme Court for review, an employee of the U.S. mintwas fired for having served as a poll worker and paymaster for a politicalcampaign in violation of the Hatch Act.

Legal Issues

The basic issue is whether the First Amendment right to engage in politicalactivity can be limited by Congress in the case of government workers, inorder to prevent the corrupting entanglement of government employmentwith politics.

Decision

As stated in the syllabus, the Court ruled that:

(a) Congress has the power to regulate, within reasonable limits, the politicalconduct of federal employees, in order to promote efficiency and integrity inthe public service. Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371; United States v.Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396.

(b) The fundamental human rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninthand Tenth Amendments are not absolute, and this Court must balance theextent of the guarantee of freedom against a congressional enactment to pro-tect a democratic society against the supposed evil of political partisanship byemployees of the Government.

(c) The Hatch Act permits full participation by federal employees in politicaldecisions at the ballot box, and forbids only the partisan activity deemed of-fensive to efficiency.

(d) It does not restrict public and private expressions on public affairs, person-alities, and matters of public interest, not an objective of party action, so longas the government employee does not direct his activities toward party success.

In other words, Congress had a legitimate objective in protecting de-mocratic society against corruption, and the Hatch Act provisions did not


65

impair the basic First Amendment rights of employees, who were free tospeak out on issues or candidates (as well as to vote, of course). They wereonly restricted from engaging in specifically partisan activity.

Impact

The Hatch Act restrictions on political employment of government em-ployees were upheld. (For a later ruling affirming this position, see CSC v.Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 [1973].)

Whether the restrictions were reasonable or desirable would remain apolitical question. Generally, Democrats have argued for easing Hatch Actrestrictions because government workers and their unions tend to supportthe Democratic Party, while Republicans have argued for maintaining re-strictions. The Hatch Act was amended in 1993 to allow for more partisanpolitical activity.

UNITED STATES V. CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL

ORGANIZATIONS,335 U.S. 106 (1948)

Background

The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) was indicted for distribut-ing a special issue of its newsletter containing an article endorsing a partic-ular candidate in a federal congressional election. This was a violation of theFederal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 as amended by the Labor Manage-ment Relations Act of 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act), which forbids laborunions from contributing to federal election campaigns.

The defendants argued that the prohibition against union contributionsto elections violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment.The district court agreed and threw out the indictment. The governmentappealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The constitutional issue is whether prohibiting campaign contributions byunions violates the First Amendment. A related question is whether contri-butions amount to “speech” protected by the Constitution.

Decision

The Court agreed with the dismissal of the indictment, ruling that the dis-tribution of free copies of the newspaper to people outside the union did notamount substantially to a contribution to the political campaign. The Court


66

declined to express an opinion as to the constitutionality of the law againstunion contributions, although Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge, who con-curred with the decision, also expressed a strong desire to rule that the con-tribution ban violated the First Amendment.

Impact

This case left the question open until a time when a more substantial use ofunion funds was involved in a campaign. That time came with United States v.Auto Workers (1957), where the union was charged with paying for televisionads supporting a candidate. In this case the Court sustained the indictment,saying that such activity clearly amount to “expenditures” within the meaningintended by Congress. Again, however, the constitutional issue was bypassed.

In effect, therefore, the ban on political contributions from a union’s gen-eral funds was upheld, and the Court remained disinclined to consider theFirst Amendment issue. (Coerced or insufficiently voluntary contributionsby unions were ruled illegal by the Court in Pipefitters v. United States (1972).)

GOMILLION V. LIGHTFOOT,364 U.S. 340 (1960)

Background

The Alabama state legislature redrew the boundaries of the city of Tuskegeefrom a neat square to a weird-looking polygon. Suddenly all but a few of thecity’s black voters were no longer considered to be within the city bound-aries and were thus ineligible to vote in city elections. A group of these vot-ers filed a class action suit against the mayor and other city officials. The suitcharged that they had been arbitrarily deprived of city services (such as po-lice and fire protection) as well as the right to vote in local elections.

Legal Issues

The plaintiffs claimed that the city’s action violated the due process andequal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Fif-teenth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to vote regardlessof race. The city argued that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue becausethe federal courts had no jurisdiction over the decision of a municipality toredraw its boundaries. The district court agreed with the city and dismissedthe suit. The plaintiffs appealed, but the Fifth District Court of Appeals af-firmed the lower court’s action, saying that the ordinance in question didnot “on its face” specify any form of racial discrimination. The plaintiffs ap-pealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


67

Decision

The unanimous Court, led by Justice Felix Frankfurter, began by noting that

[the state’s] Act 140 was not an ordinary geographic redistricting measureeven within familiar abuses of gerrymandering. If these allegations upon atrial remained uncontradicted or unqualified, the conclusion would be irre-sistible, tantamount for all practical purposes to a mathematical demonstra-tion, that the legislation is solely concerned with segregating white and coloredvoters by fending Negro citizens out of town so as to deprive them of theirpre-existing municipal vote.

Frankfurter went on to note that “a statute which is alleged to have workedunconstitutional deprivations of petitioners’ rights is not immune to attacksimply because the mechanism employed by the legislature is a redefinitionof boundaries.”

Having established its jurisdiction, the Court concluded that:

The Fifteenth Amendment forbids a State from passing any law which de-prives a citizen of his vote because of his race. When a State exercises powerwholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judi-cial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is usedas an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right.

Impact

In Gomillion, the Supreme Court asserted the important general principlethat a law that has a discriminatory effect and deprives citizens of the rightto vote on the basis of race cannot stand, regardless of whether the lawavoids any specific mention of race.

REYNOLDS V. SIMS,377 U.S. 533 (1964)

Background

A group of Alabama voters sued, claiming that maintaining state legislative dis-tricts with unequal populations violated the equal protection clause of theFourteenth Amendment. Their case was heard by the Supreme Court togetherwith several other cases that had also been turned down by lower courts.

Legal Issues

In Wesbury v. Sanders, decided earlier the same year, the Supreme Court hadruled that congressional districts must be made equal in population. In the


68

case of Congress, however, there is already a “hook” for federal involvementin the constitutional power of Congress to make regulations involving itsmembership and electoral process. The question was whether the “one man,one vote” rule would also extend to state legislative districts, because of theFourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws, whichwas being increasingly applied to state as well as federal jurisdictions. (TheCourt had already made this extension in Gray v. Sanders (1963), requiringthat everyone must have an “equal vote” in a Georgia state primary electionthat previously had been weighted by voting on a county-by-county basis.)

Decision

The Court ruled that the equal protection clause did require that state leg-islative districts be apportioned equally with regard to population. The ma-jority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, is summarized in thesyllabus as follows:

1. The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen’s votein a state or federal election.

2. Under the Equal Protection Clause a claim of debasement of the right tovote through malapportionment presents a justiciable controversy; and theEqual Protection Clause provides manageable standards for lower courtsto determine the constitutionality of a state legislative apportionmentscheme.

3. The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative rep-resentation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside.

Impact

Many states had copied the model of the federal government in having astate assembly corresponding to the House of Representatives and a statesenate corresponding to the federal Senate. At the federal level, this em-bodies the framers’ compromise between the democratic impulse (directpopular vote) and the restraining impulse of having a body that also took ge-ography and other interests into account. After the Reynolds decision, statescould still have a bicameral legislature (two houses), but both houses wouldnow have to be chosen using districts equal in population.

More subtly, the Reynolds case represents the culmination of an evolution inwhich the right of the individual voter to a full, undiluted vote as a requirementof equal protection under the federal constitution takes precedence over otherconsiderations (whether benign or otherwise) that states might want to employin districting. This is encapsulated in the Court’s opinion as follows:


69

Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and de-mocratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a freeand unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and politicalrights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be care-fully and meticulously scrutinized.

This was further confirmed in Lucas v. 44th General Assembly of Colorado(1964), where Justices Potter Stewart and Thomas Clark in dissent com-plained that reducing everything to “one man, one vote” denied considera-tions of regional balancing that had been long part of the U.S. politicaltradition. At any rate, henceforth most of the redistricting plans done aftereach 10-year census now would be challenged if the resulting districts werenot virtually equal in population.

WESBURY V. SANDERS,376 U.S. 1 (1964)

Background

A group of voters in a Georgia congressional district that had two to threetimes the population of some of the smaller districts sued, claiming that hav-ing congressional districts of unequal population violated the equal protec-tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, becausetheir votes were proportionately “weighted” much less than those of votersin smaller districts.

The district court, while acknowledging that the district in question was“grossly out of balance with that of the other nine congressional districts ofGeorgia” nevertheless rejected the voters’ claim, relying upon the SupremeCourt’s opinion in Colegrove v. Green (1946), in which the majority had de-clared that legislative districting was a political matter into which courtsshould not pry, out of respect to a separate but equal branch of government.The plaintiff voters appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

In Baker v. Carr (1962) the Supreme Court had already reversed Colegrove tothe extent of deciding that the apportionment of districts was indeed “justi-ciable” and subject to the scrutiny of the courts, and that voters had standingto sue in such cases. This ruling was based on the constitutional power ofCongress to regulate its manner of election, including districting. Districtingwas therefore not solely a state action, and in conflicts between the power ofCongress and the states the federal courts must necessarily become involved.The next question was whether districts with great disparities in populationviolated the equal protection clause and was therefore unconstitutional.


70

Decision

Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion did indeed declare such districting tobe unconstitutional: “We hold that, construed in its historical context, thecommand of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of theseveral States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a con-gressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” In reviewing theFramers’ intentions in designing the U.S. government, Black pointed outthat although the Senate was intended to give equal representation to statesthat could vary greatly in size and population, the House was intended torepresent “the people” and to do so in equal proportions (hence the consti-tutional requirement for a regular census).

Impact

This watershed case highlighted the principle “one man, one vote” as a stan-dard required by the Constitution and required regular redistricting of Con-gress to keep up with population changes. This would have the effect ofshifting political power to a considerable extent from the less populated ruralareas to the highly populated cities, particularly when Reynolds v. Sims (1964)extended the “one person, one vote” principle to state legislative districts.

WRIGHT V. ROCKEFELLER,376 U.S. 52 (1964)

Background

A New York City congressional districting plan arranged Manhattan intofour districts. One district, represented by black representative Adam Clay-ton Powell, was 86 percent black and Puerto Rican, while the remainingthree districts had relatively small numbers of these groups (5, 28, and 29percent, respectively). A group of voters sued the state, claiming that racialconsiderations had been impermissibly used to draw the districts to mini-mize the number of black representatives, and that they had been deprivedof their rights to due process and equal protection under the FourteenthAmendment and their right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Appeals Court rejected this claim, saying not only that the plaintiffshad not shown that there was a “state contrivance” to segregate voters onthe basis of race but that:

(a) Where the evidence was “equally, or more, persuasive” that racial con-siderations had not motivated the State Legislature than that such consider-ations had motivated the Legislature, the findings of the District Court thatthe appellants had failed to prove their case will not be disturbed.


71

(b) The high concentration in one area of colored and Puerto Rican votersmade it difficult to draw districts to approximate an equal division of thesegroups among the districts, even assuming that to be permissible.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The factual issue was whether the state had intentionally discriminated onthe basis of race in how they allocated voters in the four districts, or at anyrate, created districts that amounted to a form of racial segregation. If thiswas shown, then under Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the districting would beunconstitutional.

Decision

The Court majority, led by Justice Hugo Black, “accept[ed] the findings ofthe majority of the District Court that appellants failed to prove that theNew York legislature was either motivated by racial consideration or in factdrew the districts on racial lines.” Since the plaintiffs had not proved thefactual basis for their claim, the districts in question were not unconstitu-tionally drawn.

Impact

In Gomillion, the exclusion of blacks was nearly complete, and there was noother plausible justification for redrawing the city boundaries. In Wright,however, the purpose and effect of the distribution of minorities in the fourdistricts was less clear. The Court set a fairly high threshold for showingthat a districting plan was impermissibly based on race.

HARPER V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS,383 U.S. 663 (1966)

Background

In addition to literacy tests, another common tactic used by those whowanted to keep minorities (and poor whites) away from the polls has beenthe poll tax, a fee that voters must pay for access to the ballot box. SeveralVirginia residents sued to have their state’s poll tax declared unconstitu-tional. Since the Supreme Court had upheld poll taxes in a previous deci-sion, Breedlove v. Suttles (1937), the district court rejected the complaint.The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


72

Legal Issues

In the early years of the United States, property or means requirements forvoting were not uncommon, but the rise of populist sentiment resulted inmost such requirements (for white males) being reduced or eliminated bythe mid-19th century. The ratification of the Twenty-fourth Amendment in1964 had banned the use of poll taxes in federal elections. The issue inHarper is whether the Constitution permitted the use of poll taxes in stateelections.

Decision

The lead opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas, first distinguished the polltax from literacy tests. In Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board (1959), theCourt had upheld literacy tests but only if they were not administered in a waythat “on its face showed discrimination.” (Eventually the use of such testswould be banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because of their inherentlydiscriminatory effect against minorities.) Here, the Court noted that literacytests at least bore some relationship to qualifications to vote, since the abilityto read and write obviously helped make voters better informed.

A poll tax, however, had no relationship to a voter’s ability to vote.Therefore, Justice Douglas concluded:

that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-ment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee anelectoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to pay-ing or not paying this or any other tax. Our cases demonstrate that the EqualProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States fromfixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.

Impact

This ruling suggests that while the states retain some power to establishqualifications for voting, any such qualifications must be clearly related to theact of voting itself or will otherwise be seen as arbitrary and discriminatory.

WILLIAMS V. RHODES,393 U.S. 23 (1968)

Background

In general, the states have established a variety of requirements that must bemet for an independent or third-party candidate to get on the ballot. In


73

1968, former Alabama governor George Wallace ran for president as thecandidate of the newly formed American Independent Party. Wallace wasable to get on the ballot in every state except Ohio.

Ohio had unusually stiff requirements for candidates who were not De-mocrats or Republicans. Such candidates had to obtain signatures of 15 per-cent of the number of voters in the previous gubernatorial election. (Therewas no provision at all for independent candidates not affiliated with aparty.) Wallace met this requirement, but not in time for the deadline ofFebruary 7 of the election year. (By contrast, Democrats and Republicansdid not need to obtain signatures as long as they had received at least 10 per-cent of the votes in the previous election.)

The Ohio American Independent Party and the Socialist Labor Partysued to overturn the state’s ballot access requirements as unconstitutionaland to force the state to put their candidates on the ballot. The district courtagreed that the requirements were unconstitutional but refused to orderthat the candidates’ names be put the ballot (only a space for write-in voteswould be provided). Both sides appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The two minor parties argued that having different, stricter ballot accessstandards for minor parties than for the two major parties violated their (andtheir potential voters’) rights to equal protection of the laws under theFourteenth Amendment. The state argued that establishing ballot access re-quirements was within their constitutional power, as given in Article 2, Sec-tion 1, which provides that each state “shall appoint, in such Manner as theLegislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The state further ar-gued that such matters were a “political question” into which the courtsshould not intrude.

Decision

Justice Hugo Black disagreed with the state and declared that its ballot ac-cess rules were unconstitutional. The key points, summarized in the syllabusare as follows:

2. State laws enacted pursuant to Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution to regu-late the selection of electors must meet the requirements of the Equal Pro-tection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. Ohio’s restrictive election laws, taken as a whole, are invidiously discrim-inatory and violate the Equal Protection Clause because they give the twoold, established parties a decided advantage over new parties.


74

(a) The state laws here involved heavily burden the right of individualsto associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right ofqualified voters to cast their votes effectively.

(b) The State has shown no “compelling interest” justifying those burdens.

In his opinion, Judge Black noted that Ohio’s requirements made it “virtu-ally impossible for any party to qualify on the ballot except the Republicanand Democratic Parties.”

Impact

The key here is found not in a right of someone to run for office but in theright of candidates (and voters) to the equal protection of the laws guaran-teed by the Fourteenth Amendment and in the right of individuals to freelyassociate in political parties to further their objectives. If a system of ballotrules virtually precludes alternate parties getting on the ballot, voters whowant alternatives are unable to effectively pursue them or vote for them.

It should be noted that the Ohio requirements were unusually burden-some. The Court later showed that a more modest threshold could be re-quired for qualifying third-party or independent candidates for the ballot.In Jeness v. Fortson (1971), the Court upheld a Georgia requirement that in-dependent candidates obtain signatures equal to 5 percent of the number ofpeople voting for the relevant office in the previous election. In this caseGeorgia, unlike Ohio, did provide for independent candidates and did notset an earlier filing deadline for candidates not affiliated with a major party.Similarly, in Munro v. Socialist Workers Party (1986), the state of Washing-ton’s requirement that a minor party candidate receive at least 1 percent ofthe vote in the primary election to be placed on the ballot in the generalelection was also upheld. The Court said that states were not required tomake a showing that eliminating the requirement would lead to ballot over-crowding and voter confusion. Justices Thurgood Marshall and WalterBrennan, dissenting, disagreed and said that the state should have been re-quired to show a compelling interest in restricting ballot access, and that itsrules were narrowly tailored to meet its legitimate objectives.

BUCKLEY V. VALEO,424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Background

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 set up a rather complicated sys-tem of limits and requirements involving different types of political contribu-tions and expenditures by different types of organizations. For example, an


75

individual could contribute up to $25,000 a year but no more than $1,000 forany one candidate in any particular election. There are separate limits for po-litical committees and for a person spending money on his or her own cam-paign.

Candidates, political parties, and various civil liberties groups rangingfrom the American Civil Liberties Union to the American ConservativeUnion banded together and challenged the new law in court, primarilybased on its impact on First Amendment free speech rights. Lower courtsupheld most of the provisions of FECA, and plaintiffs then appealed to theSupreme Court.

Legal Issues

The principal issue in this complex case is whether imposing bans or limitson campaign contributions or expenditures violates the protection of free-dom of speech and expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to theConstitution. Obviously political campaigning involves a great deal ofspeech and other forms of expression, much of it in the form of paid adver-tising in the broadcast media and the press.

Defenders of the reform law try to make a clear distinction between thespeech and the money that pays for it. They argue that under FECA no one istold what they can or must say, only how (and how much) they can pay. Theplaintiffs argue that in today’s reality the ability to carry on effective politicaldiscourse is inextricably bound up with money. If you limit the funds availableto candidates, you limit how effective their messages can be, and you limit thequality of the overall political discourse. (Critics would argue that the growingquantity of political speech has not often led to increased quality in this realm.)

Decision

The opinion, which is “per curiam” (unsigned), begins with a statement ofthe central importance of political discourse:

The Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of themost fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issuesand debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation ofthe system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amend-ment affords the broadest protection to such public expression in order ‘to as-sure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of politicaland social changes desired by the people . . .’

This freedom of expression is accompanied by the right of association,which is needed for “the effective advocacy of both public and private pointsof view, particularly controversial ones.”


76

The Court then considered actions that have both a speech and a non-speech component, such as the burning of draft cards (United States v.O’Brien, 1968). In that case, the Court ruled that while burning a draft cardcertainly expressed political sentiments, it also had a “non-speech element”that the government had a legitimate interest in regulating, and that pre-venting the particular action of burning a draft card was only an “incidentalrestriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms.”

However, the Court said that the expenditure of money (the nonspeechcomponent) did not have only an incidental relationship to the politicalspeech protected by the First Amendment. The regulations indeed had thepurpose of equalizing the speech available to various parties in the politicaldebate, by restricting the amount of money that they could spend on speech.

Another possible defense of the regulations was that they were a properexercise of Congress’s power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” ofspeech, providing that it did not discriminate on the basis of the content ofthe speech. But this settled principle of First Amendment law does notapply, because the regulations limit more than how the speech can be car-ried out, because “a restriction on the amount of money a person or a groupcan spend on political communication necessarily reduces the quantity ofexpression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of theirexploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Because of this unac-ceptable restriction on the candidate’s freedom of speech, the Court ruledthat FECA limits on expenditures by candidates, independent political com-mittees and overall expenditure ceilings were unconstitutional.

But the Court made a crucial (and controversial) distinction betweencontributing to a campaign and that campaign’s spending money. TheCourt found that limiting contributions was compatible with the FirstAmendment because “a limitation upon the amount that any one person orgroup may contribute to a candidate or political committee entails only amarginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage in free com-munication.” That is, making an unlimited contribution is not essential tothe contributor communicating his or her political ideas.

Impact

Buckley has been one of the most contentious modern Supreme Court deci-sions. At first glance it might seem that campaign finance reform had beenleft largely intact, since all the contribution limits had withstood constitu-tional scrutiny. But as a practical matter the removal of the expenditure lim-its has meant that money has continued to flow in an increasing torrent,including unregulated “soft money,” with no way to turn off the spigot atthe candidate’s end.


77

Critics of Buckley have suggested that the Court was unnecessarily abso-lutist in its interpretation of the First Amendment and did not take changesin U.S. political life into account. Just as the Court has expanded the per-missible powers of government in the economic area (such as antitrust) inresponse to the threat of unbridled private economic power, the critics sug-gest that the Court should have seen a need to regulate the political “mar-ketplace of ideas” to prevent those with the most money from monopolizingdiscourse. The distinction that the Court attempted between contributionsand expenditures has also been criticized as being muddled or naive. Finally,the simple equation of “more speech” with “better speech” has been ques-tioned in this age of 10-second sound bites.

Nevertheless, Buckley has remained virtually intact for more than 25years, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which itself is un-dergoing court challenge, was framed to avoid a collision with Buckley.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON V. BELLOTTI,435 U.S. 765 (1978)

Background

A group of banking associations and corporations challenged a Massachu-setts law prohibiting corporations from making contributions or expendi-tures “for the purpose of . . . influencing or affecting the vote on anyquestion submitted to the voters, other than one materially affecting any ofthe property, business or assets of the corporation.” The plaintiffs hadwanted to contribute to a campaign against a proposed state constitutionalamendment that would have provided for a graduated income tax on indi-viduals. The state law, however, explicitly defined taxes (income, property,or sales) as not being issues for which corporations could make politicalcontributions. The Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the state law asconstitutional, and the corporations appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The corporations argued that the state law prohibiting their political expen-ditures violated their First Amendment rights as well as their due process andequal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This of courseprovokes the question of whether corporations, which are legal entities, havesuch rights, and to the same extent that individual human citizens do.

Decision

The Massachusetts Supreme Court had found that corporations do haverights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but that these rights


78

were limited to matters touching on their direct economic interest. This isbecause the First Amendment is applied to the states through the Four-teenth Amendment (the incorporation doctrine), and the state court foundthat the Fourteenth Amendment protected a corporation’s property rights,not the “liberty” rights that are asserted for individuals. Therefore they con-cluded that the state law, which contained a provision allowing corporationsto make contributions for issues directly affecting their property, did not in-fringe the constitution.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The majority opinion by Justice LewisPowell said that asking whether corporations had First Amendment andFourteenth Amendment rights as extensive as those of natural persons wasasking the wrong question. Rather, the question was “whether [the statelaw] abridges expression that the First Amendment was meant to protect.”The Court viewed the First Amendment as requiring that the public be ex-posed to a full spectrum of points of view, and the speech of commercial in-terests is part of that spectrum. The Court noted that

the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expres-sion of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of infor-mation from which members of the public may draw. A commercialadvertisement is constitutionally protected not so much because it pertains tothe seller’s business as because it furthers the societal interest in the “free flowof commercial information.”

In addition to depriving the public of this robust discourse, the state law im-permissibly restricted speech on the basis of the corporate identity of thespeaker.

The dissenting opinion, led by Justice Byron White, argued that allow-ing corporations to engage in political speech about issues that do not di-rectly affect their business implied forcing shareholders who did notnecessarily agree with those beliefs to subsidize that speech and be identi-fied with it. (This is analogous to the question of whether union memberscan be forced to pay for political speech as opposed to the union’s core“business” of collective bargaining. Unions have been required to maketheir political funds voluntary.)

Finally, in his separate dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist quotedthe earliest major Supreme Court case dealing with corporations, Dart-mouth College v. Woodward (1819). There, Chief Justice John Marshall de-scribed the legal status of a corporation as follows:

A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only incontemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those


79

properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly or asincidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculatedto effect the object for which it was created.

Under this definition, giving corporations limited speech rights that only af-fect their economic interests would seem appropriate. However, the status androle of the corporation has expanded considerably in the past two centuries.

Impact

While corporate contributions to political campaigns can be restricted (as inthe regulations upheld in Buckley v. Valeo), corporations cannot be prohib-ited from expressing their view on political issues. Critics of the excesses ofcorporate power disagree with this type of expansive protection for com-mercial speech.

CITIZENS AGAINST RENT CONTROL

V. CITY OF BERKELEY,454 U.S. 290 (1981)

Background

The city of Berkeley, California, adopted an ordinance that limited totalcontributions by an individual in support of or opposition to a city ballotmeasure to a total of $250. An association formed to oppose a city rent con-trol measure raised contributions that included nine that exceeded the $250limit. The association sought and obtained a temporary restraining orderprohibiting enforcement of the contribution limit ordinance. The trialcourt later declared the ordinance unconstitutional, but on appeal the Cal-ifornia Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, saying that the city had a le-gitimate, compelling interest in preventing powerful special interests fromoverwhelming the ballot initiative process.

Legal Issues

The question was whether imposing a contribution limit for ballot measuresviolated the right to free speech under the First Amendment.

Decision

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, began by re-calling the important role that voluntary associations played in the birth ofAmerican democracy—for example, the colonial Committees of Corre-


80

spondence and the writers of the Federalist Papers. The Court noted thatthe First Amendment has been consistently interpreted as “protecting amarketplace for the clash of different views and conflicting ideas.”

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court had upheld contributionlimits for federal candidates, but the Court had also noted that “[T]he con-cept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our soci-ety in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to theFirst Amendment, which was designed “to secure the ‘widest possible dis-semination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources’” and “‘toassure unfettered interchange . . .’”

The Court declared that “to place a Spartan limit—or indeed any limit—on individuals wishing to band together to advance their views on a ballotmeasure, while placing none on individuals acting alone, is clearly a restrainton the right of association.” Buckley, however, had sustained limits on con-tributions to candidates. The Court now distinguished between contribut-ing to a ballot measure and to a candidate. In the latter case, the state has alegitimate interest in preventing a “political quid pro quo from present andfuture officeholders.” However, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti theSupreme Court had ruled that it was not permissible to give a corporationless political free speech than an individual. The same would be applied tounincorporated associations such as Citizens Against Rent Control.

Impact

The Court’s decision in this case suggests that a limit on contributions byindividuals involving ballot initiatives would be acceptable, at least if not un-reasonably low. But the Court has found a close association between free-dom of speech and freedom of association. Speech is after all a socialactivity, and political activity usually involves groups.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

V. WISCONSIN EX REL. LA FOLLETTE,450 U.S. 107 (1981)

Background

The rules of the Democratic Party specified that only persons “willing to af-filiate publicly with the Democrats” (that is, registered Democrats) were el-igible to participate in the process of selecting delegates to the party’sNational Convention. The state of Wisconsin, however, had instituted an“open primary,” in which voters belonging to any (or no) party could, if theywish, choose among the candidates running for the Democratic nomination.


81

Although the actual delegates would be chosen after the primary, they wererequired to vote for the winner of the primary. As a result, non-Democratscould potentially influence or even determine the allegiance of the Wiscon-sin delegation.

The national Democratic Party ruled that the Wisconsin delegationwould not be seated for the 1980 National Convention because of the vio-lation of party rules against participation by non-Democrats. The state ofWisconsin sued in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to force the DemocraticParty to seat the delegation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed withthe state’s position, and the party appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The conflict here is between the state’s power to regulate the electoralprocess and the right of a political party to freedom of association. Theparty argued that its freedom of association under the First Amendmentwould be impaired if it were forced to allow nonmembers to participate inits nomination process.

Decision

The majority opinion, written by Justice Potter Stewart, upheld the posi-tion of the Democratic Party, saying that it had a right to select who itwould associate with under the First Amendment, and the FourteenthAmendment enforced this right against the state. The Court ruled that anycompelling interest of the state in such matters as encouraging voter partic-ipation applied to the open primary itself, which was constitutional. How-ever, the state could not force the party to accept the results of that primary.

Impact

The protection of the rights of political parties to association are generallygiven a high value, except where they touch upon the suspect category ofrace. Political expression is closely tied to the ability to voluntarily andfreely associate. (Somewhat similarly, in Cousins v. Wigoda (1975) theSupreme Court had held that the state could not force the DemocraticParty to seat two delegations that had been rejected by its Credentials Com-mittee, although the case was not fully resolved.)

BROWN V. SOCIALIST WORKERS

’74 CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE,459 U.S. 87 (1982)

Background

Although the Ohio Socialist Workers Party (SWP) did not advocate violentrevolution and functioned within the normal political system, district court


82

findings concluded that its members had experienced considerable govern-ment and private harassment. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investi-gation (FBI) conducted a systematic program in which it sent anonymousthreatening letters to party members and their families, and even visitedlandlords and urged them not to rent to party members. People whose af-filiation to the SWP was exposed faced harassment and threats of physicalviolence from members of the general public.

The Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law required that each candi-date file a statement identifying each contributor, the recipient of each ex-penditure, and a description of the “object or purpose” of eachdisbursement. A group of SWP officials sued to block this requirement, ar-guing that forced disclosure would, given the prevailing atmosphere, putcontributors in danger and greatly discourage future contributions. Thedistrict court agreed that the party members’ experience of harassment andthreats gave credence to their argument that forced disclosure would violatetheir right to function as a political party. The state government appealed tothe U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The general validity of federal campaign disclosure requirements was up-held by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The issue in the pre-sent case, involving a state campaign reform law, was whether disclosurecould be required if it exposed contributors to substantial danger and ha-rassment because they belonged to a group holding beliefs that were un-popular with much of the majority. Such exposure in turn mightcompromise the contributors’ (and the party’s) right to free expression andfree association under the First Amendment.

The government’s defense looked to the strong public interest in reduc-ing corruption and improving the quality of the political process by makinginformation about contributors and contributions available to the voters.The question was whether this interest, clearly acknowledged in Buckley,can justify the burden placed on the rights of association of party members.

Decision

The majority opinion, written by Justice Thurgood Marshall, began by not-ing that “The Constitution protects against the compelled disclosure of po-litical associations and beliefs. Such disclosures ‘can seriously infringe onprivacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment,’”quoting Buckley v. Valeo. In NAACP v. Alabama (1958) the Court had ruledthat the civil rights organization could not be forced to hand over a list ofits members. There the Court had stated that “Inviolability of privacy in


83

group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preserva-tion of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissidentbeliefs.”

While Buckley had upheld disclosure requirements, it had also noted thatthe state’s interest in compelling disclosure was less with minor parties thanwith major parties. Since minor parties were unlikely to win the election,contributions to them were unlikely to result in political corruption. Rather,the contributions were made out of a desire to promote the parties’ ideas.Buckley therefore allowed minor parties to avoid disclosure requirements ifthey could make a reasonable showing that they had been harassed orthreatened in the past, or if new parties were likely to face such actions inthe future.

Given that the SWP had shown such evidence to the satisfaction of thedistrict court, the Supreme Court upheld the exemption of the SWP fromforced disclosure under the Ohio law. The Court therefore concluded that:

The First Amendment prohibits a State from compelling disclosures by aminor party that will subject those persons identified to the reasonable proba-bility of threats, harassment, or reprisals. Such disclosures would infringe theFirst Amendment rights of the party and its members and supporters. Inlight of the substantial evidence of past and present hostility from private per-sons and Government officials against the SWP, Ohio’s campaign disclosurerequirements cannot be constitutionally applied to the Ohio SWP.

Impact

The general use of campaign finance disclosure laws has been solidly upheldsince Buckley v. Valeo. However, if compelled disclosure threatens the basicFirst Amendment rights of minor parties and their supporters, such disclo-sure cannot be required. This case also illustrates the attempt of the courtsto show some understanding of the special circumstances faced by minorparties and political groups that are out of the mainstream.

TASHJIAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT,479 U.S. 208 (1986)

Background

In another case involving a political party’s right of free association, the Re-publican Party of Connecticut adopted a rule that allowed registered inde-pendent voters to vote in its primaries for federal and statewide offices.However, Connecticut had a statute that required that voters in a party’s


84

primary be members of that party. The party challenged this law on thegrounds that it deprived them of the right to associate with individuals oftheir own choosing. The district court and the court of appeals affirmed theparty’s position, and the state then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

This case pitted the right of a political party to associate with nonmembers(by allowing them to participate in its primary) against the state’s assertedinterest in regulating elections.

Decision

The Court’s ruling as described in the syllabus is that:

The freedom of association protected by those Amendments includes partisanpolitical organization. [The state law] places limits upon the group of regis-tered voters whom the Party may invite to participate in the “basic function”of selecting the Party’s candidates. The State thus limits the Party’s associa-tional opportunities at the crucial juncture at which the appeal to commonprinciples may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political powerin the community. The fact that the State has the power to regulate the time,place, and manner of elections does not justify, without more, the abridgmentof fundamental rights, such as the right to vote or, as here, the freedom of po-litical association.

The Court ruled that the state’s justifications for its rules, such as that theyprevent a “raid” by nonmembers on a party’s nomination process, or thatthey make the primary election more manageable, are insufficient to over-ride the party’s right to determine how it will associate in furthering its po-litical objectives.

The dissent, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that since personscould register with a party up to the day before the primary, the state lawdid not really impair the ability of the party to reach out to independent vot-ers. Further, Scalia argued that merely voting in a party’s primary is not re-ally a meaningful form of association.

Impact

A number of reforms (such as open primaries or, in this case, closed pri-maries) have been instituted in an attempt to redress perceived flaws in theelectoral system. However, the freedom of association of political partiesmust be respected.


85

SHAW V. RENO,509 U.S. 630 (1993)

Background

As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to an addi-tional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The state created a reap-portionment plan that included one majority-black congressional district.The U.S. Attorney General objected that having only one majority blackdistrict was insufficient, so the state revised the plan to create two such dis-tricts. The resulting districts seemed bizarrely shaped, snaking across thestate. A group of white voters sued, claiming that this constituted imper-missible “racial gerrymandering” that ignored all other considerations suchas historical boundaries or compactness.

The district court rejected the voters’ claim along the lines of JusticeByron White’s opinion in United Jewish Organizations v. Carey (1977), basi-cally saying that no invidious discrimination had been shown and that thevoting strength of whites had not been diminished. The plaintiffs appealedto the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court had ruled in a number of cases (including United JewishOrganizations) that some degree of race consciousness was permissible andeven necessary to comply with the 1965 Voting Act and to redress historicwrongs against minorities. The question in Shaw was whether there werelimits to how far a state could go in redrawing boundaries, and whether racecould be not just a consideration in the process but virtually its sole criterion.

Decision

In a narrow 5-4 decision the majority, in an opinion written by Justice San-dra Day O’Connor, said that the claim of the white voters could be heard.They could sue only the state, which had actually drawn the boundaries, notthe federal government, which had demanded the extra majority-minoritydistrict. The Court did not determine the merits of the appellants’ case, butordered it returned to the district court.

Impact

Although the Court did not decide on the merits, O’Connor’s opinion stronglysuggested that there were indeed limits to the process of racial gerrymander-ing. O’Connor pointed out that when the resulting districts are so “extremelyirregular” and “bizarre,” presumably race must have been the overwhelmingconsideration, trumping compactness, contiguity, and historical geography.


86

The states were in effect put on notice that when the results are so extremethey will be subject to close scrutiny by the courts, and the states will need a“compelling justification” for such plans to be acceptable. Critics expressedconcern that with states caught between the Voting Rights Act and the courts’scrutiny, all progress in improving minority representation might grind to ahalt.

Further potential trouble for race-conscious districting lies in the com-position of the Court as revealed in the various concurring opinions. Jus-tices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have said that under theFourteenth Amendment race can never be used by the government, even toremedy past discrimination, and Justice William Rehnquist seems unsym-pathetic to the use of race-based remedies. The four dissenters in Shaw, Jus-tices David Souter, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and John Paul Stevensbasically said that the white voters had no case, while Justices O’Connor andKennedy joined with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist in crafting a compro-mise position that suggested closer scrutiny and possible limits for suchplans. Thus a small change in the composition of the Court could lead to avirtual end to race-based redistricting.

Meanwhile, several later cases suggested the Court’s continued suspicionof racial gerrymandering. In Johnson v. Grandy (1994), the Court ruled 7-2that minorities were entitled only to “roughly proportional” representationin districts, not a specially created majority. In Miller v. Johnson (1995) theCourt ruled 5-4 (with the same lineup of justices as in Shaw) that a mean-dering Georgia congressional district was unacceptable because race hadbeen used as the “predominate factor” in drawing its boundaries.

In the late 1990s, the Court acquired two relatively liberal justices (RuthBader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) and heard more redistricting cases.The Shaw case came back up from the lower court to which it had been re-manded (it was now known as Shaw v. Hunt). The lower court had appliedthe Supreme Court’s ruling in the original case and concluded that the dis-tricts were acceptable because they were “narrowly tailored” to the objec-tives of the Voting Rights Act. However, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 rulingrejected one of the districts in question as showing the use of predominatelyracial criteria that were not justifiable by any compelling interest shown bythe state. Finally, in Bush v. Vera (1995) the Court struck down three Texasmajority-minority districts on similar grounds.

DAY V. HOLAHAN,34 F. 3D 1356 (8TH CIR. 1994), CERT, DENIED,

513 U.S. 1127 (1995)

Background

A 1993 Minnesota campaign finance law included a provision intended tohelp candidates who agreed to spending limits counter excessive expenditures


87

by opponents who had not agreed to the limits. The law raised the expendi-ture limits on a candidate by “the sum of independent expenditures made inopposition to a candidate plus independent expenditures made on behalf ofthe candidate’s major party political opponents . . .” In addition, such a can-didate, if eligible for public campaign matching funds, would if otherwisequalified receive further public funding equal to half of the independent ex-penditures that had been made against the candidate. This law was challengedby a candidate on First Amendment grounds, and the case was heard by theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Legal Issues

Given the protection the First Amendment affords to political speech, is itpermissible for the government to help one candidate because the other hasspent too much? The opponents of the law argued that in effect the gov-ernment was punishing the “excessively spending” committee for exercisingspeech through campaign expenditures, and that contributions to its candi-date would be discouraged because they in effect would also help the op-posing candidate. (Buckley v. Valeo [1976] had ruled it unconstitutional tolimit expenditures directly.)

Decision

The Eighth Circuit Court struck down the regulation on First Amendmentgrounds. The court noted that in the case of someone making independentexpenditures on behalf of a candidate, “The knowledge that a candidate whoone does not want to be elected will have her spending limits increased andwill receive a public subsidy equal to half the amount of the independent ex-penditure, as a direct result of that independent expenditure, chills the freeexercise of that protected speech.” Further, the law is impermissibly “con-tent-based” because it treats speech according to its support or oppositionto a candidate. (The court also expressed doubt whether the state’s interestin encouraging candidates to participate in the public funding system wassufficiently compelling to justify the infringement on speech rights, butnoted that even before the regulation was enacted nearly 100 percent ofcandidates were already participating in the system.)

Finally, the court also overturned the $100 contribution cap for candidatescomplying with the public funding system as being so low that it did not allow“meaningful participation in protected political speech and association.”

Impact

The Supreme Court declined to hear the state’s appeal in this case, whichseems to suggest that the high court did not feel there was a compelling case


88

to be made for the Minnesota system. However, in Vote Choice, Inc. v. Di Ste-fano (4 F.3d 26 [1st Cir. 1993]) the First Circuit upheld a system in whichcandidates who accepted spending limits received an increased contributionlimit and more public funding. The distinguishing feature of this schememay be that people who contribute to one candidate are not directly trig-gering increased funding for his or her opponent.

Meanwhile, the Eighth Circuit Court, in Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633(8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2579 (1996) struck down a Missourisystem that set contribution limits that varied from $100 to $300 dependingon the office for which the election was being held and the size of the rele-vant district. Although unlike Day the limits in this case involved direct con-tributions to candidates rather than to committees, the court concluded thatthese limits were also too low to allow for effective speech.

The Supreme Court, which had upheld a $1,000 cap on contributions inBuckley, has not indicated what the lowest acceptable figure would be. Thelatest word, in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377(2000) was that the acceptable limits need not be pegged to the dollaramounts in the Federal Election Campaign Act as approved in Buckley.

MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Background

The community of Westerville, Ohio, was having an upcoming election inwhich voters would decide on a referendum imposing a school tax. At a pub-lic meeting, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets opposing the measure.The leaflets were not signed, and when she distributed them an official ofthe school district told her that they did not conform to an Ohio electionlaw banning such unsigned leaflets. The school official eventually filed acomplaint with the Ohio Elections Commission charging Ms. McIntyrewith violating election law. The commission fined her $100. Although Ms.McIntyre died shortly thereafter, her estate filed an appeal based upon theimportance of the issue. Her appeal was rejected by the lower court, upheldby the state appeals court, but turned down by the Ohio Supreme Court,which found the restrictions to be “reasonable” and “nondiscriminatory.”The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

McIntyre’s lawyers argued that she had a First Amendment right to cre-ate and distribute such anonymous leaflets. The state of Ohio, while not


89

generally opposing the distribution of such material, argued that it didhave an interest in banning it in connection with elections, as specified inthe law in question. By banning anonymous election material, the statecould prevent the distribution of scurrilous or defamatory material forwhich no one could be held accountable.

Decision

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, de-clared that the ban on anonymous election pamphlets violated the FirstAmendment. Such writing is part of “core political speech” and any restric-tions on it must be subject to “exacting scrutiny.” A general desire by theState to prevent fraud or libel cannot allow a blanket ban on all anonymouselection material. (In Talley v. California [1960] the Court had already over-turned general bans on all anonymous printed material.)

Impact

The U.S. political tradition of anonymous pamphleteering (as around thetime of the Revolution and during the debate over the Constitution) ishighly regarded. Today, with easy access to computers, printers, and the In-ternet, it is even easier for a wide variety of people to communicate anony-mously if they wish, and this right has been generally protected. (Note that“pure speech” like this can not be forced to be disclosed, but contributions,even though related to political speech, can. See Buckley v. Valeo [1976]).

SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC V. MAUPIN, 71 F.3D 1422 (8TH CIR. 1995) CERT DENIED

Background

An initiative passed by the voters of Missouri included a provision requiringcandidates after an election to return either to contributors or to the statenearly all of the unspent money left over from the campaign. This was com-monly known as a “spend down” provision because it encouraged candidatesto spend as much of their money as possible toward the end of a campaign.

Legal Issues

Supporters of this initiative argued that it would stop candidates fromamassing large “war chests” and carrying them over from one election to thenext. This would arguably reduce the advantage that incumbents tradition-ally have in most elections. Preventing the retention of contributions might


90

also reduce corruption by making it impossible for contributors to providea lasting quid pro quo in exchange for favorable action.

Opponents challenged the provision in court as impermissibly restrictingthe right of contributors to contribute to a candidate’s future politicalspeech. The district court ruled that the spend-down provision violated theFirst Amendment. The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court ofAppeals.

Decision

The Eighth Circuit ruling affirmed the appeals court. The spend-downprovision impermissibly burdened speech, in effect by requiring that thecandidate receiving the contribution speak now rather than at some futuretime. It thus “limits the quantity of a candidate’s speech in future elections,”and “the state makes no attempt to show how the spend-down provision isnarrowly tailored to serve [its] interests.”

Impact

The Supreme Court declined to review this case. As with Day v. Holahan,the general conclusion may be drawn that most attempts to “micromanage”the behavior of candidates and committees by rewarding some types of con-tributions and expenditures while punishing others is likely to place an un-acceptable burden on First Amendment speech rights.

U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)

Background

Arkansas passed an amendment to its state constitution that prevented anycandidate from appearing on the ballot if that candidate had already servedthree terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. Acandidate challenged these term limits.

Legal Issues

The challenge to the term limits is based on the fact that the Constitution,in Article 1, defines the qualifications for candidates to Congress, and that,as the plurality opinion in the Arkansas Supreme Court expressed, stateshave no authority “to change, add to, or diminish” the age, citizenship, andresidency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Quali-fications Clauses, U.S.Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3.


91

The state had argued that it was not changing the qualifications for hold-ing office, only specifying the qualifications for appearing on the ballot,something broadly within the state’s powers. The state also argued that evenif it were changing the qualifications, the Tenth Amendment gave the statesthe right to do so as one of their “reserved powers.” The states appealed tothe U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Arkansas ruling.

Decision

The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens,noted that Congress itself could not change or add to the qualifications foroffice given in the Constitution (Powell v. McCormack). Nor did states havethe power to alter these qualifications. Since states had never exercised thispower, it could not be an existing power at the time the Tenth Amendmentwas enacted. Further, the fact that the Constitution spelled out the re-quirements for serving in Congress implied that the framers had intendedthat the list be exhaustive. Also, allowing states to impose differing qualifi-cations for serving in Congress would be “inconsistent with the Framers’vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the People of theUnited States.”

Finally, the Court dismissed the idea that the state was not setting qual-ifications for serving in Congress, but merely for appearing on the ballot.The fact that such a candidate could still appear as a write-in candidatemakes only a trivial difference. What matters is that if allowed to stand, theArkansas law would make “a fundamental change in the constitutionalframework” of the United States. Term limits cannot be imposed on con-gressional elections.

Impact

The idea of term limits was somewhat popular with reformers in the 1980s,and some states have enacted them at the state level. Their vogue may havepassed, and at any rate imposing them at the federal level would now requirean amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY,520 U.S. 351 (1997)

Background

“Fusion” is the practice of minor parties coendorsing major party candidatessuch that the candidate would appear on the ballot once for each party. Most


92

states prohibit this practice. A candidate, Representative Andy Dawkins, wasrunning unopposed as a Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) candidate in theMinnesota primary election. The New Party also nominated Dawkins, andneither he nor the DFL objected to the coendorsement. However, Dawkinshad already filed as a candidate for the DFL, and because Minnesota bansfusion tickets, it did not accept his petition to be listed on the ballot also asa candidate for the New Party. A Minnesota chapter of the New Party chal-lenged this antifusion law, and a lower appeals court agreed that it was un-constitutional because it unduly “[kept] the New Party from developingconsensual political alliances and thus broadening the base of public partic-ipation in and support for its activities.” The district court found in favor ofthe antifusion rule, but the circuit court of appeals declared it to be uncon-stitutional. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The general conflict is between a party’s right of free association and thestate’s interest in an orderly election process that does not confuse voters.The New Party argued that its First Amendment right of free associationwas impaired if it could not engage in coendorsement, or “fusion,” withother parties.

Decision

In Timmons, the majority opinion, by Justice William Rehnquist, began not-ing that while fusion candidacies were common in the 19th century, this wasbecause each party typically printed its own ballot, and voters voted the“party line” by choosing to drop a particular party’s ballot into the box.There were often many smaller parties that wanted to support the same can-didate, and they could do so by including the candidate on their ballot.However, the institution of the “Australian,” or secret, ballot meant that asingle ballot was now provided by the state, with candidates and their par-ties grouped under each office. Fusion became less necessary and today iscommonly found only in New York.

The discussion then moved to the protection of the right of association.The Court had shown considerable regard for the rights of association forpolitical parties in cases such as Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut(1986), where it ruled that the state could not stop a party from allowing in-dependent voters to vote in its primary. However, this and other cases haddealt with “core” First Amendment activity. Here the Court found that fu-sion did not reach within this core, because without it, parties could still en-dorse or support whatever candidates they wished—it merely keeps acandidate from appearing more than once on the ballot.


93

Therefore, although there might be some good arguments for permit-ting fusion, “the Constitution does not require States to permit fusion anymore than it requires them to move to proportional representation electionsor public financing of campaigns.”

Impact

The Supreme Court has left the question of listing candidates under morethan one party as a “political question” that can be decided either way by thevarious states. The Court’s action suggests that it does not see a need orconstitutional justification to radically change the rules governing how elec-tions or ballots work.

ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION

V. FORBES,523 U.S. 666 (1998)

Background

Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC), a state-owned publicbroadcasting service, sponsored a debate between candidates for the ThirdCongressional District. They decided to limit participation in the debates tomajor party candidates or other candidates “who had strong popular support.”Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate who had qualified to appear on theballot, was not invited. Forbes challenged his exclusion on First Amendmentgrounds. Although the district court dismissed his suit for failure to state acause of action, the court of appeals overruled the lower court and ordered itto try the case. At trial, AETC staff members testified that Forbes had beenexcluded because he lacked a campaign organization, had little evidence ofvoter support, and was not regarded as a serious candidate by the media. Thedistrict court entered a judgment in favor of AETC, but again, the EighthCircuit Court of Appeals court reversed and found for Forbes. AETC thenappealed, and the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

AETC was a publicly owned television outlet. The question was whether itsstatus meant that it had to include all ballot-qualified candidates in debatesin order to avoid violating the First Amendment. First Amendment jurispru-dence had concluded that in a “public forum” such as a city park, if somespeakers were allowed to use the forum, other speakers could not be excludedon the basis of the content of their speech. That is, speech could be regulatedas to “time, place, and manner” but the regulation must be “viewpoint neu-


94

tral.” Forbes argued that AETC should similarly be treated as a publicforum. AETC disagreed, saying that it was, like other media, entitled to useits judgment to decide what candidates or viewpoints should be presented.

Decision

The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, began by deter-mining whether the AETC candidate debate constituted a public forum. Itnoted that:

Having first arisen in the context of streets and parks, the [public forum] doc-trine should not be extended in a mechanical way to the different context oftelevision broadcasting. Broad rights of access for outside speakers would beantithetical, as a general rule, to the editorial discretion that broadcastersmust exercise to fulfill their journalistic purpose and statutory obligations.

The Court acknowledged that:

candidate debates are of exceptional significance in the electoral process. De-liberation on candidates’ positions and qualifications is integral to our systemof government, and electoral speech may have its most profound and wide-spread impact when it is disseminated through televised debates. Thus, thespecial characteristics of candidate debates support the conclusion that theAETC debate was a forum of some type.

The Court concluded that the debate was not a “traditional public forum”—a place such as a park that had long been used as a place of public meetingsand discussion. It was not a “designated public forum” where the govern-ment opens a venue for general discussion to a particular class of speakers.Rather, the debate was an event to which the station was inviting speakerswho met certain qualifications. It was a “nonpublic forum.” AETC was freeto exercise its journalistic judgment about who to include in that forum.The record showed that AETC did not discriminate against Forbes becauseof his views, but because they had concluded that he was not a viable candi-date. The Court further noted that if all public broadcasters were open toclaims of viewpoint discrimination, they would not be able to function, andcourts would be endlessly involved with suits by people who felt they wereunfairly excluded.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying that he did not agree that allcandidates had to be invited to the debate, but that AETC had been arbi-trary and had not applied coherent standards to its decision to excludeForbes, who had shown evidence of popular support in other races.


95

Impact

Third party candidates, including most recently Ralph Nader, have foughtto be included in the presidential debates, which are often sponsored by orheld at public institutions. With the exception of Ross Perot in 1992, suchcandidates have been excluded, usually for failure to meet various criteriasuch as standing in the polls. The AETC decision suggests that such candi-dates will not be able to get help from courts other than perhaps the “court”of public opinion.

BUSH V. GORE,531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Background

In the closest presidential election race in U.S. history Republican GeorgeW. Bush and Democrat Al Gore became locked in a battle whose outcomewould turn on the capturing of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, which as withmost states are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. By the morning afterElection Day, the race was too close to call, and after the original ballotcounting was complete, Bush was leading by only 1,784 votes statewide outof about 6,000,000 cast.

A number of complaints were soon raised by the Democratic Party aboutthe voting procedures used at the polls. For example, it charged that the so-called butterfly ballot used in West Palm Beach County confused many vot-ers by having candidates listed on alternate sides of the sheet with arrowspointing to a row of dots down the middle. Indeed, it is likely that severalthousand voters who had intended to vote for Gore had mistakenly votedfor Patrick Buchanan, at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Addi-tionally, the punched-card voting systems used in many counties often re-sulted in partially punched “chads” leading to “undervotes” (votes notcounted by the machines) and other problems.

Gore protested the election results in four heavily Democratic counties(Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia)—the first three had usedthe punched-card systems, and the fourth, using an optical system, had alsoreported counting problems. Manual recounts began in all but Miami-Dade.Bush sued in federal court, arguing that the use of differing standards duringrecounts in various counties would violate the voters’ First Amendment andFourteenth Amendment (equal protection) rights. Meanwhile, county offi-cials and party operatives argued over what standards to use in the ongoingrecounts. Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris announced that shewould not (and could not) extend the statutory deadline of November 14 at5 P.M. for the final certification of each county’s vote for president.


96

Gore then went to state court, asking for an extension of the certificationperiod, and the federal district court turned down Bush’s request to stop therecounts. On November 14, a Florida state judge turned down Gore’s re-quest for an extension of the recount, but said that Harris needed to exer-cise her discretion about whether to accept late returns from the recount.The next day, after rejecting advice from the counties, Harris decided to notto accept further recounts.

On November 16, the Florida Supreme Court issued a unanimous orderallowing the recounts to go forward in Palm Beach and Broward Counties.The next day, the Florida Supreme Court enjoined the state from certifyingthe election results until it ruled on Gore’s lawsuit. Battles continued onmany fronts (including the status of overseas ballots that had not been post-marked upon mailing), and a state court judge ruled that the butterfly bal-lots could not be revoted (rather than just recounted) because Congress hadset a uniform day for the presidential election.

On November 21, the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision onGore’s suit. Emphasizing the importance of the right to vote (and the im-plication that one has a right to have one’s vote properly counted) the courtallowed the recount to go ahead, with a final deadline of November 26.Bush then filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, ask-ing it to overturn the Florida ruling.

When the recount ground to a halt for various reasons, Gore sued Har-ris, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that 9,000 Miami-Dade ballotsthat the machines had registered as “nonvotes” be immediately recountedby hand. The votes were to be counted if, following the Election Code,there was “clear indication of the intent of the voter” but giving no morespecific standards.

Bush filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay ofthe recount, and the stay was granted by a 5-4 vote.

Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the use of recounts in different countiesunder varying standards violated the voters’ right to equal protection of thelaws under the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides the standards problem, ifthere were recounts only in certain counties and not others, it was arguedthat some voters were more likely to be properly counted than others.

Decision

Five justices signed an opinion saying that the failure of the Florida SupremeCourt to establish a uniform standard did violate the equal protection clause


97

of the Fourteenth Amendment: “Having once granted the right to vote onequal terms, Florida may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment,value one person’s vote over that of another.” The Court pointed out that be-cause of the way in which overvotes or undervotes are tabulated (or not tab-ulated) by the machines, voters who are in a county that has a manualrecount may have their vote counted even though the machine had not reg-istered it, and vice versa. The Court also said that the Florida SupremeCourt, by allowing partial recounts received before the deadline, would alsobe treating voters differently depending on whether their recount had beencompleted in time.

The case was not remanded to the Florida Supreme Court for creationof such a standard because the time for a “safe harbor” (not challengeableby Congress) certification of Florida’s electors had almost run out. Three ofthe justices in the majority wrote a concurring opinion that said that theFlorida Supreme Court had also violated Article II of the U.S. Constitution(which specifies the procedure for presidential electors) by impermissibly“making new law” affecting that process.

The four dissenting justices (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, DavidSouter, and John Paul Stevens) issued separate opinions. Two of themagreed that there were some equal-protection problems, but that the caseshould have been remanded to the Florida Supreme Court. All of the dis-senting justices rejected the conclusion that Article II of the Constitutionhad been violated.

Impact

Bush v. Gore touched off a political firestorm. In his dissent, Justice Stevensconcluded by saying that “Although we may never know with complete cer-tainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the iden-tity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judgeas an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

Many Gore supporters complained that the Supreme Court had essen-tially arbitrarily given the election to Bush, either because the majority ofthe Court were Republicans or perhaps because some of the older judgeswere waiting for there to be a Republican president before retiring, thus en-suring a conservative successor.

Legal scholars also had many concerns about the decision. For example,the U.S. Supreme Court had taken the Florida Supreme Court to task forfailing to come up with a specific and uniform standard for counting votes,but if the Florida court had done so, the U.S. Supreme Court then couldhave accused them of “making new law” in violation of Section II of theConstitution.


98

The equal-protection situation is even more problematic. Although theCourt majority insisted that Bush v. Gore was a special situation and that itsruling should not be taken as a precedent, the application of equal protec-tion requirements to the mechanics of counting (or recounting) votes mightopen many close elections to challenge. It should be noted that many states(and Congress) have appropriated funds for modernizing election systems,such as by replacing punched-card systems with presumably more reliableelectronic ones.

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. JONES,530 U.S. 567 (2000)

Background

In 1996, California voters approved an initiative measure that created a“blanket primary.” In this form of primary election, voters can vote for can-didates of any party for any office. (In the usual “open primary,” voters canchoose any party, but then receive a ballot only for that party.) The Demo-cratic Party, Republican Party, and two minor parties filed a suit to overturnthe blanket primary system.

Legal Issues

The parties argued that the state could not force them to nominate theircandidates through the blanket primary system. In Tashjian v. RepublicanParty of Connecticut, the Supreme Court had ruled that the state could notprevent the parties from allowing independent voters to vote in their pri-maries. The parties argued that their First Amendment right of associationincluded the right to determine how they would select the candidates torepresent the party in the general election.

The state argued that a primary election was not a private function car-ried out by the political parties, but a public exercise vital to the selection ofpublic officials. The state should have the right to determine how the elec-tion would be conducted.

Decision

The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, began by agreeingthat the states “have a major role to play in structuring and monitoring theelection process, including primaries.” However, the primaries are notsolely public affairs; they are also the internal process by which parties se-lect their nominees, and the parties have First Amendment rights that mustbe respected.


99

The Court went on to describe how parties formed early in the historyof the American republic and that the nomination process is integral to par-ties associating (banding together) and developing their political beliefs. InTashjian and Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follettethe Court had ruled in a way that protected parties’ right to association inthe formation of their political expression. Now the Court found that

California’s blanket primary violates the principles set forth in these cases.Proposition 198 [the blanket primary initiative] forces political parties to as-sociate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determinedby—those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst,affiliated with a rival.

(The Court noted that this is different from a closed primary, where a votercan “jump” to another party, but once there, must stick to voting for thatparty’s nominees.)

Further, the Court noted that the impact of the blanket primary is evengreater on small parties such as the Libertarian Party and the Peace andFreedom Party, where the total votes cast in the party primaries by non-members was often more than double the number of party members. Smallparties could thus be easily overwhelmed by outsiders. Any justification pre-sented by the state for this process (such as producing more moderate can-didates who are representative of the populace) cannot be substituted for theparty’s right to determine who will represent it. The blanket primary wasthus ruled to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Impact

The Supreme Court continues to have a high regard for the associationalrights of parties, and will interfere with the party machinery only in excep-tional cases (such as, in the past, exclusion of nonwhites from membership).

LANDELL V. SORRELL (2ND CIR.: 2002)

Note: this case is still in progress and may be appealed. Citation is not yet available.

Background

Vermont had passed a sweeping campaign finance reform law that includedvarious mandatory limits on candidate expenditures. It was challenged inthe lower court, which declared that the mandatory expenditure limit wasunconstitutional. (In Buckley v. Valeo [1976] the U.S. Supreme Court had de-


100

clared contribution limits, but not expenditure limits, to be constitutionalunder the First Amendment.)

Legal Issues

Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley, is there still a way to justifythe imposition of expenditure limits by the state?

Decision

The Second Circuit decided that the Supreme Court had not made an ab-solute prohibition of spending limits; rather, it had decided that Congresshad not provided a sufficiently compelling state interest, narrowly tailoredto meet the objective of reducing political corruption. The circuit court de-cided that Vermont had shown that spending limits would insulate the po-litical process “from the corrupting influence of excessive and unbridledfundraising” while employing only contribution limits would “continue toimpair the accessibility [that] is essential to any democratic political sys-tem.” The court therefore found the spending limits to be constitutional.

Impact

This decision has been withdrawn (as of October 3, 2002) pending furtherreview by the court. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court, it may representthe first direct challenge to the fundamental parameters defined by Buckleyv. Valeo.

MCCONNELL V. FEC (U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR D.C.,CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-582; 2003)

Background

When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was passed byCongress and with the ink scarcely dry on the president’s signature, indi-viduals and groups ranging from the National Voting Rights Institute to theCato Institute and the National Rifle Association filed suit to block thissweeping new campaign finance reform legislation.

Legal Issues

The case of McConnell v. FEC is actually the consolidation of 10 separatesuits raising a variety of issues of interest to the various advocacy groups in-volved. Senator Mitch McConnell (Rep.-Kentucky) spearheaded the legalattack by raising the broadest issues.


101

McConnell’s first argument is that prohibiting “issue ads” by interestgroups targeting candidates within 60 days of a general election (or 30 daysof a primary) violates the First Amendment, which after all is supposed toespecially protect “core political speech” and which states “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” He also argues that ban-ning broadcast media (but not print advertising) is treating different formsof speech arbitrarily and that because the definitions of what kinds of speechare prohibited are vague, the law also violates the guarantee of due processand equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment.

Additional arguments include the assertion that forcing disclosure ofspending on electioneering communications violates the First Amendmentby placing an undue burden on free speech and that treating corporationsand other organizations differently from individuals also violates the equalprotection clause.

Many of the other groups filing suits against the BCRA made similar ar-guments based on free speech or the right to equal treatment, but two ap-proaches were unusual. The National Voting Rights Institute, whichsupports campaign finance reform, objected that the BCRA’s higher limitsfor individual contributions gave the wealthy an unfair advantage over can-didates who had to rely upon many smaller contributions. Two African-American congressmen, Bennie Thompson (Dem.-Miss.) and Earl Hilliard(Dem.-Ala.), argued that the BCRA restrictions were unfair to minoritycandidates in poor districts who needed to raise money from outside theirdistrict.

Decision

By a vote of 2-1, the district court voted to uphold the disclosure provisionsof the BCRA, chiding the plaintiffs for arguing in favor of “robust speech”protected by the First Amendment, but ignoring the First Amendment in-terest that citizens have in knowing who is behind the political speech.

The court overturned the prohibition on the national parties raising softmoney. However, they not only upheld the BCRA’s prohibition of issue adsbut significantly broadened it to prohibit such ads at any time, not just nearan election. Further, the court said that ads that mentioned a candidate orofficeholder and that appeared to advocate for or against that candidatecould be banned even if they did not contain specific language such as “votefor” or “oppose.”

A number of other issues, including whether higher individual contribu-tion limits unfairly disadvantaged poorer people or candidates, were not ad-dressed.


102

Impact

This divided and complex opinion was immediately appealed to theSupreme Court, but as of early May 2003 the decision has been stayed (sus-pended) from taking effect. The Supreme Court will probably not hear ar-guments in the case until fall 2003, and it may not issue a decision until theeve of the 2004 primary election season. Meanwhile, the parties must decidewhether to resume raising soft money. Many party strategists believe thatbesides the permitted party-building and get-out-the-vote activities, themoney could also be used for ads that could effectively promote or opposeissues without mentioning candidates.


103

CHRONOLOGY

Following are some significant events in the history of campaign and elec-tion reform, including events relating to the expansion of the franchise andvoting rights.

1787

� The new Constitution of the United States is adopted in Philadelphia.Unlike the Congress under the old Articles of Confederation, the new na-tional legislature will consist of a Senate representing the states and aHouse of Representatives elected directly by the people on a district basis.The determination of who will be eligible to vote for Congress is left tothe states; there will be no national standard. The election of the presi-dent will be done indirectly, through the Electoral College, in which eachstate has a number of electors equal to that state’s total number of repre-sentatives and senators. The electors will presumably be chosen by thestate legislatures, not directly by the people.

1790s

� At first most states give the vote only to white males who own a substan-tial amount of property. As states such as New Hampshire, Kentucky, andVermont enter the union, however, they bring more liberal voting eligi-bility, eliminating taxpaying and property-owning requirements and gen-erally extending suffrage to all white males.

1796

� George Washington declines to serve a third term, establishing a prece-dent. Meanwhile, John Adams receives more electoral votes than his rivalThomas Jefferson. Under the rules of the time, Adams therefore becomespresident and Jefferson vice president. Since Jefferson and Adams belong

104

CHAPTER 3

to different parties (called “factions” at the time), this prompts a call forreform of the Electoral College system to allow for party slates.

1798

� The Alien and Sedition Laws are passed by Congress, which is under thecontrol of Adams’ Federalist Party. Contrary to the First Amendment tothe Constitution, a provision of the new law makes it a crime to speak orwrite anything that defames the president or Congress. Jefferson and hisfaction oppose the law.

1800

� The Electoral College system is again challenged when Thomas Jeffersonand Aaron Burr receive the same number of electoral votes. The Demo-cratic-Republican Party had designated Jefferson as its presidential candi-date and Burr as vice president, but the electoral system did not providefor a separate vote for vice president.

1801

� To resolve the tie in the Electoral College, the House of Representativeselects Thomas Jefferson as president after an excruciating 35 ballots.

1804

� The Twelfth Amendment to the constitution is ratified. It provides thatelectors will cast separate ballots for president and vice president. In ef-fect, this acknowledges the reality of political parties that nominate spe-cific candidates for each office.

1812

� The Massachusetts legislature creates an oddly shaped congressional dis-trict in order to maximize the vote for the dominant party. A newspapercartoon by Elkanah Tinsdale shows the district drawn in the shape of asalamander. Because the arrangement had been approved by GovernorElbridge Gerry, Tinsdale calls the district a “gerrymander” and the termcatches on.

1824

� The presidential election results in the electoral vote are split among fourcandidates: Andrew Jackson (99), John Quincy Adams (84), Henry Clay(37) and William H. Crawford (41). Since no one has a majority, the

C h r o n o l o g y

105

House of Representatives must decide, with each state’s representativeshaving one vote. Adams wins with the vote of 13 of the 24 states. BecauseJackson had won both the electoral and popular vote, many of his sup-porters cry foul, and the Electoral College system is criticized.

1831

� The Anti-Masonic Party introduces the use of a convention for nominat-ing presidential candidates. The convention is soon adopted by majorparties in place of the earlier procedure using a caucus of that party’s con-gressional representatives.

1832

� Andrew Jackson wins the presidency, having introduced a populist tonethat appealed to many of the voters who had been enfranchised throughthe elimination in many states of property, tax, and other requirementsfor voting. In areas such as New York City, electoral corruption had alsobeen growing, with votes often being bought outright.

1839

� The first federal campaign finance reform bill is introduced by Whigs inthe Senate. The measure would have prohibited campaign contributionsby federal employees to federal or state officials, but it fails.

1845

� Congress specifies that all states will choose their presidential electors on“the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, every fourthyear.” This in effect sets a uniform day for federal elections.

1848

� A number of prominent women abolitionists extend their activism into anew realm when they meet in Seneca Falls, New York. In addition to de-manding the right to vote for women, they also call for equal access to ed-ucation, business, the professions, and the courts.

1856

� The issue of whether noncitizens should be able to vote in state elections(such as in Wisconsin) becomes more prominent when it is raised by thenativist American (or “Know-Nothing”) Party, which opposes alien suf-frage and demands stricter controls on immigration and naturalization.


106

1867

� Congressional reconstruction legislation following the Civil War requiresthat before a former Confederate state can reenter the Union it must giveblacks the right to vote and must also ratify the Fourteenth Amendment,which prohibits states from abridging “the privileges or immunities of cit-izens of the United States.”

� The first piece of federal legislation related to campaign contributions isthe Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867, which includes a provision pro-hibiting naval officers and government officials from soliciting moneyfrom works in navy yards.

1869

� The National Woman Suffrage Association is established. Elizabeth CadyStanton becomes the organization’s first president, and Susan B. Anthonybecomes vice president. That same year another group, the AmericanWoman Suffrage Association, is founded by Lucy Stone. This group fo-cuses on winning voting rights state by state rather than at the federallevel as with the national group.

1870

� The Fifteenth Amendment is ratified. It specifies that “the right of citi-zens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by theUnited States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous con-dition of servitude.”

1872

� In an act of civil disobedience, Susan B. Anthony casts a vote in the pres-idential election. She is arrested two weeks later and is convicted of ille-gal voting. Anthony refuses to pay the fine, hoping that the judge willimprison her, allowing for an appeal to higher courts. However the judgerefuses and the case is dead.

� Congress enacts a requirement that a secret (or “Australian”) ballot beused in all elections for the House of Representatives.

1874

� Congress specifies a uniform day for electing members of the House ofRepresentatives: “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, inevery even numbered year.” This means that in presidential election yearsthe election of representatives and of presidential electors will coincide.

C h r o n o l o g y

107


108

1876

� In the presidential election, Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden is theapparent popular and electoral vote winner, but Republicans challengethe results on the basis of conflicting returns in three southern states. Thefollowing January, an electoral commission established by Congress votesalong party lines (8-7) to give the presidency to Republican Rutherford B.Hayes. The underlying political compromise results in federal troopsbeing withdrawn from the southern states, the effective end of Recon-struction, and the resurgence of white domination.

� In United States v. Reese and United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Courtthrows out indictments under federal laws, enforcing the Fifteenth Amend-ment guarantee of the vote for blacks in the South. This result encouragesthe growing efforts of many southern whites to disenfranchise blacks.

1877

� In the Compromise of 1877 southern Democrats agree to accept the elec-toral commission’s award of the presidency to Republican Samuel Hayesin exchange for the withdrawal of the federal troops that had been en-forcing the rights of blacks in the South, including the right to vote.

1883

� Congress passes the Pendleton, or Civil Service Reform, Act. Its key cam-paign reform provision prohibits forcing public employees to contributeto political campaigns on pain of losing their jobs (a common practice ofthe time).

1887

� In a delayed reaction to the disputed election of 1876, Congress passesthe Electoral Count Act, which specifies that if there are conflicting slatesof state electors, the two houses of Congress will vote separately to decidewhich electors to accept. (The law also provides that Congress cannot in-tervene if the state legislature had already decided which slate to accept.Speculation about the applicability of this law will surface following thedisputed 2000 election.)

1888

� Benjamin Harrison defeats incumbent President Grover Cleveland. Reportsof vote-selling at the polls encourage the adopting of the secret ballot.

1889

� The Australian, or secret, ballot is gaining growing acceptance, with themajority of states adopting it in the next few years. Meanwhile, a number

of new states entering the Union, such as Montana, North Dakota, SouthDakota, and Washington, enact constitutions that allow women to vote insome local elections (such as for school boards).

1890

� Mississippi enacts what will become a typical southern strategy to disen-franchise blacks: It requires payment of a two-dollar poll tax and, start-ing in 1892, requires that voters be able to read or understand the stateconstitution.

� Wyoming becomes the first state to permanently enact full voting rightsfor women in all elections. (Colorado will follow in 1893.)

1892

� In Sproule v. Fredericks, the Supreme Court upholds provisions of the Mis-sissippi constitution designed to disenfranchise blacks. The Court holdsthat post–Civil War federal provisions for black suffrage are no longer ineffect, and says that in any case there had been no showing that the Mis-sissippi provisions actually discriminated on the basis of race.

1894

� The National Municipal Reform League is created to reform city gov-ernment and to reduce the influence of urban political machines.

1895

� South Carolina introduces a literacy test with a “grandfather clause” thatexempts persons who could vote in 1867, as well as their descendants.This has the effect of allowing illiterate whites to vote while disenfran-chising most blacks. Similar laws are soon enacted throughout the South.

1903

� In Giles v. Harris, the Supreme Court upholds provisions of the Alabamaconstitution against claims that they discriminated against blacks.

1904

� The Supreme Court’s acceptance of provisions designed to disenfranchiseblacks continues in its decision in Giles v. Teasley.

� President Theodore Roosevelt is accused of having received large corpo-rate contributions in exchange for favors.

C h r o n o l o g y

109

1905

� The National Publicity Law Association (NPLA) is founded. Includingsuch prominent leaders as William Jennings Bryan, Charles EvansHughes, and Samuel Gompers, its objective was to enact a federal law re-quiring disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures.

1907

� Although he had himself benefited considerably from corporate largesse,President Theodore Roosevelt advocates for campaign finance reform,including a prohibition against corporate contributions to candidates forfederal office, a disclosure requirement, and even a proposal for publicfunding of federal elections. In response, Congress passes the TillmanAct, which prohibits candidates for federal office from receiving contri-butions from corporations.

1910

� Congress passes another part of Roosevelt’s agenda, the Federal CorruptPractices Act, which for the first time requires candidates to reveal theirsources of funding.

� Blatant electoral corruption is revealed in Adams County, Ohio, when1,679 voters are convicted of having sold their votes.

1911

� The House of Representatives fixes its size at 435 members and providesthat congressional districts will be reapportioned every 10 years using thedecennial census data.

1913

� The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It re-quires that U.S. senators be elected directly by popular vote rather thanby state legislatures.

1914

� Congress aligns the time for election of U.S. senators with that of elec-tion of members of the House of Representatives (and, every four years,with presidential electors).

1915

� In Guinn v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court declares that Okla-homa’s “grandfather clause,” which had exempted many whites from vot-


110

ing requirements, was unconstitutional. However, many other effectivebars to black suffrage remain in effect.

1920

� The long battle for women’s suffrage culminates with the ratification ofthe Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guaranteeswomen the right to vote in both federal and state elections. A new orga-nization, the League of Women Voters, takes on the task of encouragingwomen to vote and informing them about candidates and political issues.

1921

� The Supreme Court in Newberry v. United States rules that federal regula-tions for disclosure of (and limits on) contributions did not extend to pri-mary elections where the parties’ nominees were chosen. The Court holdsthat such laws interfere with a party’s right to control its nomination process.

1925

� In response to revelations of corruption (such as the Teapot Dome scan-dal and practices of the 1920 Warren G. Harding campaign) Congresspasses amendments to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. They requirecongressional candidates to disclose contributions and expenditures.However, the law has two major loopholes: It excludes primary electionsand it allows for contributions being made on behalf of a candidate aslong as the candidate does not have explicit “knowledge and consent.”Since Congress itself, not an independent agency, is in charge of enforce-ment, there is little motivation to enforce the law.

1935

� In Grovey v. Townsend, the U.S. Supreme Court declares whites-only pri-mary elections to be unconstitutional.

1937

� In Breedlove v. Suttles, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the constitution-ality of poll taxes, a provision often used to exclude blacks from voting.

1939

� Congress passes the Hatch (Political Activities) Act. Reinforcing existingcivil service provisions, the Hatch Act prohibits solicitation of campaigncontributions from federal employees and prohibits federal employeesfrom participating in campaigns (such as by fund-raising or circulating

C h r o n o l o g y

111

petitions) or running for office themselves. Federal contractors are alsobarred from making campaign contributions. A $5,000 limit is placed onindividual contributions to a federal candidate or political committee.However, contributors can give $5,000 each to multiple committees,often working for the same candidate.

1941

� In United States v. Classic, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its earlier de-cision in Newberry v. United States and says that Congress does have theauthority to regulate campaign finances in party primaries. Congress willnot actually pass such regulations until 1971.

1943

� Congress passes the Smith-Connally Act. This wartime industrial regula-tion prohibits federal candidates from receiving direct contributions fromlabor unions. (Corporations were already banned from making such con-tributions, and union political fund-raising had been on the increase sincethe mid-1930s.)

1944

� As a way of getting around the Smith-Connally restrictions, a new mech-anism for funneling campaign contributions, the political action commit-tee (PAC), is pioneered by the Congress of Industrial Organizations.

� The Supreme Court in Smith v. Allwright again declares the “white pri-mary” to be unconstitutional. Since the Democrats had virtually totaldominance in the South, the exclusion of blacks from the Democratic pri-mary had effectively denied them any say in who would be elected to fed-eral, state, or local office.

1946

� In Colegrove v. Green, the Supreme Court declines to involve itself incharges of unfair malapportionment (gerrymandering) of legislative dis-tricts. The Court declares that apportionment is a political question andbeyond the purview of the judiciary.

1947

� Congress passes the Taft-Hartley Act. It makes permanent the wartime pro-hibition on federal candidates receiving contributions from labor unions.

� A term limitation for members of Congress proposed by Senator W. LeeO’Daniel of Texas is overwhelmingly defeated.


112

1951

� The Twenty-second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution legally enactsthe custom (violated only by Franklin Roosevelt in 1940) of limiting per-sons to two terms as president. Persons are now limited to being electedto two full terms (and no more than half a term through succession), fora total of 10 years.

1955

� Congress passes the Federal Voting Assistance Act, creating the FederalVoting Assistance Program to help members of the U.S. armed forces toregister and vote.

1957

� As agitation for civil rights grows in the South, Congress passes the firstcivil rights bill since the 1870s. The law provides only for litigation, notfederal enforcement action, to secure voting and other rights.

1959

� The Supreme Court rejects a challenge to a literacy test in Lassiter v.Northampton County Board of Election, finding that no actual discriminationhad been proven.

1960

� Congress passes regulations requiring election officials to keep registra-tion and voting records for 22 months following an election to facilitatepossible challenges. Federal judges are empowered to step in and appointnew registrars if a pattern of discrimination is found.

� In Gomillion v. Lightfoot, the Supreme Court rules that gerrymandering adistrict to minimize black representation violates the voting rights guar-anteed by the Fifteenth Amendment.

� The first televised presidential debate, between John F. Kennedy andRichard Nixon, highlights the growing importance of television for polit-ical communication. Spending on broadcast media will increase greatly inthe coming decades.

1961

� The Twenty-third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It pro-vides that the District of Columbia will have electoral votes equal to whatit would have were it a state, but no more than the least populous state.

C h r o n o l o g y

113

� President John F. Kennedy appoints a bipartisan commission to studycampaign financing.

1962

� In Baker v. Carr, the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing its earlier decision inColegrove v. Green, rules that federal courts can step in when malappor-tionment of a legislative district is severe enough to deprive persons (suchas minorities) of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Four-teenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

1964

� The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. Itprohibits requiring the payment of poll taxes as a condition for voting inany federal election. Thus the legal barriers erected to keep minoritiesfrom voting in the South continue to be dismantled.

� Congress passes the landmark Civil Rights Act, which includes limita-tions on the use of literacy tests for voter registration.

� In Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that state legislative dis-tricts must be periodically reapportioned so as to be as nearly equal aspossible in population in order to uphold the principle of “one person,one vote.”

� In Wesbury v. Sanders, the U.S. Supreme Court further applies “one person,one vote” to the drawing-up or reapportionment of congressional districts.

1965

� Congress passes the Voting Rights Act, which seeks to enforce the guar-antee of voting rights to blacks and other minorities in the FifteenthAmendment and the guarantee of equal protection of the law in the Four-teenth Amendment. Any practice that serves to discriminate againstAfrican Americans and prevents them from registering or voting is pro-hibited. The use of literacy tests (which had been declared constitutionalby the Supreme Court in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections)is suspended. Various states and jurisdictions in the South that had shownpatterns of discrimination will be required to submit their redistrictingplans for review by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is given broadauthority to intervene to stop discrimination.

1966

� In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court de-clares the use of a poll tax as a condition for voting in state elections to be


114

unconstitutional. (The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitu-tion had already banned requiring payment of poll taxes for voting in fed-eral elections.)

� Congress passes the Long Act, which provides for public financing ofcampaigns through payments to qualifying political parties. The law isnever implemented and is shelved by Congress the following year.

1967

� The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It pro-vides for the assumption of presidential power by the vice president whenthe president is incapacitated and unable to perform the duties of the of-fice. The amendment also provides for succession by the vice president ifthe president dies or resigns, and for the appointment of a new vice pres-ident, to be approved by a majority vote in both houses of Congress.

� For the first time the Clerk of the House of Representatives, W. Pat Jen-nings, fulfills the requirements of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act thata report on campaign finances be issued, including a list of violators.However, the latter is ignored by the Justice Department and no en-forcement action is taken.

� Congress passes legislation requiring that all congressional districts havea single member, with the number of districts thus equal to the numberof members to which a state is entitled. While essentially ratifying exist-ing practice, this stymies efforts toward proportional representation, a re-form offered as an alternative to “winner-take-all” elections.

� The impact of the Voting Rights Act is felt in the South, where more than50 percent of eligible African Americans are now registered to vote inthose areas covered by its special provisions.

1968

� Congress passes the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act, which expandsthe Federal Voting Assistance Program.

1969

� The House of Representatives passes a proposed constitutional amend-ment that would replace the Electoral College system with direct popu-lar election of the president and vice president. The amendment dies inthe Senate.

� In Allen v. State Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that ger-rymandering to reduce the proportion of minority voters (vote dilution)can violate the rights of minority voters.

C h r o n o l o g y

115

� Maine adopts a hybrid system in which two of its presidential electors areto be chosen by statewide vote but the remainder are to selected by a votein each congressional district. Only a few states eventually adopt this al-ternative to the “winner-take-all” system.

1970

� Congress amends the Voting Rights Act to extend the vote to persons atleast 18 years of age (the minimum age in most states had been 21). Res-idency requirements for voting are also limited to 30 days. In Oregon v.Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Congress lacks the authorityto set the voting age for state elections.

1971

� The voting age question is settled by the ratification of the Twenty-sixthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the vote in both fed-eral and state elections to persons 18 years of age or older.

� Congress passes the first significant campaign reform legislation in morethan a generation. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) supercedesthe Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925. The new law sets limits on con-tributions to federal candidates, requires disclosure of contributions andlimits spending on press and media advertising. Congress also passes theRevenue Act, providing for public funding of presidential campaigns.

1972

� The Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up, with the revelation ofsecret campaign “slush funds,” spurs Congress to tighten the provisionsof the Federal Election Campaign Act.

� Seattle becomes the first major city to enact comprehensive campaign re-form, including contribution limits, disclosure rules (expanding on staterules), and public financing of campaigns.

1973

� In U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers,the Supreme Court upholds Hatch Act provisions that prohibit federalemployees from engaging in political activity.

1974

� Corrupt practices in the 1972 presidential campaign of Richard Nixon (dis-covered in the wake of the investigation of the Watergate break-in) spur


116

Congress to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act. General spendinglimits are imposed on presidential and congressional campaigns as well ason party primary campaigns. Contributions by individuals, political actioncommittees, and party organizations are also limited. Public campaign fi-nancing is implemented through voluntary check-offs on tax returns. TheFederal Election Commission is established to enforce the provisions.

� In Richardson v. Ramirez, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the right ofstates to deny the vote to convicted felons.

1975

� Congress amends the Voting Rights Act to add language groups (such asHispanics) to racial and ethnic minorities as groups whose voting rightsare to be especially protected. The ban on the use of literacy tests is madepermanent.

1976

� In Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court deals a partial blow to theFederal Election Campaign Act. Limits on contributions are upheld, butlimits on spending are overturned as being a violation of free expressionguaranteed by the First Amendment, the Court noting that there is aclose connection between the ability to spend money on media and theeffectiveness of political expression.

� Congress responds to Buckley by modifying contribution limits and pro-viding for spending on behalf of candidates by political action commit-tees, which is unlimited but must be properly accounted for and disclosed.The method of choosing members of the Federal Election Commissionis also modified to satisfy the Court’s objections.

� In the 1976 presidential campaign, the Democratic Party changes its can-didate selection process by providing for state delegations being selectedproportionally rather than by a “winner-take-all” system.

1979

� Congress amends the Federal Election Campaign Act to ease restrictions.The allowable value of “in kind” contributions such as use of a home orvehicle is raised from $500 to $1,000. The threshold for reportable con-tributions is raised from $100 to $200. State and local party organizationsare allowed to spend unlimited amounts on voter registration and “getout the vote” drives. This creates the concept of “soft money” and the dis-tinction between helping the party and helping specific candidates is soonblurred.

C h r o n o l o g y

117

� Another attempt at a constitutional amendment providing for direct elec-tion of the president and vice president fails in the Senate.

1982

� Congress amends the Voting Rights Act to change the way in which thecourt will determine whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. In-stead of having to show that there was a specific intent to discriminateagainst minorities, plaintiffs will only have to show that the actual result ofan electoral practice is to weaken the voting strength of a protected group.

1984

� Congress passes the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and HandicappedAct, which requires that accessible polling places be provided by states.

� The Democratic Party consolidates its presidential primary process byhaving a number of states (mostly in the South) hold their presidential pri-maries on the same day, which is dubbed “Super Tuesday.” While short-ening the primary process, Super Tuesday also has the effect of givingproportionately greater influence to the states holding the early primaries.

1985

� Tucson, Arizona, begins a program of matching public funds for qualify-ing local candidates.

1986

� In Thornburg v. Gingles, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that under the Vot-ing Rights Act, states drawing or redrawing legislative districts must avoidnot only intentional discrimination against minorities but also discrimi-natory effects. As a result many states begin to try to create certain dis-tricts that maximize minority voting strength.

� Congress passes the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee VotingAct, which replaces the 1955 Voting Assistance Act and the 1975 Over-seas Citizens Voting Rights Act. The new program is administered by themilitary, and provides for a simple means of absentee registration formembers of the military and the merchant marine, their families, andcivilians living overseas.

1990

� The passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)poses new issues for local election officials, who become responsible forproviding accessible voter registration and polling facilities.


118

1992

� In a setback for the reform movement, Washington passes a statewideballot measure prohibiting public financing of state and local campaigns.

� Washington, D.C., passes a ballot initiative imposing a $100 maximumcontribution limit for district-wide campaigns and $50 for ward elections.The U.S. District Court overturns the initiative, saying that the low lim-its are likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Buck-ley v. Valeo.

� In the 1992 election, the two major parties raise about $83 million in softmoney, about four times the amount raised in 1984.

1993

� In Shaw v. Reno, the U.S. Supreme Court responds to what critics con-sider an overreaction to the “discriminatory effect” test in Thornburg v.Gingles. In question are legislative districts whose bizarre geography sug-gests that they were drawn only in order to ensure the election of minor-ity candidates. The Court rules that creating such districts solely for racialpurposes violates the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights ofnonminority voters.

� Congress passes amendments easing Hatch Act restrictions on politicalactivity by federal employees, who can now run for nonpartisan offices,sign ballot petitions, or serve as a poll worker or poll watcher for a party.

� Congress passes the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the“Motor Voter” act, to take effect in 1995. It requires states to make voterregistration available to people who are getting or renewing driver’s li-censes, applying for federal welfare benefits (such as Aid to Families withDependent Children), applying for disability benefits, or visiting a mili-tary recruiting office. States are also required to accept mail-in registra-tions and are forbidden to remove registered voters who fail to vote orwho move within the jurisdiction.

1994

� State campaign finance reform initiatives pass in Missouri, Montana, andOregon.

1995

� In a well-publicized encounter, President Bill Clinton and Speaker of theHouse Newt Gingrich shake hands and agree to establish a bipartisancommission for electoral reform. The commission is never formed.

C h r o n o l o g y

119

� An attempt to amend the Constitution to limit service in Congress to 12years is rejected by the House of Representatives.

� The U.S. Supreme Court rules in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that statescannot impose term limits on members of Congress, because that wouldadd to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.

1996

� Maine passes the Clean Elections Act, which provides for public funding forcandidates who can gather a modest number of $5 contributions. California,Colorado, and Arkansas pass similar state campaign reform initiatives.

� Westminster, Colorado, passes a referendum that requires that city coun-cil members receiving a contribution of more than $100 must abstainfrom debate and from voting on any issue affecting the contributor.

� The use of political action committees (PACs) and so-called leadershipPACs, associated with high-profile political leaders, continues to increase.

� June 25: The Senate fails to halt a filibuster on the McCain-Feingoldcampaign finance reform, an ambitious bipartisan attempt to regulate “softmoney” and other campaign abuses, effectively killing it for the session.

1997

� The Shays-Meehan bill (the House counterpart to McCain-Feingold)passes, but McCain-Feingold is again stalled in the Senate.

� A variety of different term limits proposals are rejected by the House ofRepresentatives.

� Charges of fund-raising violations by both parties in the 1996 presiden-tial election lead to controversy. These include allegations that PresidentClinton let big contributors stay overnight in the White House and thatVice President Al Gore may have made fund-raising calls from the WhiteHouse in violation of federal law. Contentious (and partisan) hearings alsolook into charges that Clinton received illegal contributions from foreignnationals, particularly Asians.

1998

� In Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, the Supreme Courtrules that a public broadcaster can exclude a candidate from an electiondebate if in its editorial judgment the candidacy is not significant.

2000

� June 26: In California Democratic Party v. Jones, the Supreme Court rulesthat California’s “blanket primary” (which allowed a voter to vote in any


120

party’s primary for any office) is unconstitutional because it violates theparties’ right of association.

� July 1: President Clinton signs legislation requiring tax-exempt politicalgroups to report contributions.

� November 7–8: Americans vote in what turns out to be the closest pres-idential election in the nation’s history. On election night, the media firstcall Florida for George W. Bush, but the state then becomes “too close tocall.”

� November 12: A partial recount of the Florida presidential vote begins.� November 21: The Florida Supreme Court orders election officials todelay certification of the vote.

� December 8: The Florida Supreme Court orders a recount in severalcounties.

� December 9: The U.S. Supreme Court issues an emergency order, stop-ping the Florida recount.

� December 12: In the controversial conclusion of Bush v. Gore, the U.S.Supreme Court overrules the Florida Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority,preventing further recounts. The majority opinion states that allowing re-counts with differing standards violates voters’ right to equal protectionunder the law.

2001

� April 2: The Senate passes the McCain-Feingold campaign finance billby a vote of 59 to 41. It will be reconciled with House legislation to be-come the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

2002

� February 14: The House passes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002 (formerly the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills) by a voteof 240 to 189.

� March 27: President Bush signs the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act(BCRA) of 2002 into law.

� July: The Federal Election Commission issues the first regulations in-terpreting the BCRA’s soft-money provisions. Reformers consider theregulations to be too weak and susceptible to loopholes.

� September 10: In something of a repeat of the election snafus of 2000,the primary election in Florida is marred by considerable confusion andvoting machine failures as precinct workers attempt to follow the newrules and procedures implemented during the past two years. Gubernato-rial candidate Janet Reno asks for a recount, citing supporters in Miami-Dade County whose votes may not have been properly counted.

C h r o n o l o g y

121

� September 12: Florida officials say that state law does not permit a re-count because the vote totals for Reno and her opponent, Bill McBride,are not within .5 percent of each other.

� October 16: Senators John McCain (Rep.-Arizona), Russell Feingold(Dem.-Wisconsin) and Richard Durbin (Dem.-Illinois) introduce the Po-litical Campaign Broadcast Activity Improvements Act. It would requirethat television and radio stations provide a minimum of two hours a weekof candidate or issue coverage during the period before each nationalelection. It also provides for “broadcast vouchers” to be provided to qual-ifying candidates, funded by a use tax on the broadcast spectrum.

� December 4: A panel of three federal judges hears oral arguments on theconstitutionality of the 2002 campaign finance law.

� December 9: In an interpretation of the new campaign finance law, theFederal Election Commission adopted a regulation that would not deemoutside expenditures made prior to 120 days before an election to be animpermissible “coordination” between the outsider and the campaign.Critics charge that this ruling provides a major conduit for soft money.

� December 18: The Federal Election Commission reports that the Re-publican and Democratic parties together raised about $1.1 billion in reg-ulated “hard money” contributions.

2003

� February: The Santa Clara County (California) Board of Supervisors de-bates whether to buy new electronic touch-screen voting machines. Crit-ics argue that the operation of the machines cannot be verified becausethey leave no paper record of the voting. As a result, an election could be“stolen” by an unscrupulous programmer.

� May 2: A badly divided three-judge federal district court panel overturnspart of the soft money ban in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002. However, they approve and even strengthen the ban against issueads that actually support or oppose candidates. Appeals to the U.S.Supreme Court are quickly drafted.

� May 8: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rules that Cali-fornia can require that groups campaigning for or against ballot measuresdisclose their contributions and contributors. However, the court will let alower court decide whether groups that are not primarily involved in cam-paigning must make disclosures if they take a stand on a ballot issue.

� May 19: A federal appeals court panel temporarily stays the court’s earlierruling that limits and prohibitions on political fund-raising and advertisingwere unconstitutional. As a result, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002 remains in effect until the Supreme Court rules on the case.


122

� June 12: The Supreme Court rules that a Georgia redistricting plan thathad been drawn up by Democrats to maximize their electoral chances didnot impermissibly dilute minority voting strength. Republicans hadjoined some minority activists in opposing the plan.

� June 16: The Supreme Court rules that subjecting nonprofit advocacygroups (such as antiabortion groups) to campaign contribution regula-tions does not violate the First Amendment.

� July 24: California lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante announcesthat the state’s first-ever statewide recall election will be held on October7. The election centers on two questions: whether Governor Gray Davisshould be removed from office, and if so, who should be the new gover-nor. With only 75 days until the election and relatively strict limits onlarge contributions, serious candidates will be forced into a fund-raisingfrenzy.

� July 29: A state election panel rejects San Francisco’s plan to hand-countthe ballots for the first city election to be run under the voter-approvedinstant runoff (preference) system. The city had been unable to get stateand federal approval in time for a computerized vote-counting system forthe unusual ballot. Backers of the instant runoff system will go to court totry to force its implementation.Citing the primacy of the right to vote for officeholders, a federal judge

rules that California voters must be allowed to vote for their choice of re-placement governor even if they do not vote on whether Governor GrayDavis should be recalled.

� September 8: In a unusual special session, the Supreme Court hears oralarguments in the legal challenge to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Re-form Act. A number of political leaders and advocacy groups are chal-lenging soft money and advertising restrictions on First Amendmentgrounds.

� September 15: A three-judge panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals postpones California’s gubernatorial recall election, which hadbeen scheduled for October 7. The court agreed with plaintiffs that hav-ing some voters use error-prone punch-card systems violates equal pro-tection requirements. The decision, however, is stayed for one weekpending a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

� September 23: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over-turns an earlier decision by a three-judge panel and reinstates the Octo-ber 7 date for the California gubernatorial recall election. The justiceshave apparently agreed that the impact of postponing the election out-weighs the prospective harm that might be suffered by some voters whosevotes are miscounted.

C h r o n o l o g y

123

BIOGRAPHICAL LISTING

This chapter presents brief biographical sketches of persons who haveplayed an important role in campaign and election reform as political lead-ers, advocates, or scholars.

Douglas J. Amy, a distinguished political scientist and advocate for reformof the electoral system. Amy is a graduate of the University of Washing-ton, where he also earned a master’s degree. He received his Ph.D. in po-litical science from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1981.During much of the 1980s Amy focused his research on environmentalpolicy and mediation, but he then became interested in the structure ofthe electoral system in the United States. His book Real Choices, NewVoices: The Case for Proportional Representation Elections in the United Statesdescribes the advantage of multiseat elections in which a variety of partiescould win seats in proportion to their support. This would provide accessand encouragement for a diversity of voices that are shut out by the cur-rent ubiquitous winner-take-all single-seat districts. Amy’s book Beyondthe Ballot Box (2000) provides a detailed framework for understanding theadvantages and disadvantages of many possible variations of voting sys-tems. Amy has written numerous articles and appeared in a variety of fo-rums, including public affairs programs on C-SPAN and other outlets.He is currently a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College.

Susan Brownell Anthony, pioneer campaigner for women’s voting rightsduring the latter part of the 19th century. Born in 1820 in Adams, Massa-chusetts, to a family of strong-minded Quakers who were active in oppos-ing slavery and reforming working conditions, Anthony grew up in anatmosphere that encouraged activism. She was a precocious student whowas largely self-taught, since formal education was generally not accessi-ble to women. As a young woman, Anthony quickly became involved inthe day’s chief reform issues, including temperance (antialcohol) and other“antivice” efforts, as well as the abolition of slavery. She came into contact

124

CHAPTER 4

with a number of other emerging reform and feminist leaders, includingAmelia Bloomer, Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton(who would become an especially close colleague). Anthony’s interest inwomen’s rights grew when she found that temperance and abolition meet-ings often refused to let women speak. When the abolitionist cause tri-umphed after the Civil War, Anthony tried in vain to have women’s rightsas well as African-American suffrage guaranteed by the Fourteenth andFifteenth Amendments. In 1869, Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stantonfounded and served as leaders of the National Woman Suffrage Associa-tion, with the objective of securing passage of a sixteenth amendmentguaranteeing women the vote. In 1872, Anthony was arrested for illegallyvoting in an attempt to test whether the Fourteenth Amendment coveredwomen. After an essentially rigged trial, she was fined $100 and refused topay. After a long career she died in 1906, more than a decade short of thefinal triumph of her cause. In 1979, she was honored by becoming the firstactual woman to be shown on a circulating U.S. coin.

Perry Belmont, an early 20th-century political reformer who helped passsome of the first campaign finance legislation. He was born in New YorkCity to a banking family and graduated from Harvard College, where hisstudies had focused on history and political economy. He also attendedthe University of Berlin and received a bachelor of laws degree from Co-lumbia. After practicing law for five years, he then entered Congress.Sharing the concern of many progressive politicians about the excessiveinfluence of corporate money in politics, Belmont founded the NationalPublicity Law Organization in 1905. Its objective was to pass a federal“publicity” (that is, disclosure) law that would reveal the source of politi-cal contributions. Largely as a result of his agitation, Congress in 1910passed the Publicity Act, which required candidates and parties to disclosetheir sources of campaign funds. The reform effort bore further fruit in1925 with the passage of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which addedlimits on contributions. However, Belmont was dissatisfied by the lack ofenforcement and effectiveness of the legislation and publicized the cam-paign finance issue with two books, The Return to Secret Party Funds(1925) and The Survival of the Democratic Principle (1926).

James Coolidge Carter, a pioneer in the reform and modernization of citygovernment. He was born in Lancaster, Massachusetts, in 1827 and at-tended Harvard College and its Dane Law School, beginning his law prac-tice in 1853 in New York City. His legal career culminated in his becomingpresident of the American Bar Association (1894–95); he was also presi-dent of the New York Bar for many years. After becoming involved in thelitigation concerning the activities of “Boss” Tweed and the TammanyHall political machine, Carter became interested in working for municipal

B i o g r a p h i c a l L i s t i n g

125

reform. In 1875, Governor Samuel Tilden appointed him to head a com-mission to develop a new model for municipal government in New York.Carter became the first president of the National Municipal League in1894, and served until 1903. As part of municipal reform, that organiza-tion advocated at-large city elections that would promote the needs of thewhole community rather than the ward or district election system.

James Earl Carter ( Jimmy Carter), president of the United States from1977 to 1981, but earned his lasting reputation through his work forhuman rights and political reform after his defeat in the 1980 election byRonald Reagan. A U.S. Naval Academy graduate and early nuclear sub-marine officer, Carter entered Georgia politics and became the state’sgovernor in 1970. He rose rapidly in the post-Watergate atmosphere ofreform, and his “outsider” status helped propel him to the presidency in1976. Carter combined a liberal domestic social agenda with an emphasison international cooperation and peacemaking, but rampant inflation andthe Iranian hostage crisis frustrated both his domestic and foreign policyefforts. After leaving the presidency, Carter worked on a number of ini-tiatives for helping the poor in developing countries and monitoring elec-tions and human rights efforts in countries struggling to establishdemocracy. Turning to the problems of democracy in the United Statesitself, in 2000 Carter, along with former president Gerald Ford, formedthe National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Analyzing thevoting problems that had plagued the 2000 election, the commission de-veloped a number of recommendations for simplifying and improvingvoting and voting registration as well as voting technology and proce-dures. Carter was awarded the Nobel Prize in peace in 2002.

Carrie Clinton Lane Chapman Catt, women’s suffrage advocate and suc-cessor to Susan Brownell Anthony. Born in 1859, Catt graduated fromIowa State College in 1877 and began a successful career as a school ad-ministrator. After the death of her first husband, she became increasinglyinvolved in women’s rights and joined the Iowa Suffrage Association andthe National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Susan B.Anthony recognized her skill as an administrator and advocate for a con-stitutional amendment giving women the right to vote. In 1900, Anthonyretired and Catt became president of NAWSA. With the aid of money in-herited from her second husband, Catt organized efforts in New Yorkthat eventually led to women in that state gaining the vote in 1917. Cattand other NAWSA leaders were able to persuade President WoodrowWilson to support the suffrage amendment, which was ratified as theNineteenth Amendment in 1920. After achieving the vote, Catt focusedon helping women to use it effectively, playing a key role in founding theLeague of Women Voters.


126

Richard Henry Dana III, a political reformer whose efforts focused on in-stituting the “Australian,” or secret, ballot. He was born in Cambridge,Massachusetts, in 1851 to a politically active family, and graduated fromHarvard College in 1874. He graduated from Harvard Law School in1877 and was admitted to the bar. Observing the typical elections of histime, Dana became increasingly concerned about the cronyism and pa-tronage that seemed to be the rule. He believed that such practices werefacilitated by the voting practices of the time, in which voters often votedorally or with ballots that were clearly identifiable as to what party eachperson was voting for. This enabled party bosses to pressure or intimidatevoters who were not following the party line. Dana drafted legislationthat established the secret ballot in Massachusetts, which was in place intime for the 1889 election. Dana also pushed for civil service reform,writing the Massachusetts Civil Service Reform Act, edited the Civil Ser-vice Reform Record, and also served as president of the National Civil Ser-vice Reform League. Interestingly, however, Dana opposed women’ssuffrage, believing it would be too disruptive to society.

Chandler Davidson, an influential researcher whose books have exploredthe struggle for minority voting rights and political representation, par-ticularly in the South. His academic abilities were recognized early: Aftergraduating from the University of Texas at Austin with a B.A. degree inEnglish and philosophy, he spent a year at the University of Poitiers inFrance as a Fulbright scholar. Davidson then received a Woodrow Wil-son graduate fellowship and earned a Ph.D. from Princeton University in1969. His first book, Biracial Politics (1972), explored the complex shifts inpolitical power and racial politics in the South since the 1950s. His 1984book, Minority Vote Dilution, described the efforts of entrenched whitepoliticians to draw districts in ways that minimized the power of thenewly enfranchised black voters. Davidson’s arguments were cited in theSupreme Court’s Thornburg v. Gingles decision in 1986, which held suchtactics to be unconstitutional. During the 1990s, Davidson edited orcoedited a number of collections of essays on minority politics, includingControversies in Minority Voting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective (1992)and Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act,1965–1990 (1994). These books were also cited in Supreme Court vot-ing rights cases. Davidson has also served as a consultant or expert wit-ness in dozens of voting rights and other civil rights cases, as well asconsulting for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Lani Guinier, an innovative though controversial scholar and activist whohas sought new ways to promote fair representation for all groups in thepolitical system, particularly minorities. She was born Carol Lani Guinierin New York City in 1950. In the later 1960s, she became involved as a


127

young activist with the struggle to pass and enforce the Voting Rights Actof 1965. She attended Harvard-Radcliffe College on a scholarship, earn-ing her B.A. degree, then went to Yale Law School (earning her J.D. de-gree in 1974), having become inspired to pursue a career in civil rightslitigation. At Yale, Guinier met Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham, forgingties that would later result in Guinier’s nomination to the nation’s top civilrights post. During the late 1970s and 1980s, she gained experiencethrough a variety of posts including law clerk, assistant in the Justice De-partment’s Civil Rights Division and assistant counsel to the NAACPLegal Defense and Education Fund. Guinier became interested in the re-lationship between electoral systems and minority representation, and her1988 appointment as a law professor at the University of PennsylvaniaLaw School gave her a platform for speaking and writing about her ideas.Because majority-rule systems mean that the minority always loses out,Guinier advocated a form of weighted, proportional voting that wouldallow blacks and other minorities to secure more effective representation.In 1993, when President Clinton nominated Guinier to the post of assis-tant attorney general for civil rights, conservative critics seized uponGuinier’s writings, portraying them as a radical, racially motivated form of“quota politics.” As the pressure against the nomination built, Clintoneventually asked her to step down, an action that would embitter manypeople in the civil rights community. After the political storm died down,Guinier gained increasing respect as she quietly and effectively continuedher advocacy. She has described her ideas in a number of books and arti-cles including her book The Tyranny of the Majority (1995).

John Sidney McCain, Republican senator from Arizona, emerged in thelater 1990s as a voice for campaign finance reform, playing a major partin the passage of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which was signedinto law as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. McCain wasborn in 1936 to a U.S. Navy family in the Panama Canal Zone (his grand-father had been admiral in charge of aircraft carriers in World War II, andhis father would also be an admiral during the Vietnam War). McCainfollowed the paternal footsteps into the U.S. Naval Academy, graduatingin 1958. In the Vietnam War, he served as a naval aviator, flying bombersoff aircraft carriers. In 1967 he was shot down by an enemy missile. Badlyinjured in the crash, he became a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. Hewould endure repeated beatings and torture during five and a half yearsof imprisonment. Upon return to the United States in 1973, he wasawarded numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. In1982, he began his political career by being elected to the U.S. House ofRepresentatives from a district in Phoenix, Arizona. He generally fol-lowed the conservative Republican line on issues, although he also


128

showed that he could disagree with the Reagan administration on matterssuch as sanctions against apartheid South Africa. In 1986, McCainswitched to the Senate, where he became known as a fighter against“pork” (projects given in exchange for legislative votes), playing an im-portant role in the passage of the line-item veto, which allowed the pres-ident to reject particular items without having to veto the budget as awhole. In the mid-1990s, McCain expanded his reform efforts to focus oncampaign finance. In 1995, together with Senator Russell Feingold(Dem.-Minnesota) he sponsored a bill that would regulate the flow of un-regulated “soft money” from national parties to candidates under the pre-text that the money would not be used to help elect them. In 1989McCain had overcome a campaign finance problem of his own, his asso-ciation with the “Keating Five”—senators accused of protecting savingsand loan executive Charles Keating from regulators in exchange for heftycampaign contributions. The Senate Ethics Committee accused McCainof poor judgment, but cleared him of actual wrongdoing. In 1999, withthe reform bill known as McCain-Feingold stalled in Congress, McCainentered the Republican presidential primary but was overwhelmed by thecampaign of George W. Bush, which had much greater funding and thebacking of the party establishment and many corporate interests. In 2000,McCain, Feingold, and Representatives Christopher Shays (Rep.-Con-necticut) and Marty Meehan (Dem.-Massachusetts) persevered in theirefforts, resulting in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Actof 2002.

Laughlin McDonald, lawyer who has argued key voting rights cases beforethe Supreme Court, helping to expand the effectiveness of the VotingRights Act of 1965. McDonald was born in South Carolina and graduatedfrom Columbia University in 1960. After graduating with a J.D. degreefrom the University of Virginia Law School, McDonald went on in thelate 1960s to work as a staff attorney for the American Civil LibertiesUnion (ACLU) Southern Regional Office. During the 1970s, he taughtat the University of North Carolina Law School and practiced law pri-vately, before rejoining the ACLU as director of the Southern RegionalOffice. Besides litigating, McDonald provided important testimony incongressional hearings that were considering expanding the VotingRights Act of 1965. His books and articles chronicling and analyzing vot-ing rights litigation include Litigation under the Voting Rights Act (1986)and The Rights of Racial Minorities (second edition, 1993). In 2002 he pub-lished an article that criticizes the use of so-called ballot security measuresas a disguised way of discouraging and disenfranchising minority voters.

Ralph Nader, first came to prominence as a consumer advocate, but in the1990s turned his attention to political reform, running for president on


129

the Green Party ticket in 2000. Born of Lebanese immigrant parents,Nader graduated from Princeton University in 1955 and received a lawdegree from Harvard in 1958. As a student and then a practicing lawyer,Nader became interested in the connection between automobile-relatedpersonal injury cases and defects in manufacture and design. In 1965 hepublished Unsafe at Any Speed, a devastating critique of the automobile in-dustry’s lack of concern for safety, targeting in particular the General Mo-tors Corvair. The resulting public outcry led to the passage of theNational Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966. Nader soonbroadened his concerns to a wide variety of consumer products, puttingtogether a team of lawyers nicknamed “Nader’s Raiders” who litigatedand agitated for safety regulations. In the mid-1970s, Nader went afterthe nuclear power industry through his Critical Mass Energy Project. In-creasingly, Nader saw corporate power itself and its effect on the politicalprocess to be the core issue. Nader organized groups such as Public Cit-izen and Congress Watch to expose the influence of corporate contribu-tions on policy and legislation. In 1996, Nader made his first run forpresident as an independent candidate, fighting unsuccessfully to be in-cluded in the presidential debates that were firmly under the control ofthe two major political parties. Nader ran again in 2000 under the GreenParty ticket, but after the extremely close race between George W. Bushand Al Gore, Nader was bitterly attacked by many Democrats who felt hehad tipped the election to Bush. Nader remains unapologetic, insistingthat on the important issues such as corporate power and economic glob-alism there is no real difference between the major parties.

Henry Ross Perot, mercurial computer billionaire and political re-former/gadfly who ran the most successful independent presidential cam-paign in modern times, as well as founding the Reform Party. Perotgraduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, and later joined IBM, becomingone of its top salespersons. Convinced that he could do for software whatIBM had done for hardware—create and sell complete, integrated dataprocessing systems—Perot founded Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in1962. By 1970, Perot had earned his first $1 billion. Charismatic, oftendomineering, and abrasive, Perot ran his company along military lines, re-warding performance but punishing dissidents. Perot also earned a repu-tation for taking bold, unconventional steps to deal with a variety of issues,as when he first collected gifts and supplies for American prisoners of warin Vietnam and then attempted to buy their freedom by offering $100 mil-lion to the North Vietnamese. In 1992, Perot decided to challenge the twomajor political parties by running as an independent candidate for presi-dent, founding a reform movement called United We Stand and combin-ing a populist, antiestablishment stance with “can-do,” problem-solving,


130

antibureaucratic rhetoric. Because of his vast personal resources, Perot wasable to afford media access far beyond anything traditionally available tothird-party candidates. His double-digit standing in the polls forced themajor parties to include him in the presidential debates, but the winner-take-all electoral system ensured that he had no real chance of capturingthe White House. After reaching a high point of 19 percent in the 1992popular vote, Perot played a major part in organizing the Reform Partyand ran as its presidential candidate in 1996. However, Perot’s showingthis time was disappointing (he had been hurt by being excluded from thedebates, as well as by a perception by many voters that he was an interest-ing gadfly but too eccentric to be entrusted with high office). The ReformParty imploded in 2000 in a battle between the party regulators and sup-porters of Patrick Buchanan, who attempted what was essentially a “hos-tile takeover” of the party. Since then, Perot has faded from public view.

Mark P. Petracca, a tireless crusader for term limits for public officials.Born in Quincy, Massachusetts, in 1955, he graduated from Cornell Uni-versity in 1977 with a bachelor’s degree in government, then received hismaster’s degree from Cornell in 1979 and his Ph.D. in political sciencefrom the University of Chicago in 1986. He has held a variety of facultypositions and is currently with the Department of Political Science at theUniversity of California, Irvine (UCI). During the 1980s and early 1990s,Petracca became a strong advocate for limiting the terms of federal andstate legislators. Since the Supreme Court ruled that term limits for Con-gress were unconstitutional, Petracca advocated for a constitutionalamendment allowing them. Since then, however, interest in term limitshas subsided somewhat, and Petracca has been engaged in a more broad-based study of the imbalances of power in U.S. democracy and possiblemeasures for dealing with them. At UCI, he received the 2002–03 Dis-tinguished Faculty Lectureship Award for Teaching.

Frances Fox Piven, a distinguished scholar and advocate for electoral re-form, particularly the effective guarantee of the right to register and vote.Born in 1932 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, she earned her B.A. degree atthe University of Chicago in 1953, continuing there for an M.A. degreein city planning (1956) and a Ph.D. in social science (1962). She went onto write numerous books dealing with the social and political situation ofthe poor, working class, and minorities, starting with Regulating the Poor,coauthored with Richard Cloward (1971). Her interest and concern withflaws in the electoral system led to her publishing Why Americans Don’tVote (1988), coauthored with Richard Cloward, and a later edition, WhyAmericans Still Don’t Vote (2000).

Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1901 to 1909;he played an important role in the political reform movement of the early


131

20th century. Roosevelt, a sickly child who made a concerted effort totoughen himself through outdoor activities such as hunting, was a Har-vard graduate and a prolific writer of books on naval and political historyas well as outdoor life (a staunch conservationist, he was key in the estab-lishment of the national park system). During the mid-1880s, Rooseveltbegan his political career as a reform-minded Republican New York statelegislator. He frequently attacked corruption, especially tackling NewYork’s notorious Tammany Hall political machine. As a commissioner forthe federal civil service starting in 1889, Roosevelt attacked the abusesthat had considerably undermined the antipatronage provisions of the1883 Pendleton Act. During the 1890s, he also served as president of theNew York City police commission and learned more about conditions inthe city’s slums. He then returned to federal service as assistant secretaryto the navy, which position he resigned to take a post of lieutenantcolonel, during which he led the famous “Rough Riders” against Spanishpositions in Cuba. The resulting popularity helped propel Roosevelt tothe governorship of New York in 1899, but state political boss Tom Plattsuccessfully got the reform-minded Roosevelt out of his hair by encour-aging his nomination as vice president on the McKinley ticket in 1900.Roosevelt became president in 1901 after McKinley’s assassination. Hewas reelected in 1904, but critics accused him of having received largecontributions from corporations in exchange for favors. Stung by the crit-icism and pursuing his reformist impulses, Roosevelt began to pursue“trust-busting,” or the breaking up of the large industrial monopolies thathad been built by tycoons such as John D. Rockefeller and AndrewCarnegie, and he pushed for laws forbidding corporate political contri-butions and requiring the disclosure of other contributions. (This wouldbear fruit with the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907.) Dissatisfied withthe continuing influence of corporations on the Republican Party, Roo-sevelt ran again (this time unsuccessfully) for the presidency in 1912 onthe Progressive (“Bull Moose”) ticket.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, along with Susan B. Anthony, a leading pioneeradvocate for woman’s suffrage in the late 19th century. In 1840, while at-tending a world antislavery convention in London, she made contact withother American women who had a growing interest in expanding the abo-litionist cause to include social and political rights for women. In 1848,Stanton organized the first convention specifically for women’s rights, atSeneca Falls, New York. In 1851, she met Susan B. Anthony, and the twowomen would become lifelong partners in the woman’s rights andwomen’s suffrage movements. In 1869, the two leaders cofounded theNational Woman Suffrage Association. Progress was slow, however, withthe U.S. Senate soundly defeating a suffrage amendment in 1887 and


132

considering the matter only in desultory fashion. Stanton took a broaderviewpoint than most of the other leaders of the suffrage movement. Sheconsidered the goal of gaining the vote for women to be important, butsaw it as only one facet of a broad-based agenda for giving women fullrights in the personal, legal, and social spheres. When she died in 1902she was still in the forefront of a struggle that would not bear fruition fortwo more decades.


133

GLOSSARY

The following terms are frequently encountered in discussion of campaignand election reform. Some important general terms in U.S. politics are alsoincluded.

absentee ballot A ballot that allows a person to vote without physicallyvisiting a polling place. The results of a close election may not be knownfor several days because of the late processing of absentee ballots.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) A group founded in 1920 todefend and promote civil liberties such as freedom of speech and protec-tion of the rights of criminal defendants. The ACLU has played an im-portant role in securing voting rights for blacks and other minorities.

apportionment The process of drawing up legislative districts. Theprimary criterion under the “one man, one vote” rule promulgated bythe Supreme Court is that districts be closely matched in total popula-tion, but the voting power of minorities must also be protected fromdilution.

association, freedom of A basic general right, freedom to associate forpolitical purposes is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Con-stitution. It is also used to argue for the right of a political party to deter-mine its rules of operation and to select candidates.

at large Delegates or representatives elected to represent a jurisdiction(such as a state or city) as a whole, rather than electing a separate repre-sentative for each district or subdivision.

Australian ballot See secret ballot.ballot The piece of paper (or electronic or mechanical equivalent) that al-lows a voter to select candidates and vote for or against various proposi-tions. A variety of methods for marking ballots can be employed,including pencil marks, punch cards, or touch screens. The varying de-grees of accuracy and ease of use of ballots had important consequencesfor the 2000 presidential election.

134

CHAPTER 5

base The group of voters who are loyal to a party and its principles. Thebase is a two-edged sword: on the one hand, if properly motivated, theparty base can be a reliable source of a high turnout of votes. On the otherhand, the attempt of party leaders or candidates to reach out to the mod-erate voters needed to achieve victory can backfire if it causes the base toeither stay home on Election Day or, worse, split off into an alternativeparty.

battleground state A state having an important number of electoral votesand for which polls show that the race is close. Modern presidential can-didates focus heavily on battleground states for their personal campaign-ing and ad budgets, often to the exclusion of much of the rest of thecountry.

bipartisan Actual or claimed participation (as in drafting legislation) ofthe two major political parties. The term is generally used to seek orclaim widespread support for a measure or policy.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Campaign reform legislation(originally the McCain-Feingold bill) that closes some of the loopholesthat had been used for “soft money” contributions.

bloc A group of voters who usually vote the same way on issues affectingtheir interests. Legislators reapportioning a district try to include blocs ofvoters who support their party’s interests.

bundling The process of gathering many small contributions and pre-senting them as a lump sum. Bundling can allow an organization that issubject to contribution limits to effectively make large contributions andpresumably receive credit for them from the candidate or party.

butterfly ballot A type of ballot that lists candidates on alternating sidesof a page with arrows pointing to a row of dots down the middle. In the2000 presidential election, this ballot arrangement apparently led manyvoters to vote for Reform Party candidate Patrick Buchanan instead ofDemocrat Al Gore.

campaign The process of running for office. Broadly speaking, the cam-paign can be said to begin even before the candidate officially an-nounces that he or she is in the running (such as when an “exploratorycommittee” is formed to test the waters and determine possible fund-ing). The expense and effort involved in running for office today has ledto charges that many political officials are in effect running permanentcampaigns.

campaign consultant A professional manager or specialist who offersskills such as fund-raising, speechwriting, polling, or media relations to acandidate or party.

campaign finance reform The effort to regulate campaign contributionsand expenditures in order to make the political process fairer and more

G l o s s a r y

135

accessible. Goals of the movement include increased disclosure of thesources of contributions, limits on contributions and spending, and elim-ination of “soft money” and other indirect, hard-to-track forms of polit-ical influence. Some reformers also advocate public funding of campaignsas a supplement or replacement for private contributions.

caucus A meeting of voters or legislators belonging to a party, for the pur-pose of selecting delegates to a convention or establishing party rules orpolicy positions. A caucus can also represent a particular interest groupwithin a party or legislature, as in the Congressional Black Caucus.

chad The small piece of paper that is supposed to be punched out with thestylus in a punched-card voting system. Partly punched chads led to con-troversy as to whether votes should be counted in the 2000 Florida pres-idential election. Colorful adjectives were applied to various degrees ofchad separation, including dimpled, pregnant, hanging, and swinging.The push to replace punched-card voting machines following this deba-cle will hopefully mean that such minutiae will never need to be discussedagain.

civil service Government employees who are not politically appointedbut receive their positions on the basis of merit (through examinationsand the like). These positions are considered to be nonpartisan, and peo-ple holding them are restricted from running for office and from certainkinds of involvement in political campaigns. Most government employeestoday are covered by civil service rules and protections.

closed primary A primary election in which only registered members ofa party can vote for its candidates.

Common Cause A political watchdog and reform organization foundedby John Gardner in 1970. The organization investigates what it consid-ers to be corrupt practices by corporations and special interest groups andundertakes legal action (such as to force disclosure of information). Gard-ner and his successor, former federal prosecutor Archibald Cox, have alsomade campaign finance reform a major part of the organization’s agenda.

congressional campaign committee A committee used by each of thetwo major parties as a vehicle for raising money for the party’s congres-sional candidates, generally targeting spending on those races that are feltto be most winnable (or those incumbents most in need of help).

constituency An identifiable group with common interests that might beexpected to vote in a certain way on specific issues. For example, unionmembers and small business owners are typical constituencies, as are mi-nority groups.

constituent A person living in a representative’s district, entitled torepresentation and potentially able to vote in elections for the office inquestion.


136

convention A state or national meeting of party delegates who vote onparty rules, the policy platform, and the nomination of candidates forpresident and vice president. Since the 1970s, the national conventions ofthe two major parties have had a largely ceremonial and public relationspurpose, with the nomination already certain for one candidate as a resultof winning primary elections and gaining massive amounts of funding.

corruption General term for a situation in which officeholders, lobbyists,and special interest groups exchange public acts for private gain, provid-ing favors such as contracts, jobs, or favorable legislation in return formoney.

cumulative voting See preference voting.debates, presidential A structured, often nationally televised discussionbetween candidates. In debates between presidential hopefuls, the candi-dates make short opening and closing statements, but the bulk of the de-bate usually consists of questions being addressed alternately to thecandidates by selected members of the press or sometimes the audience.Because of the rigid, limited structure, there is usually little opportunity forextended discussion or rebuttal. The first modern presidential debate wasthe televised confrontation between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixonin the 1960 campaign, in which observers credited Kennedy’s more“telegenic” appearance as being decisive. Since 1976 one or more debateshave been held between the major candidates in each presidential cam-paign. Because the commission overseeing the debates is controlled by thetwo major parties, minor party candidates and independents face a highhurdle for inclusion, and only Ross Perot in 1992 managed to be admitted.

decline to state voter One who does not list a party affiliation; an in-dependent. Such voters can vote in open primaries but not in closedprimaries.

Democratic Party One of the two major political parties in the UnitedStates. The party was originally founded by Thomas Jefferson and JamesMadison in 1793. At the time it was called the Democratic-RepublicanParty to emphasize its support for a “democratic republic” against themonarchist tendencies of aristocratic conservatives. In 1828, the party, bythen called simply the Democratic Party, won an important victorythrough the populist presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson. However,the party’s support for states’ rights put it on the side of southern slave-holders, while the new Republican Party attracted the support of anti-slavery forces. From the post–Civil War Reconstruction period to theearly 20th century, the Democratic Party was at low ebb, although it didattract the support of the large number of immigrants arriving in majorcities such as New York and Chicago. The party became dominant in the1930s and 1940s, thanks to the forging of a liberal, prolabor coalition

G l o s s a r y

137

through President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. Starting in1948, the party began to lose southern white support when it increasinglysupported the Civil Rights movement, culminating in a new round of so-cial legislation in the 1960s. From the 1970s through the early 1990s, theDemocrats tended to control Congress, but the Republicans more oftenthan not won the presidency. From 2000 to 2002, the Democrats’ for-tunes waned again, when they first lost the presidency, then the Congress.The party’s traditional symbol is the donkey.

direct democracy A system in which voters decide legislative or policyquestions by direct vote rather than voting for representatives who inturn make the final decision. The ballot initiative, proposition or refer-endum are examples of direct democracy, as is the traditional New En-gland town meeting.

disclosure The requirement that information (such as a list of a cam-paign’s contributors and contribution amounts) be made fully available tothe public in a timely manner.

disenfranchise To remove a person’s right to vote through legal action,such as following conviction for certain types of crimes. More broadly, tomake it difficult for particular persons or groups to vote, such as throughthe use of poll taxes and literacy taxes against prospective black voters inthe South.

due process The constitutional guarantee, enshrined in the Fifth andFourteenth Amendments, that all persons involved in a criminal or civilprocess are entitled to have their rights protected and to the carrying outof proper legal procedures as specified by law. In modern times, theSupreme Court has sometimes used constitutional due process consider-ations to intervene in state or local cases, including those involving vot-ing rights.

elector A person qualified to vote in an election. More specifically, amember of the Electoral College.

Electoral College Under the Constitution, each state designates a slate ofelectors who cast the actual votes for president and vice president. Whena voter goes to the polls to vote for a candidate for these offices, he or sheis actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to vote for that candidate.The number of electors is equal to the state’s total number of senators(two) and representatives; thus each state has at least three electoral votes.In all states except Maine and Nebraska, the entire slate of electors for theparty whose candidate wins the popular vote in the state is selected.(Those two states allocate electors proportionately or by district.) Thewinning candidate is said to have won all of the state’s electoral votes. Onthe first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, each state’selectors meet at the state capital and transmit their votes to Washington;


138

the candidates receiving the majority of electoral votes become presidentand vice president. This is normally a formality, although the deadline forselecting electoral slates became a factor in the disputed Florida vote in2000. Note that as in 1876 (with Rutherford B. Hayes) and 2000 (with AlGore) the candidate with the higher overall popular vote lost the electoralvote because a candidate’s getting a popular vote majority in some statesdoes not affect the electoral outcome in other states.

enumerator An official who counts votes or a party volunteer who checksto make sure the party’s votes are being properly counted and tabulated.

equal protection of the law The concept that all citizens are entitled toequal rights and treatment under the law, regardless of such factors asrace. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiresstates as well as the federal government to guarantee equal protection ofthe law. During the 1950s and 1960s, under Chief Justice Earl Warren theSupreme Court took a more proactive approach to enforcing equal pro-tection through banning racial segregation and discrimination and guar-anteeing voting rights for minorities.

equal time provision A regulation by the Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) that requires television and radio stations that pro-vide free time to one candidate in an election to provide an equal amountof free time to other qualified candidates (also known as the “fairness doc-trine”). In 1987, however, the FCC repealed the “Fairness Doctrine,” andin practice candidates generally receive coverage in proportion to theamount of attention given them by reporters. Since incumbents oftenhave more opportunity to make news (such as by signing bills), they gen-erally have an advantage in gaining coverage. Minor-party and indepen-dent candidates are often excluded on the grounds that they are notnewsworthy because they are unlikely to win.

exit poll A survey of voters as they leave the polling place. Although notinfallible, it is probably the most accurate predictor of election outcomes,and it is the basis for states being “called” by the media even before mostof the votes have been tallied. This practice aroused sharp criticism inFlorida in 2000.

faction This term was originally used by the framers of the Constitutionto refer to groups of people promoting particular agendas or issues. De-spite being viewed negatively, factions soon flourished in the young U.S.polity and soon turned into full-fledged political parties that nominatedslates of candidates in each election. Today the term faction is usually ap-plied to an ideological group within a party, such as the religious rightwithin the Republican Party.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) An agency established in 1975under the Federal Election Campaign Act to monitor contributions,

G l o s s a r y

139

allocate public campaign matching funds, and otherwise enforce com-pliance with the act’s provisions. The FEC publishes regular reports oncandidate finances. The FEC has been criticized by reformers as beingtoothless and too closely entangled with the major political parties.

First Amendment Guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, andthe right to petition the government for redress of grievances, it is thuscrucial for protecting political participation.

“first past the post” An election that is won by the candidate getting aplurality of votes, with no requirement of a majority and no run-offs.

“527” groups Organizations that were exempted from contribution-disclosure requirements due to a loophole in the tax code that was closedin 2000.

Fourteenth Amendment This amendment to the U.S. Constitution, rat-ified in 1868, was primarily directed at protecting the rights of formerslaves in the South. Its general language states that “no state shall depriveany person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nordeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of thelaws.” This language would be applied in the mid-20th century to over-turning racial segregation, discrimination, and other forms of institution-alized inequality. In the controversial Supreme Court decision Bush v.Gore, the Court majority would use equal protection considerations tostop the recounting of votes in certain Florida counties.

freedom of speech and the press Guaranteed by the First Amendmentas essential to political discourse in a democracy, these freedoms are alsocited by opponents of regulation of campaign contributions and spend-ing. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court held that regulatingcampaign expenditures violated the First Amendment, although cam-paign contributions could be regulated.

front loading The practice of states holding their primary elections earlyin a presidential election year in order to garner attention (and advertis-ing) from an eager media. A result of this practice is for candidates to haveto begin fund-raising earlier in order to be able to compete in the crucialearly primaries that will reveal those candidates considered to be viable.

fusion The practice of a candidate being endorsed by more than one party.This can allow minor parties to have some influence by endorsing majorparty candidates with similar views, but courts have held that states can banthe listing of multiple parties next to a candidate’s name on the ballot.

general election The final election in which officeholders are deter-mined. Usually, general election candidates are the winners of theirparty’s primary election.

gerrymander A legislative district whose boundaries are deliberatelydrawn so as to give political advantage to one party (by making its sup-


140

porters a majority), or to provide for greater representation for a minor-ity. Also used as a verb meaning to “create such a district.”

“get out the vote” (GOTV) Organized efforts to contact a party’s votersand encourage them to go to the polls, sometimes providing transporta-tion. Parties are allowed to use unregulated “soft money” for this purpose.

graft The use of political position or power to extract money and other fa-vors in the form of bribes, kickbacks, positions for friends and so on. Al-though graft still occurs today (Representative James Trafficant wasconvicted of such behavior in 2002), most political corruption today ismore subtle and seldom involves a provable “quid pro quo.”

grandfather clause A provision in many southern states that exemptedfrom literacy tests people whose ancestors could vote. Since only whitesoriginally could vote, this had the effect of allowing illiterate whites tovote while barring blacks.

grassroots Characterized by widespread participation by ordinary people.A presumed effect of successful campaign finance reform would be to in-crease the influence of many small contributions coming from the grassroots over that of a relative few wealthy contributors.

hard money Direct contributions to political candidates, subject to limitsand disclosure requirements. See also soft money.

Hatch Act A federal law passed in 1939, prohibiting most government em-ployees from becoming involved in politics other than as voters. (For exam-ple, they could not run for office or serve as delegates to a party convention.)Congress eased the restrictions in 1993, allowing federal employees to par-ticipate in campaigns (although they still cannot run for office).

incumbent The existing holder of an office that is up for election. Incum-bency can be a disadvantage if there is a general popular dissatisfaction withthe quality of government (or the state of the economy), but incumbentsalso have significant advantages in their ability to generate favorable newscoverage and to maintain an extensive network for fund-raising.

independent A candidate or voter who does not express a party affilia-tion. Some high-profile independents have included presidential candi-dates Eugene McCarthy (1976), John Anderson (1980), and Ross Perot(1992). (Perot, however, is also associated with the Reform Party.) In2001, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party and de-clared himself to be an independent, tipping the balance of the Senateover to the Democrats, with whom he usually voted. (The Republicansregained control of the Senate following the 2002 election.) The Senate’slongest-standing independent is also from Vermont: Bernie Sanders, whodescribes himself as a socialist.

independent expenditure Money spent to advocate for the election ofa candidate (or for defeat of the candidate’s opponent) that is not spent

G l o s s a r y

141

by or in coordination with the candidate or the candidate’s campaigncommittee.

initiative A measure that is put on a state or local ballot as a result of thesuccessful gathering of a sufficient number of petition signatures from thepublic. The initiative, which gives the people a way to bypass legislativegridlock or unwillingness to address certain issues, is a legacy of the pro-gressive movement of the early 20th century. Critics, however, argue thatthere are often too many initiatives and propositions cluttering the ballotand that some initiatives reflect unfortunate outbursts involving issuessuch as immigration and race.

in-kind contributions Contributions of goods or services to a campaign,such as food, transportation, and printing. Although such contributionsshould be reported at their cash-equivalent value, they are hard for regu-lators to track down, since they do not leave a “paper trail.”

interest group (or special interest group) People who organize politi-cal action (such as making contributions, lobbying, or communicatingwith the pubic) based on specific interests that affect them. Examples in-clude corporations (in general, or in a specific industry), trade unions,women’s organizations, environmentalists, seniors, and consumer groups.The political action committee (PAC) is a common vehicle used by inter-est groups to make campaign contributions.

issue ads Advertisements during a campaign that supposedly discuss onlyissues (such as prochoice or antiabortion), not specific candidates. In re-ality, they provide a way in which unregulated, unlimited funds can beused to indirectly attack an opposing candidate by highlighting those ofhis or her positions that are believed to be unpopular with voters.

Jim Crow laws Antiblack laws passed in many southern states followingthe end of Reconstruction, after the Civil War. Combined with segrega-tion, such laws made it virtually impossible for blacks to vote.

League of Women Voters This organization, founded in 1920 by CarrieClinton Lane Chapman Catt, was founded to give assistance to womenwho had newly earned the vote through passage of the NineteenthAmendment. The organization prepares extensive nonpartisan educa-tional materials on candidates and issues and has often served as the mod-erator for political debates.

lobbying The effort to get a legislature to vote for or against a measure.Lobbyists try to cultivate long-term relationships with legislators, offer-ing various forms of subtle or blatant financial support in exchange for thedesired outcome.

machine An organized although unofficial system by which dominantpoliticians (“bosses”) dispense jobs and other favors in exchange forvotes. Many large cities such as New York (through Tammany Hall)


142

and Chicago were dominated by political machines until the mid-20thcentury.

majority-minority district A legislative district drawn in an attempt toensure that a racial minority group has the majority of voters and is thuspresumably able to elect candidates representing the group.

majority system An electoral system in which a candidate must receiveone more than half the votes cast in order to be elected. If no candidatereceives a majority, a runoff election is usually held between the two lead-ing candidates.

matching funds In campaign reform, public money that is used tomatch private contributions received by a candidate who has agreed toabide by certain rules such as contribution limits. Since 1976, match-ing funds have been available to qualified candidates in presidentialelections.

McCain-Feingold Bill Campaign reform legislation authored by SenatorJohn McCain (Republican-Arizona) and Senator Russell Feingold (De-mocrat-Wisconsin) Its most important component was the banning ofpreviously unregulated “soft money” contributions. After a protractedstruggle, the essential components of McCain-Feingold were passed asthe Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The legislation is nowbeing challenged in the courts.

midterm election An election held midway through a presidential term:that is, the even-numbered year between two presidential election years.Since the term for a member of the House of Representatives is only twoyears, the entire House is up for election in a midterm election. Gener-ally the party controlling the White House has lost seats in Congress dur-ing a midterm, but the 2002 election was an exception, with theRepublicans regaining control of the Senate.

minority Mathematically, less than half of any group, as in the minorityparty in Congress. The term also refers to a group whose ethnic, racial,or other characteristics distinguish it from the majority, and that is oftensubject to discrimination, lack of opportunity, and lack of political power.In an increasingly multiethnic and multicultural society, however, theconcept of a “majority” is becoming less distinct.

“Motor Voter Act” A 1993 law that requires states to provide voter reg-istration as part of the process of issuing or renewing driver’s licenses ordispensing certain other services. Many Republicans opposed it, believingthat people who had not bothered to register before were more likely tobe Democrats.

multiparty system A political system in which there is more than onepolitical party. The term is generally used to refer to a system (unlikethat in the United States) where there are more than two significant

G l o s s a r y

143

parties, and governments are generally formed by a coalition of two ormore parties.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP) The NAACP, founded in 1909 by a coalition of black ac-tivists and sympathetic whites, spearheaded the Civil Rights movement ofthe 1940s through the 1960s. Through litigation by its Legal Defense andEducation Fund, the NAACP worked to overturn segregation and dis-criminatory laws, especially laws designed to prevent blacks from voting.The NAACP does not endorse partisan candidates, but there is generallya close relationship between the group and the Democratic Party.

national committee A party committee that oversees strategy and fund-raising and that develops the party’s political positions. It consists of tworepresentatives from each state party (the Democrats now use a systemthat ensures proportional representation for women and minorities).

negative campaigning (negative advertising) A somewhat nebulousterm for campaign efforts or advertising that seeks primarily to attack anopponent (particularly for alleged personal faults) rather than focusing onthe positive qualities of the supported candidate.

nomination The designation of a person as a party’s candidate for officeor as a proposed holder of a nonpartisan office (as in a nomination to ajudgeship).

nonbinding primary Also called a “beauty contest,” a primary election inwhich the delegates associated with the winning candidate are not oblig-ated to vote for that candidate at the party convention.

off-year election An election held in a year in which there is no presi-dential election. See also midterm election.

“one man, one vote” The principle, endorsed by the Supreme Court incases such as Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that eachperson’s vote should be of equal weight in determining representation.This requires that legislative districts include virtually the same numberof constituents.

open primary A primary election in which any registered voter, regard-less of affiliation, can vote for a candidate for any party’s nomination. Par-ties have often opposed this system, believing that it deprives a party ofthe right to select candidates who reflect the party’s principles.

overvote A ballot that shows indications of the voter having voted for twoor more candidates for the same office. Since there is no way to knowwhich candidate the voter had intended to vote for, the vote cannot becounted.

parliamentary government A system (as in Great Britain) in which the gov-ernment is established by the majority party in the legislature (parliament),or by a coalition of parties that amounts to a majority. The executive (prime


144

minister) and cabinet are appointed by the majority, which can also removethem through a vote of no confidence and call for new elections.

partisan A supporter or advocate for a political party, or an election inwhich candidates are identified with political parties (as with most racesfor legislative or executive offices).

patronage Appointments, positions, or other favors given to supportersof the politician or party in power. Hope of receiving patronage both en-courages and rewards political support and contribution. The civil servicereforms of the late 19th century diminished the possibilities for patron-age by moving most career positions from political appointment to thecompetitive civil service system.

petition A document signed by registered voters requesting that a candi-date or proposition be placed on the election ballot. A threshold numberof signatures is required; in practice, many more signatures must be gath-ered to allow for some signatures being invalid.

platform A set of principles and policies that represent the official posi-tion of a party and to which the party’s candidates are supposedly ex-pected to adhere. In recent national elections in the United States, majorparty platforms have generally been used to mollify important factionswithin the party, but have otherwise been ignored.

plurality The largest number of votes in an election but not an absolutemajority. In elections that require only a plurality, there is no runoff, andthe winner may represent only a small minority of voters if the vote issplit among many candidates. (Technically, due to the presence of minorparties, the winners of presidential elections often achieve only a plural-ity. In a rather pronounced example, Bill Clinton won the presidency in1992 with only 43 percent of the popular vote, because of the relativelystrong showing of independent candidate Ross Perot.)

policy wonk A generally pejorative term for a person obsessed withstudying issues and developing policies, presumably to the exclusion oflife’s “normal” interests. Such people are often accused of being out oftouch with the lives of the people for whom they presume to create thepolicies.

political action committee (PAC) A mechanism by which an organiza-tion (such as a corporation or union) that cannot directly contribute topolitical campaigns can use segregated funds to contribute to candidatesor parties.

political party An organization that attempts to appeal to and bring to-gether persons sharing a common set of political beliefs or objectives andthat nominates and runs candidates for various offices. National partiessuch as the Democratic Party and Republican Party have a layered systemof local, state, and national committees and meetings. Although there are

G l o s s a r y

145

several other parties that arguably have national scope (such as the Green,Libertarian, Natural Law, and, until recently, Reform Parties), in muchdiscussion about politics the term party is often assumed to mean “majorparty”—the Democrats or Republicans.

polity The political culture or system of values and institutions underly-ing a nation’s form of government.

polling place An officially designated place for casting ballots; also calleda precinct.

poll tax A fee charged for voting. Poll taxes were frequently used to dis-courage blacks and poor whites from voting in the South. In the 1950s thecourts began to rule against the use of poll taxes as being discriminatory,and their use was prohibited by the Twenty-fourth Amendment to theU.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1964.

poll watcher A person designated by a political party to observe the pro-ceedings at a polling place, keep track of the party’s voters, or preventelection tampering or intimidation by opponents.

populism A political movement based on the interests of the common orgeneral people rather than elites or special interests or an appeal to suchideas. Populism can take the positive form of progressive or reform move-ments or the negative form of demagoguery. William Jennings Bryan,who ran for president in 1896, 1900, and 1908, is often considered to bea classic American populist. The Reform Party of the 1990s also had ele-ments of populism.

preference voting A system in which voters rank candidates on the bal-lot in order of preference, and second choices are used to determine thewinner if there is no immediate majority.

primary election A preliminary election for determining which of severalcandidates will be a party’s nominee for a particular office. (A closed pri-mary is restricted to voters registered with the relevant party, while in anopen primary any voter can vote for any candidate in any party’s primary.)

Progressive Party Loose groupings of reformers who ran alternativecandidates in the presidential elections of 1912 (Theodore Roosevelt),1924 (Robert La Follette), and 1948 (Henry Wallace). Although none ofthese efforts succeeded, they did publicize views at odds with those of thedominant Democrats and Republicans.

proportional representation An electoral system in which seats in a leg-islature are given in proportion to a party’s vote in the election. For ex-ample, if a legislature has 100 seats and parties A, B, and C receive 57percent, 23 percent, and 20 percent of the vote respectively, the partieswould receive 57, 23, and 20 legislative seats. This system is not generallyused in the United States, where normally there is only one legislativeseat per district.


146

public campaign finance (funding) A system in which public funds (suchas those raised by taxpayer check-offs) are distributed to qualifying can-didates who agree to follow certain fund-raising or expenditure limits.The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 provided for public fundingof presidential candidates. Supporters of this system argue that it allowscandidates who have grassroots support but little special-interest fundingto compete with privately funded candidates.

push poll A poll whose questions are designed not to measure support forcandidates but to plant false or negative information about opponentsthrough the way questions are phrased. For example, do you agree withcandidate X’s antichoice and progun positions?

reapportionment The process of redrawing the boundaries of legislativedistricts, usually on the basis of new census data. Congressional redis-tricting is required by the need to have all districts include approximatelythe same population, thus ensuring “one person, one vote.” However, instates where one party dominates the legislature and/or holds the gover-norship, district boundaries are likely to be drawn in a way that maximizesthe number of “safe” seats for that party at the expense of the opposition.See also gerrymander.

recall A petition that calls for the removal of an officeholder before thenormal end of his or her term. Usually a threshold number of signaturesare required before the recall petition is placed on the ballot. In 2003 Cal-ifornia governor Gray Davis faced a rare recall challenge.

recount A second or subsequent counting of the ballots following a closeelection. Some jurisdictions have an automatic recount if the margin be-tween the winner and second place candidates is below a specified thresh-old (such as .5 percent). Recounts can also be called at the request of thelosing candidate, but in that case the candidate must pay for the costs ofthe recount. The most famous recounts were those following the razor-thin Florida presidential election in 2000, where the recount was eventu-ally halted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

redistricting See reapportionment.referendum A procedure by which voters decide a policy question directly,via the ballot, rather than through the legislature. Usually a minimumnumber of signatures is required to place a referendum on the ballot.

Reform Party In the United States, a party founded by computer bil-lionaire H. Ross Perot in the 1990s, who gained considerable grassrootssupport. Its platform emphasized what it saw as the corruption of thetwo major parties by corporate interests, and opposition to the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other free-tradeschemes. Perot received 19 million popular votes in the 1992 election asan independent candidate, and 9 million in 1996 as an official Reform

G l o s s a r y

147

Party candidate. The high point of the movement was probably the sur-prising election of former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura to the gov-ernorship of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket. In 2000, the ReformParty was essentially destroyed by a bitter battle in which supporters ofright-wing candidate Pat Buchanan took over the party machinery.

registration The process by which a person establishes his or her right tovote in a particular jurisdiction. States vary greatly in their registrationlaws (such as in the treatment of independent or decline-to-state voters),but Supreme Court rulings and federal legislation have imposed certainrequirements, such as the prohibition of poll taxes or literacy tests as re-quirements for registration.

representative A member of the House of Representatives or of the cor-responding body in a state legislature. More broadly, anyone elected tospeak for the interests of constituents in a legislature.

representative democracy A system in which voters elect representativeswho are supposed to pursue their interests in devising legislation. This iscontrasted with direct democracy, where voters directly enact legislation,as in town meetings.

republic A country that employs representative democracy.Republican Party One of two major political parties in the United States,the Republican Party was founded by a group of antislavery activists inRipon, Wisconsin, in 1854. The party’s efforts were met with early successin electing Abraham Lincoln president in 1860 and 1864. Although theRepublicans became known as “the party of Lincoln,” by the later 19thcentury the party had come to represent mainly conservative, moneyed in-terests, although it had its occasional reformers, such as President ChesterAlan Arthur and later, the “trust-busting” President Theodore Roosevelt.During the 20th century, the Republican Party’s most successful periodswere the 1950s (under the moderate President Dwight Eisenhower) andthe 1980s (under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush).This success can be partly attributed to the so-called southern strategy bywhich the Republicans appealed to conservative white southern Democ-rats who had become disenchanted by their party’s support for the CivilRights movement. The modern Republican Party often features strugglesbetween its corporate but socially moderate establishment and right-wingactivists who emphasize social issues such as opposition to abortion rights.During the mid-1990s, the Republicans, who had generally been the mi-nority party in Congress, regained control of that institution, losing itbriefly in 2001 and regaining it in 2002. The Republican Party is alsoknown as the GOP (Grand Old Party), with an elephant as its symbol.

right of assembly The right to organize and come together to express po-litical views, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


148

The right of assembly has been cited in litigation against electoral laws af-fecting a political party’s right to control its nomination process.

Rock the Vote A campaign organized by young voters with support frommajor media outlets, notably MTV. Its purpose is to get young people in-volved in the political process, to educate them about issues, and to en-courage them to vote.

run-off A final election held to decide the winner when no candidate re-ceived a majority in the main election. Normally, only the two top vote-getters compete in the run-off.

sample ballot A copy of the ballot with explanations of issues and candi-date statements, sent to voters before the election to help them decideand prepare to vote.

secret ballot The casting of ballots in such a way that bystanders cannottell what candidate or party is being voted for. Ballot secrecy was an im-portant step in reducing overt coercion in voting.

sectionalism The emergence of competing interests in different parts ofthe country. For example, it became clear in the early 19th century thatthe agricultural, slaveholding South had different interests from NewEngland, which was increasingly involved with manufacturing and over-seas trade and generally opposed slavery. Sectionalism is generally lesspronounced today, due to the reduction of cultural differences and the in-terdependent global economy.

single-member district A legislative district represented by a single rep-resentative. This has been the norm in the United States (except for theU.S. Senate, where two senators represent each state). The use of single-member districts implies a “winner-take-all” system (as opposed to pro-portional representation) and discourages multiparty systems.

slate The list of all candidates being run by a party in an election. Partiesoften distribute “slate cards” for the convenience of their voters.

smoke-filled room A term referring to the old practice in which partybigwigs met in a hotel room, smoked cigars, and decided behind thescenes who the party’s candidates would be. Today most of the smoke isgone, but a party’s major contributors and pressure groups play a similarrole in deciding which primary candidates will really be viable.

soft money Unregulated contributions to a party rather than to a specificcandidate. This money, supposedly for such activities as “party building”and “get out the vote,” is in reality allocated by party leaders to those spe-cific races where they think it will do the most good. Soft money was un-regulated until the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002.

sound bite A short statement (perhaps 10 or 20 seconds) designed to be asimple, memorable message about an issue or candidate. Critics believe

G l o s s a r y

149

that the media is not interested in longer, more nuanced statements andthat this has reduced the quality of the political discourse available to theaverage voter.

spin doctor A person skilled at manipulating the media to get favorablecoverage for a campaign or in framing issues or events to a candidate’sadvantage.

spoiler A candidate who enters a race with no expectation of winning butrather seeks to draw voters away from another candidate. “Third party” can-didates such as Ralph Nader in 2000 are often accused of being spoilers.

stand To run for office (common usage in the United Kingdom).statistical dead heat A situation in which the gap between the two lead-ing candidates is less than the poll’s margin of error (typically 3 percent).

straw poll An informal vote to gauge preference for candidates or the senti-ment on a particular issue. The media often seizes on early straw polls in anattempt to determine which primary candidates have significant support.

stuffing, ballot Putting illegal or forged ballots into the ballot box or hav-ing the same voter vote in several different precincts. At one time,Chicago was famous for its legion of dead voters who supported theDaley machine.

suffrage The right to vote.suffragists Women activists who demanded the right to vote in the late19th and early 20th centuries. The term can also be applied to advocatesfor voting rights for other groups, such as African Americans.

Super Tuesday A single Tuesday (as in March 2000) that involves simul-taneous primary elections in many states. It forces candidates to raiseenough money early to enable a showing that demonstrates their contin-ued viability.

swing vote The undecided voters in the electorate (or in a legislature)whose decision will determine the winner of the election or the passageof a bill.

Tammany Hall A venerable Democratic machine that dominated NewYork City politics through much of the 19th century, with diminishing in-fluence to the mid-20th century.

term limits Limiting the number of terms in office for a given individ-ual. The informal term limit for the presidency was two, established byGeorge Washington’s declining to run for a third term, and broken byFranklin Roosevelt, who served three terms and part of a fourth. (Thepresidency was formally limited to two terms by the Twenty-secondAmendment to the U.S. Constitution.) During the 1980s and early1990s, reformers agitated in many states for term limits on legislators,claiming that limits would prevent politicians becoming entrenched andunresponsive to the popular will. The Supreme Court has ruled that


150

state-imposed term limits on members of the House of Representativesare unconstitutional because only the House has the power to determinethe eligibility of its members.

ticket The list of candidates nominated by a political party. The term isoften used specifically to refer to the presidential and vice presidentialcandidates. See also slate.

town meeting An assembly in which the residents of a town meet to dis-cuss and vote on issues. They mainly survive in small New Englandtowns. See also direct democracy.

tracking poll A poll that takes frequent, regular measurements to identifytrends in support for candidates.

transparency The ability for people to easily see or determine facts aboutan institution or process. Campaign finance reformers hope to achievetransparency by requiring greater disclosure of campaign contributionsand expenditures.

triangulation The attempt to position a candidate so that he or she canappeal in different ways to two normally opposed groups—such as liber-als and conservatives with regard to welfare reform. Clinton adviser DickMorris is credited with formalizing this strategy.

truth squad A group from one party who follows campaign speakers forthe opposing party and “corrects” their statements, supplying what theyconsider to be truth.

turnout The percentage of registered or eligible voters who actually vote.Chronic low turnout is often cited as evidence of malaise in the U. S. po-litical system.

Twenty-sixth Amendment This constitutional amendment, ratified in1971, guarantees the right to vote to all U. S. citizens 18 years of age orolder. (The minimum age had been 21 in most states.)

two-party system The dominance of U.S. politics by the Democratic andRepublican Parties.

tyranny of the majority The tendency of the majority to exercise its po-litical power without regard for the rights of the minority who disagreewith them. The ability of the courts to review the constitutionality of lawsis one check against the tyranny of the majority.

undervote A vote not counted, either because it does not show up on theballot (for example, no hole is punched) or because of some defect in thevoting machine.

“vote early and often” Joking reference to the practice of political ma-chines in places like Chicago, where voters have been reputed to cast re-peated ballots, many under the names of dead people.

walking-around money Small payments given to party workers or localsupporters to encourage them to get out the vote.

G l o s s a r y

151

ward An electoral district in a city.Whig Party A conservative party that arose in 1834 in opposition to thepopulist movement that elected Andrew Jackson president that year. Theparty later split, with members who opposed slavery forming the Repub-lican Party in 1854.

white primary The limiting of participation in primary (party nomina-tion) elections to whites. Since the Democratic Party thoroughly domi-nated southern politics and its nominees virtually always won in thegeneral election, this restriction effectively denied blacks any ability to in-fluence the choice of candidates and thus the outcome of elections.

winner-take-all primary A primary election in which the winner gets theentire slate of delegates to the national party convention. In the 1970s,this form of primary was replaced by a form of proportional representa-tion.

winner-take-all system The pervasive electoral system in the UnitedStates, in which legislative districts have only a single seat, meaning thatonly the winning party receives representation. See also proportionalrepresentation.

woman suffrage The right of women to vote and the movement dedi-cated to securing that goal.

write-in candidate A candidate whose name is not printed on the ballot,but is written in a blank space on the ballot by the voter. Write-in candi-dates usually run as a gesture of protest or to gain publicity but occasion-ally can win.


152

PART II

GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH

HOW TO RESEARCH CAMPAIGN

AND ELECTORAL REFORM

The area of campaign finance reform and electoral reform has generated avast amount of information in recent years. This includes the raw data ofpolitical contributions and spending, profiles of candidates and interestgroups, congressional debate, legislation, and legal cases. This chapter pre-sents a selection of resources, techniques, and research suggestions for in-vestigating campaign and electoral issues. Although students, teachers,journalists, and other investigators may ultimately have different objectives,all are likely to begin with the same basic steps.

The following general approach should be suitable for most purposes:

• Use the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and state electoral websitesto obtain basic information about campaign finance disclosures and cur-rent legislation, particularly the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002.

• Browse the many websites provided by researchers and reform advocates.Their pages are rich in links to news, articles, and issue papers as well asoften providing the raw data of campaign finance in more accessible form.

• Find materials by using bibliographic tools such as the library catalogsand periodical indexes.

• To keep up with current events and breaking news, check back periodi-cally with media websites and periodically search the catalogs and indexesfor recent material.

• Use the legislative and legal websites to keep up with changes in cam-paign law and its interpretation.

The rest of this chapter discusses various types of resources and tools, in-cluding online resources, print resources, and legislation and legal research.

155

CHAPTER 6

ONLINE RESOURCES

With the increasing amount of information being made available online,using the World Wide Web is a logical way to begin any research project.However, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the amount of information on theWeb. Combining a few well-organized, resource-rich sites with selectiveWeb searching can provide a more systematic research path.

GOVERNMENT WEB SITES

The primary federal government web site for campaign and electoral re-form research is that of the Federal Election Commission (FEC)(http://www.fec.gov). Resources provided by this site include the following:

• campaign finance legislation and litigation (including the BipartisanCampaign Reform Act of 2002)

• news releases about FEC actions

• campaign finance reports and data

• basic information about voting and the electoral system

The site offers three guides that organize information according to theuser’s interest. A good one to start with is the Citizen Guide. Among otherthings, it explains how to obtain campaign finance information from theFEC databases and from state offices. Alternative guides are also availablefor the media (journalists) and for candidates and committees.

Another relevant federal agency is the U.S. Department of Justice, CivilRights Division, which enforces voting rights laws. The Voting SectionHome Page (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting) provides information aboutfederal voting rights laws (including the key Voting Rights Act of 1965 andits amendments and regulatory implementation), and the National VoterRegistration Act (“Motor Voter” act).

For information about state campaign finance laws and disclosures, seethe listing of state electoral agencies in chapter 8. Each state has such an of-fice, although the regulations, information provided, and online availabilityof information vary from state to state.

GENERAL SITES ON ELECTIONS AND THE

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Following are some useful sites that offer extensive background materialand resources on elections, the electoral system, voter behavior, and other


156

topics that can be useful for providing a context for the debate on campaignand electoral reform.

• Campaigns and Elections magazine’s site, at http://www.campaignline.com,offers news, reports, book reviews, and links to political consultants.

• The Center for Voting and Democracy, a nonprofit voting rights group,has a site at http://www.fairvote.org that provides extensive links to a va-riety of topics, including alternative voting systems (such as instant runoffvoting and proportional representation), news about electoral reform, in-formation on voting equipment and procedures, and other issue areas.

• The CSES (Comparative Study of Electoral Systems), at http://www.umich.edu/~cses, is an international collaborative project that gathersstandardized survey data from voters in more than 50 nations. Accordingto its web site, the first stage of the project “focused on three generalthemes: the impact of electoral institutions on citizens’ political cognitionand behavior (parliamentary versus presidential systems of government,the electoral rules that govern the casting and counting of ballots; and po-litical parties); the nature of political and social cleavages and alignments;and the evaluation of democratic institution and processes.” The focus ofthe second phase is “the contrast between the view that elections are amechanism to hold government accountable and the view that they are ameans to ensure that citizens’ views and interests are properly repre-sented in the democratic process.” Survey data is available for downloadafter free registration.

• Election 2000 is a web site sponsored by the American Political ScienceAssociation at http://www.apsanet.org/teach/election2000/index.cfm. Itprovides resources relating to the 2000 U.S. presidential election and itsaftermath, including the 2002 midterm election.

• Election Center is a nonprofit organization of professional election work-ers (such as registrars and election administrators). Its web site, athttp://www.electioncenter.org, offers reports on various aspects of elec-tion administration as well as conference announcements and contactsthat might be useful for people pursuing a career in this field.

• Election Notes by Klipsan Press, at http://www.klipsan.com/elecnews.htm, is a site offering news about elections in the United States andaround the world and a calendar of upcoming elections.

• Elections 2000 by the University of Michigan Documents Center, athttp://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/elec2000.html, offers an extensivecollection of links to election resources on many aspects of electoral pol-itics. (Despite the title of the site, much material is of general interest andis not confined to the 2000 presidential election.)

How to Research Campaign and Electoral Reform

157

• “Elections and Electoral Systems around the World,” a British-based siteat http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/election.htm, offers many links to election-related sites both general and by country.

• “Elections Around the World,” at http://www.electionworld.org, pro-vides an international perspective on elections and democratic politicswith links to elections and election resources around the world. It also in-cludes background guides and an explanation of terminology.

• The Federal Election Commission’s “About Elections and Voting” page,at http://www.fec.gov/pages/electpg.htm, gives answers to frequentlyasked questions about registering and voting, statistics on voter registra-tion and turnout, information about types of voting machines, and otherlinks.

• Project Vote Smart, at http://www.vote-smart.org, offers extensive infor-mation about current candidates, including speeches, biographies, andcontact information. It is also easy to determine who voted which way onkey issues, including campaign finance.

• Voter Information Service, at http://www.vis.org, is a nonprofit, nonpar-tisan group that compiles congressional voting records on many issues.After free registration with the service, members can obtain a “reportcard” on any member of Congress that shows the percentage of time heor she voted in agreement with the positions of dozens of major lobbyinggroups.

SITES FOCUSING ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

The following sites deal mainly with data and articles relating to campaignfinance (such as contributions, the influence of PACs and other committees,and the use of soft money and other loopholes) as well as with the status ofvarious reform efforts and legislation.

• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes most campaign fi-nance measures on First Amendment grounds. Its “Free Speech: Cam-paign Finance Reform” page, at http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechlist.cfm?c=20, contains press releases relating to the organiza-tion’s opposition to various provisions of campaign finance laws. There arealso links to news, legal documents, and testimony by ACLU witnesses.

• The Campaign Finance Information Center is a program sponsored byInvestigative Reporters and Editors (IRE), a journalists’ resource organi-zation. The CFIC web site, at http://www.campaignfinance.org, featuresnews, databases, and search tools to help activists and reporters track the


158

flow of campaign contributions and spending. It also offers (for a modestfee or by subscription) the FEC database for each election cycle, whichincludes information about candidates, committees, individual contribu-tors, and contributions.

• The Campaign Finance Institute, at http://www.cfinst.org, is a nonparti-san, nonprofit research institute affiliated with George Washington Uni-versity. It offers a variety of links to data relating to campaign expendituresand disclosures as well as the Campaign Finance Clearinghouse, a search-able database of research articles on campaign finance topics.

• The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank. It generally opposes regula-tions on campaign contributions or spending as violating freedom of speechand of association. Its page, at http://www.cato.org/campaignfinance, in-cludes articles refuting proreform arguments and questioning the effective-ness of reform measures.

• The Center for Public Integrity, a group advocating for electoral and po-litical reform, offers “The Buying of the President 2004: DocumentWarehouse” at http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/default.aspx?Section=DOCWHSE. It is an ongoing compilation of information aboutcampaign contributions, campaign committees, and disclosures for eachof the major candidates for the 2004 presidential nominations.

• The “Checkbook Democracy” site, at http://www.prospect.org/checkbook,is sponsored by the Electronic Policy Network and The American Prospectmagazine. It provides a variety of news and links, primarily from a con-servative, anti–campaign reform perspective, although opposing points ofview are also included.

• The “Money and Politics: Who Owns Democracy?” web site, at http://www.network-democracy.org/map/bb/nif/contents.html, sponsored byInformation Renaissance and National Issues Forums Research, provideslinks to a history of campaign finance law, the text of federal campaignlegislation (not including the most recent 2002 law), and excerpts fromSupreme Court decisions.

• The National Center for Public Policy Research has a resource pagecalled “Campaign Reform Information Center: Links to Campaign Re-form Resources Representing a Variety of Viewpoints” at http://www.nationalcenter.org/CampaignIndex.html. Although many topics are cov-ered by the linked position papers, news articles, and press releases, theselection primarily reflects a conservative, antireform viewpoint.

• Opensecrets.org: Your Guide to the Money in U.S. Elections is a site spon-sored by the Center for Responsive Politics, at http://www.opensecrets.org.The site provides overviews of members of Congress, presidential and


159

congressional races, and issues including campaign finance reform. Thereis also a section on special interests that discusses industries and interestgroups, PACs, soft money, and lobbying.

• The PoliticalMoneyLine web site, at http://www.tray.com/fecinfo, pro-vides news and information culled from FEC databases relevant to cur-rent candidates, campaigns, contributors, and PACs. Database andtracking services are available for a fee.

• Public Campaign is a group that promotes building a coalition to reformcampaign finance and electoral politics. Its web site, at http://www.publiccampaign.org, includes online access to the organization’s many re-ports and summaries of recent developments.

• The libertarian organization Real Campaign Reform, at http://www.real-campaignreform.org, opposes campaign finance regulation as an attackon free speech. It believes that true campaign reform would involve anoverhaul of the electoral system to remove the structural barriers thatprevent alternative parties from challenging the two-party system. Theorganization is raising money to fund a court challenge of the federalcampaign finance laws. The site includes articles and essays.

• Soft Money Laundromat is a web site sponsored by the venerable politi-cal reform group Common Cause at http://www.commoncause.org/laundromat. It provides background material on soft money (includinglists and profiles of top donors) and a searchable database of soft moneycontributions to both major parties. Contributors can be searched bydonor name, location, and industry.

• The Washington Post has an online section called “On Politics: The Issues/Campaign Finance” at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/specials/campaignfinance. It provides current news, features, and accesslinks to many Washington Post editorials, columns, and news stories relat-ing to campaign finance reform.

SITES ON RELATED TOPICS

The following sites provide useful introductory material on other topicscovered in this book, including voting rights, minority voters, term limits,and alternative electoral systems such as proportional representation.

• The newsletter Ballot Access News, edited by Richard Winger, is devotedprimarily to attempts by minor parties and independent candidates togain fair and equal access to the ballot and chronicles litigation andother efforts. The newsletter’s web site, at http://www.ballot-access.org,


160

provides current and past issues of the newsletter as well as links to re-lated sites.

• Electionreform.org, at http://www.electionreform.org/ERMain, is a website run by a nonprofit reform group that provides news and links aboutthe organization’s reform priorities: instant runoff voting, Internet vot-ing, improved ballot access, increasing voter turnout, opening the presi-dential debate to more candidates, and promoting campaign financereform.

• The Electronic Voting Page by Anne-Marie Oostveen, at http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/oostveen/evote.html, includes lists of popular and techni-cal articles on electronic, online, and interactive voting systems.

• The National Civic League, whose web site is at http://www.ncl.org, isone of the nation’s oldest political reform organizations. Its wide-rangingagenda includes campaign finance reform, free media and public financ-ing for candidates, and voting system reform.

• PR Library: Readings in Proportional Representation is a resource pageoffered by electoral systems expert and advocate Douglas Amy at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm. The site includes be-ginning and advanced readings, proportional representation–related websites, articles, and a bibliography.

• The “Race-Conscious Remedies Resource Site” by Conrad Johnson andKimberlé Crenshaw, at http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/bios/crenshaw/racerem/index.html, provides background material, news, and resourcesrelating to the use of race-conscious remedies in education, employment,housing, contracting, and voting rights—that last link being most rele-vant here. The authors say they are also trying to provide informationabout effective alternative ways to assure minority representation if cur-rent trends in the courts against race-conscious remedies (as in reappor-tionment) continue.

• A page on redistricting is provided by the National Conference of StateLegislatures at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/redist.htm.It includes legal resources and current litigation, statistical and othertools for redistricting plans, and various slide presentations.

• The Voting Rights page by the Center for Voting and Democracy, athttp://www.fairvote.org/vra/index.html, provides extensive links to back-ground resources on voting rights issues, including the Voting Rights Actof 1965, data on representation by race, ethnicity, and gender, and relatedissues, such as voting rights for ex-offenders, the relationship betweenvoting rights and voting equipment, and advancing voting rights throughalternative electoral systems.


161

• Voting Systems Factsheets are another offering by the Center for Votingand Democracy through links at http://www.fairvote.org/factshts/index.htm. The fact sheets cover a variety of voting systems and related issues,including variations of proportional representation, “choice voting,” andcumulative voting.

• “Women and PR” is another resource page by the Center for Voting andDemocracy, available at http://www.fairvote.org/women/index.html. Itprovides links to voting rights issues relating to women and the relation-ship between the use of proportional representation (PR) and increasedrepresentation for women.

MEDIA WEB SITES

The major broadcast and cable networks, news (wire) services, most news-papers, and many magazines have web sites that include news stories andlinks to additional information. The public affairs cable network C-SPAN(http://www.cspan.org) has a good site with archived video of the congres-sional campaign finance reform debate, the 2000 Florida election and otherevents. Try searching this site under “campaign finance.”

For breaking news, the following sites are also useful:

• Associated Press (AP) wire (http://wire.ap.org/public_pages/WirePortal.pcgi/us_portal.html)

• Cable News Network (CNN) (www.cnn.com)

• New York Times (www.nytimes.com)

• Reuters (www.reuters.com)

• Time magazine (http://www.time.com)

• Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/us)

• Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com)

Yahoo! maintains a large set of links to many newspapers that have web sitesor online editions: http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Newspapers/Web_Directories.

FINDING MORE ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB

Although the resource sites mentioned earlier provide a convenient way toview a wide variety of information, it will eventually be necessary for the re-searcher to look for information or views elsewhere. The two main ap-proaches to Web research are the portal and the search engine.


162

Web Portals

A web guide or index is a site that offers a structured, hierarchical outline ofsubject areas. This enables the researcher to focus on a particular aspect ofa subject and find links to web sites for further exploration. The links areconstantly being compiled and updated by a staff of researchers.

The best-known (and largest) web index is Yahoo! at www.yahoo.com.The home page gives the top-level list of topics, and the researcher simplyclicks to follow them down to more specific areas. In addition to Yahoo!’soutline-like structure, there is also a search box into which the researchercan type one or more key words and receive a list of matching categoriesand sites.

Web indexes such as Yahoo! have two major advantages over undirectedsurfing. First, the structured hierarchy of topics makes it easy to find a par-ticular topic or subtopic and then explore its links. Second, Yahoo! does notmake an attempt to compile every possible link on the Internet (a task thatis virtually impossible, given, the size of the Web). Rather, sites are evalu-ated for usefulness and quality by Yahoo!’s indexers. This means that the re-searcher has a better chance of finding more substantial and accurateinformation. The disadvantage of web indexes is the flip side of their selec-tivity: the researcher is dependent on the indexer’s judgment for determin-ing what sites are worth exploring.

To find information on campaign and electoral reform issues via Yahoo!,the researcher should browse to Government, then Politics, followed byElections. Numerous sites selected by the editors are available for browsing.Note that the “By Region” link can be used to find links to elections in spe-cific countries, states or other areas. Some topics have further subtopics, asindicated by the topic name ending with an “@”.)

The Mining Company’s About.com, at www.about.com, is rather similar toYahoo! but gives a greater emphasis to overviews or guides prepared by “ex-perts” in various topics. Although there is currently no featured guide relatingto campaign or electoral reform, the site does a good job of creating a guidepage “on the fly,” when a key word or phrase is entered in the search box.

The About.com listing provides many more pages both within theAbout.com network itself and on the Web in general. Note that About.comgenerates special URLs that keep pages “tied” to the About.com site, so forbookmarking purposes it is probably a good idea when visiting the linkedsite to reload it under its own URL.

Search Engines

Search engines take a very different approach to finding materials on theweb. Instead of organizing topically in a “top down” fashion, search engines


163

work their way “from the bottom up,” scanning through web documentsand indexing them. There are hundreds of search engines, but some of themost widely used include:

• Alta Vista (www.altavista.com)

• Excite (www.excite.com)

• Google (www.google.com)

• Hotbot (www.hotbot.com)

• Lycos (www.lycos.com)

• Northern Light (www.northernlight.com/news.html)

• WebCrawler (www.WebCrawler.com)

(Note that many of these sites are indexed portals as well as search engines.)Search engines are generally easy to use by employing the same sorts of keywords that work in library catalogs. There are a variety of Web search tuto-rials available online (try “web search tutorial” in a search engine to findsome). One good one is published by Bright Planet (http://www.bright-planet.com/deepcontent/tutorials/search/index.asp). Here are a few basicrules for using search engines:

• When looking for something specific, use the most specific term orphrase. For example, when looking for information about reapportion-ment, use that specific term.

• Phrases should be put in quotation marks if you want them to be matchedas phrases rather than as individual words. Examples might be “butterflyballot” “soft money” and “campaign finance reform.”

• When looking for a general topic that might be expressed using severaldifferent words or phrases, use several descriptive words (nouns are morereliable than verbs) such as campaign electoral reform. Most engineswill automatically list pages that match all terms first on the results list.

• Use “wild cards” (symbolized by an asterisk) when a desired word mayhave more than one ending. For example, ballot* matches both “ballot”and “ballots.”

• Most search engines support Boolean (and, or, not) operators that can beused to broaden or narrow a search. Use AND to narrow a search. Forexample, ballot and access will match only pages that have both terms.Use OR to broaden a search: reapportionment or redistricting willmatch any page that has either term, and since these terms are often usedinterchangeably, this type of search is necessary to retrieve the widest


164

range of results. Use NOT to exclude unwanted results: reform notparty finds articles about reform but not the Reform Party.

Since each search engine index differs and each offers somewhat differentways of searching, it is a good idea to use several different search engines,especially for a general query. Several “metasearch” programs automate theprocess of submitting a query to multiple search engines. These include:

• Metacrawler (www.metacrawler.com)

• SurfWax (http://www.surfwax.com)

(Note that metasearch engines tend to have two drawbacks: they may over-whelm you with results [and insufficiently screen out duplicates], and theyoften do not use some of the more popular search engines [such as Googleor Northern Light].)

There are also search utilities that can be downloaded and run from theresearcher’s own computer, rather than through a web site. A good exampleis Copernic, at www.copernic.com. It can tap into dozens of search engines,then filter the results to remove duplicates and present the most likely“hits.” Searches can be stored and rerun periodically.

Finding Organizations and People

Chapter 8 of this book provides a list of organizations that are involved withresearch, advocacy, or opposition to campaign or electoral reform. New or-ganizations will emerge now and then. A good place to look for informationand links to organizations are on the resource sites and web portals men-tioned earlier, such as the Campaign Finance Information Center and otherresource sites. If the name of an unfamiliar organization is found while read-ing or browsing, the name can be entered in a search engine. Generally, thebest approach is to put the name of the organization in quotation marks,such as “California Term Limits.”

Another approach is to take a guess at the organization’s likely web ad-dress. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union is commonlyknown by the acronym ACLU, so it is not a surprise that the organization’sweb site is at www.aclu.org. (Note that noncommercial organization sitesnormally use the .org suffix, government agencies use .gov, educational in-stitutions use .edu and businesses use .com.) This technique can save time,but does not always work. In particular, watch out for “spoof ” sites thatmimic or parody organizational sites. Such a site might, for example, havethe same name as that of a government agency but end in .org instead of.gov. (Such sites, though, may be of interest as forms of criticism or dissent.)


165

When reading materials from an unfamiliar author, it will often be use-ful to find out more about that person’s affiliation, credentials, and otherachievements. There are several ways to find a person on the Internet:

• Put the person’s name (in quotation marks) in a search engine and possi-bly find that person’s home page on the Internet.

• Contact the person’s employer (such as a university for an academic or acorporation for a technical professional). Some organizations have webpages that include a searchable faculty or employee directory.

• Try one of the people-finder services such as Yahoo! People Search(http://people.yahoo.com) or BigFoot (www.bigfoot.com). This mayyield contact information such as an e-mail address, postal address,and/or phone number.

PRINT SOURCES

As useful as the web is for quickly finding information and the latest news,in-depth research still requires trips to the library or bookstore. Getting themost out of the library requires the use of bibliographic tools and resources.Bibliographic resources is a general term for catalogs, indexes, bibliographies,and other guides that identify the books, periodical articles, and otherprinted resources that deal with a particular subject. They are essential toolsfor the researches.

LIBRARY CATALOGS

Most readers are probably familiar with the basics of using a library catalogbut may not know that many catalogs besides that of one’s local library canbe searched online. Access to the largest library catalog, that of the Libraryof Congress, is available at http://catalog.loc.gov. This page includes a guideto using the catalog and both basic and advanced catalog searches.

Yahoo! offers a categorized listing of libraries at http://dir.yahoo.com/Reference/Libraries. For materials available at one’s local public or univer-sity library, that institution will be the most convenient source.

Most catalogs can be searched in at least one of the following ways:

• An author search is most useful if you know or suspect a person has writ-ten a number of works of interest. However, it may fail if you do not knowthe person’s exact name (cross references are intended to deal with thisproblem, but cannot cover all possible variations).


166

• A title search is best if you know the exact title of the book and just wantto know if the library has it. Generally you need only use the first fewwords of the title, excluding initial articles (a, an, the). This search will failif you do not have the exact title.

• A keyword search will match words found anywhere in the title. It is thusbroader and more flexible than a title search, although it may still fail ifall keywords are not present.

• A subject search will find all works that have been assigned to that subjectheading by the library. The big advantage is that it does not depend oncertain words being in the title. Using a subject search requires knowl-edge of the appropriate subject headings (see below).

Relevant Library of Congress subjects relating to campaign and electoralreform include:

Advertising, politicalCampaign fundsCampaign managementElection districtsElection forecastingElection lawElections—[United States, California, etc.]

(can be used with further subdivisions such as statistics, history, bibliography, and public opinion)

Governors—electionLocal electionsPolitical participationPolitical partiesPresidents—[United States, France, etc.]—election—[year]PrimariesPublic opinion—[geographic area]—statisticsReferendumUnited States Congress—electionsVoting—[geographic area]—statistics

Once the record for a book or other item is found, it is a good idea to seewhat additional subject headings and name headings have been assigned.These in turn can be used for further searching.

MINING THE BOOKSTORE CATALOGS

Many people have discovered that online bookstores such as Amazon.com(www.amazon.com) and Barnes & Noble (www.barnesandnoble.com) are


167

convenient ways to shop for books. A less-known benefit of online book-store catalogs is that they often include publisher’s information, book re-views and reader’s comments about a given title. They can thus serve as aform of annotated bibliography. Note that many out-of-print or highly spe-cialized materials may not be listed in such catalogs.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES, INDEXES, AND DATABASES

Bibliographies in various forms provide a convenient way to find books, pe-riodical articles, and other materials. How far to go back in one’s reading de-pends on one’s research topic and goals. For campaign finance reform, thereare two “watershed” dates that may mark logical boundaries for limitingbibliographic or article searches. One is the early 1970s, following the pas-sage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971. The other isthe mid-to-late 1990s, when debate began on the McCain-Feingold bill,which was passed in 2002 as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Popular and scholarly articles in political science and related fields can beaccessed through periodical indexes that provide citations and abstracts. Ab-stracts are brief summaries of articles or papers. They are usually compiledand indexed—originally in bound volumes, but increasingly available on-line. Some examples of printed indexes in which you might retrieve litera-ture related to campaign and election reform include:

• Index to Legal Periodicals and Books

• International Bibliography of the Social Sciences

• International Political Science Abstracts

• Social Sciences Citation Index

• Social Sciences Index

• Sociological Abstracts

Some of these indexes are available online (at least for recent years). Gen-erally, however, you can access them only through a library where you holda card, and some of these cannot be accessed over the Internet (unless youare on a college campus). Consult a university reference librarian for morehelp.

There are two good indexes that have unrestricted search access. Un-Cover Web (http://www.ingenta.com) contains brief descriptions of about13 million documents from about 27,000 journals in just about every sub-ject area. Copies of complete documents can be ordered with a credit card,or they may be obtainable for free at a local library.


168

PERIODICAL INDEXES

Most public libraries subscribe to database services such as InfoTrac andEBSCOhost that index articles from hundreds of general-interest periodi-cals (and some moderately specialized ones). The database can be searchedby author or by words in the title, subject headings, and sometimes wordsfound anywhere in the article text. Depending on the database used, “hits”in the database can result in just a bibliographical description (author, title,pages, periodical name, issue date), a description plus an abstract (a para-graph summarizing the contents of the article), or the full text of the articleitself. Before using such an index, it is a good idea to view the list of news-papers and magazines covered and determine the years of coverage.

Many libraries provide dial-in, Internet, or Telnet access to their period-ical databases as an option in their catalog menu. However, licensing re-striction usually mean that only researchers who have a library card for thatparticular library can access the database (by typing in their name and cardnumber). Check with local public or school libraries to see what databasesare available.

For periodicals not indexed by InfoTrac or another index (or for whichonly abstracts rather than complete text are available), check to see whetherthe publication has its own web site (most now do). Some scholarly publi-cations are putting all or most of their articles online. Popular publicationstend to offer only a limited selection. Some publications of both types offerarchives of several years’ back issues that can be searched by author or keyword.

Nearly all newspapers now have web sites with current news and features.Generally, the newspaper offers recent articles (perhaps from the last 30days) for free online access. Earlier material can generally be found in anarchive section. A citation and perhaps an abstract are generally free, but afee of a few dollars may be charged for the complete article. Often one canbuy a “pack” of articles at a discount as long as the articles are retrievedwithin a specified time. Back issues of newspapers and magazines may alsobe available in hard copy, bound, or microfilm form at local libraries.

LEGAL RESEARCH

As with all complex and controversial topics, campaign and electoral reformhave long been the subject of intense litigation in the courts, and with thepassage of the 2002 legislation a new spate of legal battles is already underway. Although one can find news coverage of some important cases in thegeneral media, many researchers will need to find specific court opinions orthe text of existing or pending legislation.


169

Because of the specialized terminology of the law, legal research can bemore difficult to master than bibliographical or general research tools. For-tunately, the Internet has also come to the rescue in this area, offering a va-riety of ways to look up laws and court cases without having to pore throughhuge bound volumes in law libraries (which may not be easily accessible tothe general public, anyway).

FINDING LAWS

The nuts and bolts of running elections are the prerogative of the states, butin recent years, voting rights and campaign finance issues have led to an in-creasing amount of federal legislation. Federal legislation is compiled intothe massive U.S. Code.

The U.S. Code can be searched online in several locations, but the easi-est site to use is probably the Cornell Law School site at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode. The fastest way to retrieve a law is by its title andsection citation, but phrases and key words can also be used.

Browsing the section titles on the site one can come to the Federal ElectionCampaign Act of 1971. Links to its various sections are provided as follows:

• Sec. 591.—Repealed. Pub. L. 96–187, title II, Sec. 201a1, Jan. 8,1980, 93 Stat. 1367

• Sec. 592. Troops at polls

• Sec. 593. Interference by armed forces

• Sec. 594. Intimidation of voters

• Sec. 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, orTerritorial Governments

• Sec. 596. Polling armed forces

• Sec. 597. Expenditures to influence voting

• Sec. 598. Coercion by means of relief appropriations

• Sec. 599. Promise of appointment by candidate

• Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

• Sec. 601. Deprivation of employment or other benefit for political con-tribution

• Sec. 602. Solicitation of political contributions

• Sec. 603. Making political contributions

• Sec. 604. Solicitation from persons on relief

• Sec. 605. Disclosure of names of persons on relief


170

• Sec. 606. Intimidation to secure political contributions

• Sec. 607. Place of solicitation

• Sec. 608. Absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters

• Sec. 609. Use of military authority to influence vote of member of ArmedForces

• Sec. 610. Coercion of political activity

• Sec. 611. Voting by aliens

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 had not yet been incorpo-rated into the U.S. Code at the time of writing.

KEEPING UP WITH LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

Pending legislation is often tracked by advocacy groups, both national andthose based in particular states. See chapter 8, “Organizations and Agen-cies,” for contact information.

The Library of Congress Thomas web site, http://thomas.loc.gov, in-cludes files summarizing legislation by the number of the Congress. Eachtwo-year session of Congress has a consecutive number: for example, the107th Congress was in session in 2001 and 2002. Legislation can besearched for by the name of its sponsor(s), the bill number, or by topical keywords. Laws that have been passed can be looked up under their Public Lawnumber. For example, selecting the 107th Congress and typing in thephrase “campaign finance” into the search box at the time of writing re-trieved a list that began as follows:

1. H.RES.344: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2356) toamend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide bipar-tisan campaign reform.Sponsor: Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [NY-27]Committees: House RulesLatest Major Action: 2/12/2002 Passed/agreed to in House. Status:On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.

2. H.R.380: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to re-form the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, andfor other purposes.Sponsor: Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]Committees: House House Administration; House Education andthe Workforce; House Government Reform; House Judiciary; HouseWays and Means; House Rules


171

Latest Major Action: 3/15/2001 Referred to House subcommit-tee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-EmployeeRelations.Note: For further action, see H.R. 2356, which became Public Law107-155 on 3/27/2002.

Further details are available with a click on the bill number, including spon-sors, committee action, and amendments. Note that once one learns thatthe Shays bill became Public Law 107-155, one can also look up its textunder that designation.

FINDING COURT DECISIONS

Legislation is only part of the story. The Supreme Court and state courts makeimportant decisions every year that determine how the laws are interpreted.Like laws, legal decisions are organized using a system of citations. The gen-eral form is: Party1 v. Party2 volume reporter [optional start page] (court, year).

For example, for the citation Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 340 (1960),the parties are Gomillion and Lightfoot (the first listed is the plaintiff or ap-pellant, the second the defendant). The case is in volume 364 of the U.S.Supreme Court Reports, beginning at page 340, and the case was decided in1960. (For the U.S. Supreme Court, the name of the court is omitted.)

An example of a more complicated citation is Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d1356 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1127 (1995). Here the case endedup in the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided it in 1994.Cert. denied means that the Supreme Court made a ruling denying it certiori,or a full hearing before the Court; that ruling can be found at the citationfollowing.

A state court decision can generally be identified because it includes thestate’s name. For example, in State v. Torrance, 473 S.E.2d. 703, S.C. 1996,“S.E.” refers to the appeals district, and “S.C.” to South Carolina.

Once the jurisdiction for the case has been determined, the researchercan then go to a number of web sites to find cases by citation and sometimesby the names of the parties or by subject key words. Some of the most use-ful sites are:

• The Legal Information Institute (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct) hasall Supreme Court decisions since 1990, plus 610 of “the most importanthistoric” decisions.

• Washlaw Web (www.washlaw.edu) has a variety of courts (includingstates) and legal topics listed, making it a good jumping-off place for


172

many sorts of legal research. The actual accessibility of state court opin-ions (and the formats they are provided in) varies widely.

LEXISNEXIS AND WESTLAW

LexisNexis and Westlaw are commercial legal databases that have extensiveinformation including an elaborate system of notes, legal subject headings,and ways to show relationships between cases. Unfortunately, these servicesare too expensive for use by most individual researchers unless they areavailable through a university or corporate library.

MORE HELP ON LEGAL RESEARCH

For more information on conducting legal research, see the “Legal Re-search FAQ” at http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/law/research/top.html. After a certain point, a researcher who lacks formal legaltraining may need to consult with or rely on the efforts of professional re-searchers or academics in the field.

A WORD OF CAUTION

Thanks to the Web, there is more information from more sources availablethan ever before. There is also a greater diversity of voices, since any personor group with a computer and Internet service can put up a web site—in somecases a site may look as polished and professional as that of an establishedgroup. One benefit of this is that dissenting views can be found in abundance.

However the other side of the coin is that the researcher—whether jour-nalist, analyst, teacher, or student—must take extra care to verify facts andto understand the possible biases of each source. Some good questions toask include:

• Who is responsible for this web site?

• What is the background or reputation of the person or group?

• Does the person or group have a stated objective or agenda?

• What biases might this person or group have?

• Do a number of high-quality sites link to this one?

• What are the sources given for a particular fact? Do those sources actu-ally say what is quoted? Where did they get that information?

In a sense, in the age of the Internet each person must be his or her ownjournalist, verifying sources to the extent they are to be relied upon.


173

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

This chapter presents a representative selection of books, articles, and In-ternet documents and sources relating to the issues of campaign finance re-form and electoral reform. Materials have been selected to be accessible,substantial and diverse in viewpoint. The bibliography is divided into threebroad categories that are further divided into subtopics as follows:

Reference and BackgroundGeneral ReferenceElections and the Electorate

Campaign Finance ReformThe Influence of Money on PoliticsGeneral Debate on Campaign Finance ReformLegislation and Its ConsequencesLegal Issues Relating to Campaign Finance Reform

Electoral ReformVoting Rights, Minorities, and RedistrictingTerm LimitsVoting Procedures and ProblemsAlternative Electoral Systems

Within each topic the listings are divided according to format (books, articles,and Internet resources) as appropriate. Note that although all web addresses(URLs) have been checked, web pages are often moved or removed. If an ad-dress is not found, a key word search using a search engine is recommendedArticles from newspapers and magazines can often be found online even

when a specific online source is not given. Check the publication’s web sitefor an archive or try searching an online article database. See chapter 6 formore information about Internet research and resources.

174

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND

General Reference

This section includes general reference works on U.S. electoral politics (anda few international comparative sources). These works can provide usefulbackground material both for campaign finance and for electoral reform.

BOOKS

America Votes: A Handbook of Contemporary Election Statistics. Washington,D.C.: CQ Press. Published every two years to cover the preceding federalelection. Volume 23 (1999) covers the 1998 election, while volume 24(2001) covers the 2000 vote. Covers the full official returns for electionsfor governors, senators, and representatives, including county-level sta-tistics and won/lost percentages.

Archer, J. Clark, et al. Atlas of American Politics, 1960–2000. Washington,D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. This profusely illustrated atlas has many maps andcharts that make it easy to grasp the geographical and demographic fac-tors relating to governance and the electoral process.

Barone, Michael, Richard E. Cohen, and Charles E. Cook. Almanac ofAmerican Politics 2002.Washington, D.C.: National Journal Group, 2001.This annual publication includes detailed profiles of each member ofCongress and each congressional district, including historical and demo-graphic information and notes on redistricting. There is also detailedanalysis of the preceding election (the 2000 election in this case) and“handicapping” for the upcoming election.

Binning, William C., Larry E. Esterly, and Paul A. Scracic. Encyclopedia ofAmerican Parties, Campaigns, and Elections.Westport, Conn.: GreenwoodPress, 1999. This A–Z encyclopedia includes important personages,events, and terms relating to U.S. politics and the electoral system. Thebook includes a bibliography.

Bott, Alexander. Handbook of United States Election Laws and Practices: PoliticalRights. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing, 1990. This well-orga-nized handbook divides electoral law into 10 chapters. It starts with chap-ters on the right to vote, the right to be a candidate, getting access to theballot, the right to fair representation (one person, one vote), and the rightsof political expression and association. Subsequent chapters cover specifictopics including the Voting Rights Act of 1965, initiative, referendum, andrecall (at the state level), freedom of information, and the political roles oflobbyists and public employees. There is also an extensive bibliography.Readers should supplement this volume with books and articles coveringimportant election cases during and since the 1990s.

A n n o t a t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y

175

Cook, Rhodes, Richard M. Scammon, and Alice V. McGillivray. America atthe Polls, 1920–2000: A Handbook of Presidential Election Statistics. 2 vols.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. A vast compilation of statistics relat-ing to presidential elections, including vote breakdowns, demographics,and turnout.

Garvin, Peggy, ed. Government Information on the Internet. 5th ed. Lanham,Md.: Bernan Press, 2002. An extensive guide and compilation of onlineinformation from federal, state, local, and foreign governments. Much ofthis information is potentially relevant to researching campaign financesand electoral issues, including data from the Federal Election Commis-sion and state election agencies.

Hill, Kathleen Thompson, and Gerald N. Hill. The Facts On File Dictionaryof American Politics. New York: Checkmark Books, 2001. Contains defin-itions of terminology and historical events involving every aspect of U.S.politics, including ideology, the legislative process and election cam-paigns. Appendices include summaries of presidential elections and briefbiographies of political figures.

Israel, Fred L. Student’s Atlas of American Presidential Elections, 1789–1996.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. An accessible introduction to andoverview of U.S. presidential elections. The social and economic contextof each election is given, placing it in the context of broader U.S. history.The issues, campaign tactics, outcome, and significance of each race arethen summarized.

Lowenstein, Daniel Hays, and Richard L. Hasen. Election Law: Cases andMaterials. 2d ed. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2001. A volu-minous, well-organized textbook covering every aspect of election law,including the right to vote and its exercise, election administration (Bushv. Gore), voting and representation, legislative districting, minority votedilution, racial gerrymandering, ballot propositions, major political par-ties, third parties and independent candidates, campaigns, incumbency,bribery, and every significant aspect of campaign finance regulation.

Martin, Fenton S. American Government and Politics: A Guide to Books forTeachers, Librarians, and Students.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. Anannotated bibliographic guide to books on a wide range of political top-ics, including political participation, interest groups, political parties,elections, campaigns, voting, and campaign finances.

Martin, Fenton S., and Robert U. Goehlert. CQ’s Resource Guide to ModernElections: An Annotated Bibliography, 1960–1996. Washington, D.C.: CQPress, 1999. This annotated bibliography is organized by topic, includingnomination and selection of presidents, primaries, conventions, cam-paigning, candidates, presidential debates, campaign finance, media cover-age, political parties, electoral system, redistricting and reapportionment,and voting participation.


176

———. How to Research Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. Acomplete guide for students and other researchers, listing print and Webinformation on every aspect of elections, including campaign organiza-tions, independent and research groups, campaign finance, and polling.The book includes an extensive annotated bibliography.

Moore, John L. Elections A to Z.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. A one-volume topical guide to the elements of electoral politics and issues suchas term limits, reapportionment, and campaign finance.

Moore, John L., Jon P. Preimesberger, and David R. Tarr. CongressionalQuarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press,2001. This comprehensive two-volume guide includes a historicaloverview of the development of U.S. elections and political parties, thendelves into presidential and congressional elections in detail, includingprimaries. There are also sections on gubernatorial elections and reap-portionment, maps, statistics, and informative sidebars.

Rose, Richard, ed. International Encyclopedia of Elections.Washington, D.C.:CQ Press, 2000. An A to Z encyclopedia with more than 150 articles from70 international contributors on every aspect of elections and election re-search. Drawing on electoral systems throughout the world, this refer-ence provides a broader perspective for researchers who normally focusonly on U.S. elections.

Sharp, J. Michael. Directory of Congressional Voting Scores and Interest GroupRatings. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. Analyzing the influence ofmoney on politics often requires correlating a legislator’s political orienta-tion with that of contributors. For each member of Congress, this directorygives the voting record and ratings from many different interest groups.

Utter, Glenn H., and Ruth Ann Strickland. Campaign and Election Reform: AReference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 1997. This refer-ence includes an introduction, chronology, biographical sketches, surveydata and quotations, directory of organizations and agencies, annotatedprint and nonprint bibliographies, and glossary. There is good coverageof historical works up to the early to mid-1990s.

WEB DOCUMENTS

“Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774–present.”U.S. Congress. Available online. URL: http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Allows forsearch by name, position (e.g., representative, senator) and state and re-turns with a brief biography of each member of Congress.

Howard, Margaret. “Campaign Finance Reform . . . or Not?” University ofMichigan Documents Center. Available online. URL: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/campfin.html#books. Downloaded on February 4,


177

2003. A bibliography and resource guide provided for University ofMichigan professor Howard’s class on American political parties. The siteincludes books, articles, subject headings and search strategies, indexesand databases, periodicals and links to media organizations, research andreform groups, interest groups, statistics, and much more.

Mott, Jonathan. “Online American Government and Politics Textbook,”ThisNation.com. Available online. URL: http://www.thisnation.com/textbook.html. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. This online textbookprovides an introductory overview of the fundamental elements andprocesses of American government, including “foundational” discussionsof the U.S. Constitution, civil rights, federalism, and explanations of po-litical processes, including voting and elections. The resource links and asample chapter are available online; the rest of the text is available fordownload purchase at nominal cost.

“National Election Studies.” National Election Studies Project. Available on-line. URL: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/overview.htm. Downloaded onFebruary 4, 2003. This research organization conducts in-depth surveys ofthe electorate, including datasets (suitable for analysis with statistical soft-ware) and a bibliography of more than 3,000 publications that use thegroup’s data.

“Voting and Registration Data.” U.S. Census Bureau. Available online. URL:http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html. Updatedon December 31, 2002. Provides demographic and socioeconomic (but notparty affiliation) statistics for registered voters, both current and projectedinto the future. Includes downloadable tables or spreadsheets.

Elections and the Electorate

The works in this section provide historical background on U.S. elections,political parties, campaigns, the nature and behavior of the electorate, voterparticipation and other matters relevant to campaign and electoral reform.The historical span is from the early American republic to the presidentialelection of 2000. (Note that discussion focusing on legal issues of the 2000election and Bush v. Gore will be found in the section “Voting Rights andRedistricting” while discussion of problems with vote counting in the 2000election will be found under “Voting Procedures and Problems.”)

BOOKS

Abrams, Elliot. Democracy: How Direct? Views from the Founding Era and thePolling Era. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Explores views


178

on direct versus representative democracy from the framers of the Con-stitution, Lincoln, the late 19th century, and the modern era when muchpolitical decision making seems to be poll driven. Direct democracy inthe form of the state and local ballot referendum is also discussed.

Bailey, Michael A., et al. Campaigns and Elections: Contemporary Case Studies.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999. A varied collection of 19 electioncampaign case studies drawn from Campaigns and Elections magazine. In-cludes an overview of the campaign process and recent trends. Each caseis illustrated with news clips and excerpts from campaign ads and printedliterature. Working through this material gives a good feel for the factorsthat determine success in modern politics.

Browning, Graeme. Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to TransformAmerican Politics. 2d ed. Medford, N.J.: CyberAge Books, 2002. Thiswide-ranging handbook covers both the use of the World Wide Webfrom grassroots activism and campaigning to the use of online polls andthe possibility that elections themselves might be conducted online. Ac-tual examples from recent election campaigns are used to show how on-line activity made a difference.

Conway, M. Margaret. Political Participation in the United States. 3d ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999. Analyzes forms of participation inpolitics (ranging from voting to helping campaign to running for office)the reasons why people choose to participate, and people’s political ex-pectations and goals. There is also discussion on how people are mobi-lized to participate and the relationship between participation, level ofeducation, and social connectedness.

Conway, M. Margaret, Gertrude A. Steuernagel, and David W. Ahern.Women and Political Participation: Cultural Change in the Political Arena.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. The authors trace the developmentand growth of women’s participation in U.S. politics, tying it to broaderchanges in culture and gender roles. The relationship among genderidentity, political issues, and partisan affiliation is also explored. Severalchapters examine how women participate in the political elite, includingthe executive, legislative, and judicial functions.

Cook, Rhodes. How Congress Gets Elected. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press,1999. Explains the process by which members of Congress are electedand how campaigning has changed through U.S. history. Current trendsin demographics, partisan strategy, campaign financing, and reapportion-ment are also explored.

Davis, James. Leadership Selection in Six Western Democracies. Westport,Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998. A comparative study of the process ofnominating or choosing political leaders in six modern democracies—theUnited States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Australia.


179

Dinkin, Robert J. Campaigning in America: A History of Election Practices.Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989. A comprehensive and detailedaccount of campaign and election practices in America since the mid-18th century. Dinkin shows that the crafting and targeting of campaignmessages (and the role of the press) were important factors long beforethe television age. Modern trends, such as the movement from party-centered campaigns to candidate-centered campaigns and the explosionin fund-raising and campaign spending, are also covered. This book andthe author’s Election Day complement each other well.

———. Election Day: A Documentary History.Westport, Conn.: GreenwoodPress, 2002. A vivid account of changing election and campaign practicesfrom colonial times to today. Many excerpts from original documents andaccounts are included to provide perspectives of voters, candidates, elec-tion officials, and the many people (including African Americans andwomen) who were excluded from voting for much of the lifetime of theAmerican republic.

———. Voting in Revolutionary America: A Study of Elections in the OriginalThirteen States, 1776–1789. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982.Describes many aspects of elections in the formative period of Ameri-can democracy, including the electorate, voter behavior, election proce-dures and regulations, and trends. The book includes charts, tables, anda bibliography.

Doppelt, Jack C., and Ellen Shearer. Nonvoters: America’s No-Shows. Thou-sand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2000. Political scientists have spentconsiderable time trying to identify the factors that seem to be leading toan increasing number of voters saying “no thanks” at election time. Thisbook offers some possible explanations, but its particular virtue is that itlets dozens of nonvoters or reluctant voters speak in their own wordsabout why they stay away from the polls and what it would take to bringthem back into the political process. The influence of money in politics,often cited as a reason for nonvoting by campaign reformers, seems toplay a relatively small part in their decision.

Fife, Brian L., and Geralyn M. Miller. Political Culture and Voting Systems inthe United States: An Examination of the 2000 Presidential Election. West-port, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 2002. Based on their study of the 2000election, the authors suggest that the voting systems (including type ofballot, voting machinery, and procedures) have a surprising impact onhow elections are perceived and on voters’ attitudes and participation.

Flanighan, William H., and Nancy H. Zingale. Political Behavior of the Amer-ican Electorate. 10th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. In the latestedition, analyzing National Election Service (NES) data from the 2000election, the authors systematically explore the factors influencing voter


180

behavior, including economic and social characteristics. Partisans and in-dependents are compared and contrasted, and there is expanded coverageof third parties and primary races.

Green, John C., and Paul S. Herrnson, ed. Responsible Partisanship?: The Evo-lution of American Political Parties Since 1950. Lawrence: University Pressof Kansas, 2002. An up-to-date evaluation of the practices of the twomajor U.S. political parties and of the laws governing them. Contributorsalso discuss the effects of campaign finance regulation and practice on theimportance and role of the parties in presidential and congressional elec-tions, as well as the relationship between the parties and voters. Overall,the parties remain strong and important, but often appear to act in irre-sponsible and troubling ways.

Green, John C., and Rick Farmer. The State of the Parties: The Changing Role ofContemporary American Parties. 4th ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Little-field, 2003. A comprehensive, updated look at the operation of U.S. politicalparties, major and minor, highlighting trends. The book includes discussionof the courts’ involvement in sorting out conflicts between parties’ right ofassociation and control of their nominating process and state regulations.

Haskell, John. Direct Democracy or Representative Government? Dispelling thePopulist Myth. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2000. The author arguesthat while modern media and other technology make direct democracymore possible than ever, it is often a bad idea. He uses social choice the-ory to suggest that direct democracy (such as through the referendum orindirectly through poll-driven politics) is unstable and lacks the delibera-tive nature of representative democracy.

Herrnson, Paul S. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Wash-ington. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. This in-depth analysis ofthe 1998 congressional elections emphasizes the fact that a modern candi-date has to wage two separate campaigns—not just reaching out to voters,but campaigning in Washington for the support of party committees, PACs,and other major contributors. The realities of modern campaigning in turnhave a profound effect on how Congress is comprised and how it functions.Presenting case studies from 60 different campaigns, this analysis provides aconcrete perspective for understanding how “soft money” is used and howvarious proposed campaign reforms might change the situation.

———. Playing Hardball: Campaigning for the U.S. Congress. Upper SaddleRiver, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2001. The author, a prolific scholar on con-gressional and electoral issues, discusses important topics that have arisenout of recent congressional elections. These include how better chal-lengers to incumbents might be found, characterization of the major in-dividual contributors to campaigns, the use and effects of negativecampaigning, and the overall quality of the electoral process.


181

Herrnson, Paul S., and John C. Green. Multiparty Politics in America: Prospectsand Performance. 2d ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Animportant aspect of electoral reform is its affect on third or alternative par-ties. This collection of essays by political scientists and third-party activistsevaluates the generally disappointing performance of the Reform, Green,and Libertarian Party campaigns in recent years and discusses possible re-forms that might make third parties more viable in the future.

Jacobson, Gary C. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 5th ed. Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 2000. A systematic discussion of issues and fac-tors determining the success of congressional candidates. The book be-gins with a discussion of the constitutional and legal framework forelections and districting and then discusses the advantages of incumbencyand the importance of money. The various elements of a congressionalcampaign are then covered, including the types of fund-raising and com-mittees, campaign strategy, types of messages, and use of the media. Thediscussion then moves on to an analysis of types of voters and their be-havior, parties and the relationship between congressional and presiden-tial candidacies, the effects of elections on the composition of Congress,and trends in the 1990s and the future.

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Everything You Think You Know About Politics . . .and Why You’re Wrong. New York: Basic Books, 2001. Political expertJamieson is dean of the Annenberg School for Communication and Di-rector of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Penn-sylvania. Using clear and interesting prose, she draws upon the lateststudies by political scientists to show how many of the common assump-tions held by political pundits and the media are wrong. For example, theextent and effect of so-called negative advertising is much less than mostpeople suppose. The complex relationship between advertising, newscoverage, and voter response is explored in depth. A wealth of easily di-gested surveys and statistics is included.

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. The Interplay of In-fluence: News, Advertising, Politics, and the Mass Media. 5th ed. Belmont,Calif.: Wadsworth, 2000. Because so much of the money gathered for po-litical campaigns goes to buy media access, understanding how the mediaworks and the extent to which it influences voters (and in turn can be in-fluenced) is vital for those considering campaign reforms. This book in-cludes numerous anecdotes, case studies, and statistics. Topics include thenature and process of news, media ratings and revenues, advertising, howto influence the media, the difference between political and product cam-paigns, and the role of news and advertising in political campaigns.

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Paul Waldman, eds. Electing the President,2000: The Insiders’ View. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,


182

2001. Includes “inside” accounts of the 2000 election from many of thechief strategists on both sides. The difference between how voters see acampaign and how the insiders view it can be startling, and seeing howcampaigns use the money they have gathered can be disquieting.

Keefe, William J. Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America. 8th ed. Wash-ington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. Surveys the factors affecting the status androle of the major U.S. political parties today, which the author believes havebecome decentralized and less visible, but still of great importance. Manyfactors influencing the parties are explored, including outside groups(PACs) and soft money that have turned the attention of candidates awayfrom their party, and changing voter attitudes toward party affiliation. Theauthor concludes with an exploration of the “doctrine of responsible par-ties” and possible reforms to make parties act more responsibly.

Leduc, Lawrence, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris, eds. ComparingDemocracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks,Calif.: Sage Publications, 1996. A collection of comparative studies ofdemocracies, including the United States, Europe and emerging democ-racies in Latin America. These various political systems are comparedwith regard to electoral and campaign finance laws, campaign practices,the role of the media, and voter attitudes.

Leduc, Lawrence, et al., eds. Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in theStudy of Democracies and Voting.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications,2002. This new edition of essays on comparative democracy updates is-sues discussed in the first volume and adds many new topics including therole of grassroots movements and direct democracy.

Niemi, Richard G., and Herbert F. Weisberg, eds. Controversies in Voting Be-havior. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. A collection of 16 es-says newly selected for this edition. The essays are organized around sixmajor issues: Why is voter turnout low and apparently declining? Whatare the consequences of the public’s lack of good political information?What really determines the outcome of an election? Do voters want a di-vided government and vote accordingly? What determines voters’ will-ingness to identify with a political party? Is the role of the party systemchanging? Each of these issues has an impact on the need for and resultsof various campaign reforms.

Patterson, Thomas E. The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Un-certainty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002. The author presents the find-ings of the Vanishing Voter Project of Harvard University’s JoanShorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. A significantfactor in electoral malaise is the media’s structural bias toward producingnegative campaign coverage; another is the ever-earlier presidential pri-maries, which lead to the nomination becoming a foregone conclusion


183

before many of the nation’s voters have their say. A number of modest, prag-matic reforms are offered, such as shortening the length of the campaign, in-creasing coverage of candidates’ own words (as in debates), and makingElection Day a national holiday to encourage voter turnout.

Piven, Frances Fox. Why Americans Still Don’t Vote: And Why Politicians WantIt That Way. Revised ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 2000. Piven, a noted vot-ing rights activist (together with Richard A. Clowder) won passage of the“Motor Voter” registration act in 1993, in part because the first edition ofthis book showed the connection between cumbersome voter registrationlaws and poor election turnout. The revised edition suggests that theproblem now is no longer access to the polls but the lack of meaningfuloutreach to new voters by the two major parties.

Pomper, Gerald M., ed. The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations.NewYork: Chatham House, 2001. Seventh in a series of volumes on the pres-idential elections since 1976, this collection of articles by journalists andscholars looks at many aspects of the strangest presidential campaign inmodern memory. Aspects discussed include the nomination process, pub-lic opinion at various stages of the campaign, the role of the media, andcampaign financing.

Reynolds, David. Democracy Unbound: Progressive Challenges to the Two-PartySystem. Boston: South End Press, 1997. Discusses the broad movement tograssroots alternative politics that underlay the abortive Ross Perot can-didacy and the longer-term efforts of the Green Party and nontraditionalindependent candidates such as Jesse Ventura, who won the Minnesotagovernorship as the Reform Party candidate in 1998 and later became anindependent candidate.

Rosenstone, Steven J., Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus. Third Partiesin America. 2d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996. Aclassic, authoritative source on the history of third-party movements. Theauthors focus on the relationship between failures by the major partiesand the rise of third parties that in turn make the major parties more re-sponsive to voters’ concerns.

Rusk, Jerrold G. A Statistical History of the American Electorate.Washington,D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 2001. The author draws upon a hugesupply of data and accounts to bring out the larger patterns emergingfrom U.S. electoral history. Topics include election laws and suffrage, vot-ing participation, voting in specific types of elections (presidential,House, Senate, and gubernatorial), and measures of voting behavior.

Schantz, Harvey L., ed. American Presidential Elections: Process, Policy, and Po-litical Change. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. Five po-litical scientists provide a comprehensive social context for presidentialelections and describe patterns and trends. Social and economic changes


184

are reflected in changes in the electoral process, and outcomes of elec-tions influence the development of social policy.

Scheele, Paul E., ed. We Get What We Vote for . . . or Do We? The Impact of Elec-tions on Governing. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 1999. A diversecollection of essays on many election-related topics, including campaign ad-vertising, the media, treatment of minorities and women in coverage, voterattitudes and expectations, and campaign finance. The concluding essays ex-plore possible reforms from the pragmatic to the more radical.

Schmidt, David D. Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution.Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989. Describes the origin anddevelopment of the ballot initiative process that in many states allows cit-izens to petition to put a proposition on the ballot, in effect legislatingthrough direct democracy. The mechanics of the process are explained, aswell as arguments from critics who feel that the initiative can lead to im-prudent policy-making that can be hard to reverse.

Sifry, Micah L. Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America.New York:Routledge, 2002. A journalist and former editor at The Nation who hascovered unorthodox political campaigns for many years asserts that despitethe many obstacles thrown in the path of third-party and independent can-didates, alternative movements such as the Green Party are making realinroads. Writing mainly from a leftist perspective, Sifry suggests that ac-tivists understand why the Perot effort failed, learn from the attacks onNader by the Democratic Party, and work to build alternative parties thatcan succeed in local elections and build toward national scope.

West, Darrel M. Air Wars. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. De-scribes the evolution of political media advertising since 1952, with par-ticular emphasis on the 2000 election. Because of the extent to whichmodern campaigns invest in media, this is useful background for studentsof campaign finance reform.

Wilson, Graham. Business and Politics: A Comparative Introduction. 3d ed. NewYork: Chatham House, 2003. This updated textbook provides a useful in-ternational perspective on the relationships among business, government,and the political process, focusing on the United States, the major Euro-pean countries, and Japan. This relationship is undergoing significantchange because of the impact of economic globalization.

ARTICLES

Baron, Michael. “The 49 Percent Nation.” National Journal, vol. 33, June 9,2001, p. 1,710. A study of demographics and voting behavior in the 1996and 2000 elections suggests that the two major parties have battled to acondition of stasis such that future presidential elections (and the balance


185

in Congress) are likely to be decided by 1 percent or 2 percent of thevotes. At the same time, the “Bush Nation” and the “Gore Nation” havevery different views on issues, with the more rural Bush areas having afaster population growth rate that seems to be more than offsetting theDemocratic advantage in urban areas being fed by immigration.

Orndoff, Keith. “Assessing American Diversity.” The Futurist, vol. 37,Jan.–Feb. 2003, p. 22ff. The author suggests that emphasis on racial andethnic diversity and shifting demographics may be obscuring the fact thatmany parts of the country are changing slowly, if at all. For example,while California is expected to see a drop in non-Hispanic white popula-tion from 48 percent to 34 percent between 2000 and 2025, the propor-tion of whites in Maine is expected to drop only from 98 percent to 97percent over the same time. Because the Democrats tend to win the pop-ulous, racially diverse states, they are likely to win the popular vote in fu-ture elections, but the Republican hold on the less diverse states may stillensure them an Electoral College victory. This in turn may make in-creasing numbers of voters feel disenfranchised. Divisions based on fac-tors such as religion and age may also be accentuated.

Peck, Don. “The Shrinking Electorate: Is the Much Lamented Decline inU.S. Voter Turnout a Sign of Civic III Health? Not Necessarily.” The At-lantic Monthly, vol. 290, November 2002, p. 48ff. It is a commonplace as-sertion that low voter turnouts threaten the health of democracy. Theauthor gives some evidence to refute this view. The National ElectionStudies (NES) surveys repeatedly have shown that voters have much thesame preferences as nonvoters, so election outcomes still reflect the pref-erences of the population as a whole. Although low turnout may havelong term negative effects, there is evidently no “crisis.”

Schaffner, Brian F., and Matthew J. Streb. “The Partisan Heuristic in Low-Information Elections.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 66, Winter 2002, p.559ff. The authors stress the importance of party “cues” in assessing andpredicting voter behavior. In partisan races in which there is little visiblecampaigning (or in races for nonpartisan administrative offices) poll re-spondents have little information about the candidates and their responsesare likely to be uninformative and not predictive. However, if the poll ques-tion identifies candidates’ party affiliations, the respondent will pick up thatcue and give a much more accurate “prediction” of his or her vote.

Skaggs, David E., and Adam Anthony. “Winning with Young Voters: How toReach—and Motivate—30 Million Missing Voters under 30.” Campaigns &Elections, vol. 23, August 2002, p. 22ff. The authors describe the methodol-ogy used by the Campaign for Young Voters (CYV) to get out the youthvote. Most campaigns need to concentrate on likely or potential young vot-ers, not unlikely ones. Contrary to stereotype, young people rely upon issues


186

and track record in assessing candidates, not appearance or style. However,young voters pay less attention to party affiliation: They are like indepen-dent older voters. They want to see candidates pay attention to them andwill often respond to such attention with commitment. Practical suggestionsare given for meeting with and winning over younger voters.

WEB DOCUMENTS

Gastil, John. “Election Day Computer Simulation Game.” University ofWashington. Available online. URL: http://staff.washington.edu/election. Posted on July 17, 2000. This free software, which can be down-loaded from the web site and run on the user’s computer, is designed toteach students how the electoral process works. Students play the part ofcandidates or campaign managers and set budgets, plan campaign activi-ties, analyze polls, and respond to various events. The site also explainsthe project and philosophy behind the game.

Leip, David. “Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.” Available online. URL:http://uselectionatlas.org. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. This siteprovides tabular results and electoral vote map depictions for every pri-mary and general U.S. presidential election.

“U.S. Electoral College,” Office of the Federal Register, U.S. NationalArchives & Records Administration. Available online. URL: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/electoral_college.html.Downloaded on March 13, 2003. The Federal Register is involved withdocumenting the operation of the Electoral College for the Archivist ofthe United States. This site contains official explanations of the legalbasis, structure, and procedures of the Electoral College as well as theelectoral results of all presidential elections.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

The Influence of Money on Politics

This section deals with the use and impact of money in politics and withpublic response to the issue of campaign finance reform.

BOOKS

Biersack, Robert, Clyde Wilcox, and Paul S. Herrnson, ed. After the Revolu-tion: PACs, Lobbies, and the Republican Congress. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,


187

1999. In 1994 the so-called Republican Revolution gave the GOP controlof Congress and brought a new generation of representatives to CapitolHill. This collection of essays explores how lobbyists (particularly frombig business and labor) courted these new representatives and sought toachieve their political objectives while taking advantage of loopholes inthe complicated federal campaign finance legislation.

———. Risky Business? PAC Decisionmaking in Congressional Elections. Ar-monk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1994. The activities of 19 PACs (political ac-tion committees) in the 1992 congressional election are studied in detailby 18 scholars. The emphasis is on the decisions made by the PACs ateach stage of the campaign.

Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. The Money Men: The Real Story of Fund-Raising’s Influ-ence on Political Power in America. New York: Crown, 2000. An investiga-tive journalist offers a behind-the-scenes look at the people who raisemoney for political candidates. The activities of contributors and lobbyistsseldom involve a simple quid pro quo but more resemble the complicatedmating dance of some insects. Obtaining access and cultivating long-termcontacts is often more important than seeking particular favors. Particu-larly effective groups such as the AARP and EMILY’s List are profiled.

Brown, Clifford W., Jr., Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox. Serious Money:Fundraising and Contributing in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1995. While much attention to cam-paign finance focuses on the general election campaign, this book looks atfund-raising in connection with the primary campaign. With primariesbeing increasingly “front-loaded” (held earlier in the year), successful pres-idential candidates must raise large amounts of money quickly if they are tobe perceived as viable candidates. This book is also unusual in that it fo-cuses on individual rather than group contributions and how the all-im-portant “seed money” must be raised from growing numbers of individualcontributors because of the $1,000 limit on individual contributions.

Center for Responsive Politics. The Big Picture: The Money Behind the 2000Elections. Washington, D.C.: Center for Responsive Politics, 2001. Acomprehensive report on the funding of the 2000 federal elections, draw-ing upon FEC data and the center’s own extensive research.

———. Follow the Money Handbook.Washington, D.C.: Center for ResponsivePolitics, 1997. A guide for computer-based journalists and other researchersinvestigating and tracing the contributions and spending of candidates,party and independent committees, and other groups. The focus is on as-sembling a standardized database that can be shared with other journalistsor reformers. An abbreviated version is available online at URL:http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/index.asp (under “Money in Politics”).

Clawson, Dan, Alan Neustadtl, and Mark Weller. Dollars and Votes: HowBusiness Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy. Philadelphia: Temple


188

University Press, 1998. The authors extensively interviewed corporate“government relations specialists” to see how they related to legislatorsand what they expected from them. Corporations work to develop “ac-cess” to legislators and then use the relationships they have cultivated topromote special interest legislation (of which many examples are given).

CQ’s Federal PACs Directory, 1998–1999. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press,1999. Lists the top 2,000 political action committees (PACs), includingcontact information. The directory also profiles the major interest groupsrepresented by PACs, analyzes PAC spending to identify ideological in-terests, and lists the top recipients of PAC donations.

Greider, William. Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democ-racy.New York: Touchstone Books, 1993. A now classic treatment of whatthe author considers to be an ongoing breakdown of U.S. democracy inwhich multinational corporations and other powerful interests wieldgrowing influence, the political parties become accomplices, and themedia seems indifferent. Examples given include the massive savings andloan bailout and the bipartisan support for NAFTA, the General Agree-ment on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and most-favored trade status forChina, disregarding the interests of labor, traditionally one of the Demo-cratic Party’s most important constituencies.

Herrnson, Paul S., Ronald G. Shaiko, and Clyde Wilcox, editors. The Inter-est Group Connection: Electioneering, Lobbying, and Policymaking. 2d ed.New York: Chatham House, 2003. Updated edition of an important studyexamining the activities and relationships of interest groups in Washing-ton. Many concrete examples of interest group politics are given.

Lewis, Charles. The Buying of the Congress: How Special Interests Have StolenYour Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. New York: AvonBooks, 1998. Lewis and other researchers from the Center for Public In-tegrity examine how tobacco and food companies, airlines, insurancecompanies, and other big business interests use their contributions tolawmakers to get them to block or water down consumer-oriented legis-lation despite the high popular support for such measures.

———. The Buying of the President 2000. New York: Avon Books, 2000. Re-veals the top contributors for the Republican and Democratic candidatesin the primary and presidential elections of 2000. The author draws uponresearch from the Center for Public Integrity to explore how candidatesserve the agendas of special interests and use their campaigns to enrichthemselves in various ways. The book includes information about data-bases on candidate expenditures.

Magleby, David B., ed. Financing the 2000 Election. Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution, 2002. This collection of essays by political scien-tists and legal experts is the latest in a series that has analyzed presidential


189

election years since 1960. The contributors analyze how the nearly $4 bil-lion spent on elections (at all levels) in 2002 was raised and spent, and theimplications for the ongoing debate over campaign finance reform. Sug-gestions for reform based on the identified trends include a ban on softmoney with a compensating increase in the limits for direct contributionsto candidates and parties as well as tightening restrictions on the use of“issue ads” that mention specific candidates. (These measures are at leastin part included in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.)

Rozell, Mark J., and Clyde Wilcox. Interest Groups in American Campaigns:The New Face of Electioneering. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1998. Ahandbook on the operations and influence of interest groups in modernU.S. politics. Much of the material is based on interviews with a numberof interest group leaders as well as surveys and campaign finance data.

Thompson, Joel A., and Gary F. Moncrief. Campaign Finance in State Leg-islative Elections.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1997. With other contrib-uting authors, Thompson and Moncrief analyze campaign contributionsand spending at the state level, drawing upon a massive database gatheredfrom 15 states from 1986 into the mid-1990s.

Zuckerman, Edward. Almanac of Federal PACs, 2002–2003. 9th ed.Hedgesville, W.V.: Amward Publications, 2002. Profiles all PACs thatgave more than $50,000 to candidates, giving contact information, finan-cial data, and amounts contributed to Democrats and Republicans.

ARTICLES

Allen, Mike. “Corporate Cash Pours in to Conventions: Watergate-InspiredU.S. Funding Has Become a Relative Pittance.” Washington Post, July 28,2000, p. A16. Although Congress approved public funding for party con-ventions in 1974, about three-quarters of the actual cost of today’s $100million political extravaganza is now paid for by contributors and lobby-ists. There are no regulatory limits on the funds that can be raised by party“host committees” for the conventions. The article includes a chart listingmajor donors to the 2000 Republican and Democratic conventions.

Bates, Eric, et al. “Campaign Inflation.” Mother Jones, vol. 26, March 2001,p. 46. Profiles the top 400 contributors to Republican campaigns in1999–2000. According to analysis of contribution records, business inter-ests contributed a total of $646 million to Republican George Bush’spresidential effort and to electing GOP members of Congress. Spendingis shown to be effective in that all but 29 of 469 congressional seats in playwere won by the candidate who had raised the most money. The authorsalso survey 10 business sectors to learn what each wants in return for itscontributions.


190

Bennet, James. “Is the Choice Between These Two Guys Worth 10 Million?Inside the Most Absurdly Expensive House Race Ever.” The New YorkTimes Magazine, October 22, 2000, p. 62. The Virginia House race be-tween Republican incumbent James Rogan and Democratic challengerAdam Schiff is described as showing a new level of excess in politicalfund-raising and campaign spending. Together the two candidates mayhave spent $10 million by the election, and both have hired large num-bers of expensive fund-raisers and political consultants.

Berthelsen, Christian. “Davis’ Opponents Crimped by New Rules on Dona-tions.” San Francisco Chronicle, July 25, 2003, p. A16. Reports on the effectsof California’s campaign finance regulations (Proposition 34) on the un-precedented 2003 gubernatorial recall election. Because of a loophole inthe rules, there is no limit on campaign funding regarding recall questionitself, but candidates hoping to succeed Governor Gray Davis cannot re-ceive more than $21,200 from any single source. With only 75 days untilthe election, less-known candidates are thus at a considerable disadvantage.

Eisele, Albert. “Your Money, Their Views: Playing Partisan Politics withNonprofits.” New York Times, December 9, 1997, p. 4. Describes hownonprofit foundations that receive nondeductible contributions are freeto contribute them to political campaigns. One common use of themoney is for sponsoring so-called issue ads that in reality target a candi-date’s opponent, as happened to Calvin Dooley, a third-term Californiarepresentative who was suddenly “blindsided” by $250,000 worth of neg-ative advertising in the last days of the campaign. Lack of reporting re-quirements for nonprofits that are not primarily advocacy groups makestracing the sources of such attacks difficult.

Gran, David, and Erika Niedowski. “The Dirty Hill: The Sleaze That DareNot Speak Its Name.” The New Republic, vol. 216, April 7, 1997, p. 21ff.The authors describe what they see as the shameless and borderline ille-gal fund-raising practices of Congress. A “bipartisan menu of fund-raising events” suggests what levels of access to prominent politicians canbe “purchased” for various levels of contributions. Despite denials ofquid-pro-quo arrangements, a series of favorable legislative outcomes fol-lowing major corporate contributions suggest a close connection betweenthe two. The 104th Congress (following the 1994 Republican victory)also saw increasing instances where lobbyists were in effect invited intocongressional offices to write the legislation they wanted. The question-able use of office staff for campaign activities is also discussed. For exam-ple, staff members are given a leave so they can work “voluntarily” on thecampaign and are rewarded on their return with large bonuses.

Hayward, Steven, and Allison R. Hayward. “Moving Money Around Wash-ington: A Brief Tour of ‘Bundling’ and Other Beltway Bypasses.” Reason,


191

vol. 28, October 1996, p. 27. Describes the techniques used by big cam-paign contributors during the 1990s to bypass the regulations of the Fed-eral Election Commission.

Levy, Clifford J. “Tobacco and Its Gifts Have Minority Allies.” New YorkTimes, January 4, 2000, p. A21ff. Describes how Philip Morris corpora-tion has systematically cultivated favor with black and Hispaniccommunities by contributing to minority politicians. Although tough an-tismoking legislation has been passed, the contributions have apparentlykept some minority activists on the sidelines. The article includes a chartsummarizing national PAC, soft money and individual contributions bythe tobacco industry from 1979 to 2000.

McChesney, Fred S. “‘Pay to Play’ Politics Examined, with Lessons forCampaign-Finance Reform.” Independent Review, vol. 6, Winter 2002, p.345ff. Most campaign reformers focus on the use of campaign contribu-tions to win access and influence for businesses or other groups. An oftenoverlooked aspect of the situation is “rent-seeking”—an economic termmeaning revenue received not through direct economic activity butthrough monopolies, subsidies, or other advantages provided by govern-ment. Politicians in turn can use their power to withhold or alter legisla-tion to induce rent-seekers to contribute to them. People who haveeconomic interests are thus forced to continually “pay to play”—if theydo not, the government will punish them or reward a competitor. The au-thor gives numerous examples of both sides of this “political economics.”Campaign reform that ignores this reality is likely to be circumvented asthe political “market” seeks other ways to clear. To the extent that re-forms are effective, an ironic result may be that economic inefficiency willincrease because businesses and other interests will not be able to in ef-fect bribe politicians to let them continue productive activity.

Primo, David M. “Public Opinion and Campaign Finance: Reformers Re-ality.” Independent Review, vol. 7, Fall 2002, p. 207ff. According to a 1997Center for Responsive Politics survey, a majority strongly or somewhatfavored mandatory public campaign financing, further limits on PACs,limiting television advertising, and limiting contributions to political par-ties. However, the actual public interest in campaign reform is relativelylow, except perhaps when temporarily fueled by high-profile events suchas the Enron scandal. Surprisingly, there is no demonstrable link betweentrust in government and overall campaign spending.

WEB DOCUMENTS

Bailey, Holly. “Double Down: A Look at Soft Money Fund-Raising byLeadership PACs.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online.


192

URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v5/alertv5_62.asp. Posted onOctober 30, 2000. Describes the growing number of so-called leadershipPACs associated with prominent members of the House and Senate. Thefund-raising activities of these organizations were revealed only aftersummer 2000, when Congress closed a loophole exempting organizationsthat did not expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate. Thearticle includes a chart summarizing the “hard” and “soft” money contri-butions of the leadership PACs.

“A Brief History of Money in Politics.” Center for Responsive Politics. Avail-able online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/history/historyindex.asp. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. A primer on campaign financing,including the following sections: Introduction, How Americans Have Fi-nanced Elections in the Past, Reform Attempts at the Federal Level, TheStates, “Laboratories of Reform,” and Important Dates in Campaign Fi-nance Legislation.

“Campaign Finance: Vital Stats.” Campaign Finance Institute. Available on-line. URL: http://www.cfinst.org/studies/vital. Downloaded on February4, 2003. Provides a variety of charts including election results for incum-bents and challengers, contributions, contributors, and PACs.

“Campaign Reform 2001: Examining Issues, Quashing Myths, and Under-standing the Nature of North Carolina Voters.” North Carolina Centerfor Voter Education. 2001. Available online. URL: http://www.ncvotered.com/downloads/PDF/3_01_survey_report.pdf. Reports a survey con-ducted on March 27–29, 2001, in which respondents were asked detailedquestions about their attitudes toward campaign reform–related issues.The survey found large majorities in favor of addressing campaign fi-nance problems, strong support for soft money restrictions, and/or afour-year legislative term limit, while just under half said they wouldfavor a publicly funded candidate over a privately funded one.

Green, John, et al. “Individual Congressional Campaign Contributors:Wealthy, Conservative, and Reform-Minded.” Center for Responsive Pol-itics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/donors/donors.asp. Posted on June 9, 1998. Reports the results of a 1997 nationalsurvey of individual contributors to congressional candidates. Some re-sults are rather surprising. For example, a majority favors substantial cam-paign finance reform, such as a ban on soft money. Less surprising is thetendency of contributors to be conservative and wealthy.

Knott, Alex. “It’s a Millionaires’ Race: New Financial Disclosure DatabaseDetails Assets of 2004 Presidential Candidates.” Center for Public In-tegrity. Available online. URL: http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/default.aspx?Section=ARTICLE&AID=4. Posted on January 27, 2003.The Center for Public Integrity introduces its new searchable database of


193

2002 financial disclosures, highlighting the large amounts of personalwealth available to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Ch-eney, and would-be Democratic rivals such as Senator John Kerry (Mass-achusetts), Senator John Edwards (North Carolina), and Bob Graham(Florida). Each candidate mentioned in the article has a direct link to hisor her entry in the database.

Lewis, Charles. “Profiteering from Democracy.” Center for Public Integrity.Available online. URL: http://www.public-i.org/breakingnews_id_mmddyy.htm. Posted on August 30, 2000. Describes how President Bill Clinton’sproposal that the Federal Communications Commission require that broad-casters provide free or low-cost time for candidates was overwhelmed by thepolitical power of media companies that did not want to lose profits and bypowerful incumbents who did not want challengers to have greater access tothe airwaves. The article includes details about the biggest media contribu-tors, the junkets they provided to key members of Congress, and ties be-tween media lobbyists and members of Congress.

“Money and Politics Survey.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available on-line. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/survey/top.htm. Posted onJune 6, 1997. Summary and detailed findings of a 1997 survey on publicattitudes toward campaign reform done by the Princeton Survey Associ-ates for the Center for Responsive Politics. In general, most respondentshad negative feelings about the effects of campaign contributions on pol-itics. Relatively few respondents were familiar with the major provisionsof current campaign finance law. Modest majorities strongly supported or“somewhat favored” the most commonly discussed reforms, such as lim-iting soft money, limiting or banning the use of PACs, and providing pub-lic financing for campaigns. Almost a majority agreed with having nocontribution limits at all, provided all contributions were disclosed, andonly 15 percent of respondents believed that campaign finance should bethe top legislative priority.

“Monopoly Politics 2002: How ‘No Choice’ Elections Rule in a Competi-tive House.” Center for Voting and Democracy. Available online. URL:http://www.fairvote.org/2002/mp2002.htm. Posted on November 8,2002. The center has created a computer model that demonstrates the ex-tent to which incumbency, structural features of the electoral system, andthe high cost of elections combine to give incumbents an overwhelmingadvantage in modern U.S. elections even as the Congress as a whole be-comes increasingly competitive between the two major parties. Themodel’s projections for the 2002 midterm election were 100 percent ac-curate. Projections for the 2004 election are included.

“Opensecrets.org: Your Guide to Money in U.S. Elections.” Center for Re-sponsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org.


194

Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Provides overviews of Congress, pres-idential and congressional races, and issue areas, including campaign fi-nance reform. There is also a section on special interests, includingindustries and interest groups, PACs, soft money, and lobbying.

“Our Private Legislatures.” Center for Public Integrity. Available online.URL: http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/index.asp?L1=20&L2=10&L3=50&L4=0&L5=0& State=. Posted on May 21, 2001. Reports on an investigationby the Center for Public Integrity into conflicts of interest and suspect tiesbetween legislators and lobbyists in state legislatures. The report points outthat in 41 of 50 states, legislators serve in poorly paid, part-time positions,so the job is really only available to lawyers, businesspersons, and others whohave means and various agendas that they want to carry out through legis-lation. About 20 to 25 percent of legislators have some form of inherentconflict of interest, such as serving on a committee that regulates their busi-ness, or that funds a government agency for whom they also work.

“Party Fundraising Reaches $1.1 Billion in 2002 Election Cycle.” FederalElection Commission. Available online. URL: http://www.fec.gov/press/20021218party/20021218party.html. Posted on December 18, 2002. Re-ports and gives breakdowns of both hard and soft money raised by thetwo major parties. Even though 2002 was a nonpresidential election, totalfund-raising almost equaled that in 2000, probably because of the desireof the parties to “bank” as much soft money as possible before the re-strictions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 took effect.The site includes tables.

“The Power of Public Opinion.” Public Campaign. Available online. URL:http://www.publicampaign.org/pubop.html. Downloaded on February 4,2003. Links to a number of polls showing strong public support for cam-paign finance reform. For an amusing note, the “Elvis Poll” for Fox Newsrated the likelihood of an Elvis sighting (48 percent) over the chances forreal campaign finance reform (31 percent).

Remes, Sarah. “High-Tech Influence: Computer Companies and PoliticalSpending.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/cashingin_computers/compindex.htm.Posted in 1997. Data from the 1996 election cycle shows that the hightech industry, which had traditionally remained aloof from politics, hadbegun to become a substantial player in making contribution to federalcandidates and parties.

Schram, Martin. “Speaking Freely.” Center for Responsive Politics. Availableonline. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/speaking/speakingindex.html. Posted in 1995. Interviews of former congresspersons and senators ona variety of topics relating to money in politics—how it is raised, the effectsit had on their decision making, and public perception.


195

“State Campaign Finance Data.” Campaign Finance Information Center.Available online. URL: http://www.campaignfinance.org/states/index.html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Clicking on a state on the U.S.map on this web site gives a list of what kinds of transactions are coveredby the state’s campaign finance disclosure regulations and a link to the rel-evant data source or agency.

“Wall Street Interests Pushing For Social Security Privatization Gave $53Million in Political Contributions during Past Decade, According toCommon Cause.” Common Cause News. Available online. URL: http://216.147.192.101/publications/securities.htm. Posted in February 1999.Describes the increasing effort by Wall Street interests to use campaigncontributions to lobby for privatization of Social Security, which couldgive them access to billions of dollars of funds put under private manage-ment. An accompanying chart gives the total contributions of industrialsectors, labor, lawyers, and lobbyists.

“Washington’s Other Scandal.” Frontline, WGBH, PBS. Available online.URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/scandal. Posted1996–98. This web site provides a transcript and supporting materials forthe PBS/WGBH Frontline show that delved into the campaign financeabuses during the 1996 election cycle, including the high-intensity fund-raising by the Clinton administration, which was accused of using WhiteHouse facilities for fund-raising in violation of federal law. Materials alsoinclude interviews with Harold Ickes, Dick Morris, and Senator JosephLieberman, as well as discussion and samples of “issue ads” that are in-creasingly used to get around direct contribution limits.

Watzman, Nancy, James Youngclaus, and Jennifer Shechter. “Power to thePeople? Money, Lawmakers, and Electricity Deregulation.” Center forResponsive Politics. Available online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/cashingin_electric/contents.htm. Posted in 1997. Details the largecampaign contributions made by power companies (such as Enron), whichwere rewarded by deregulation. Data is from the 1996 election cycle. In-cludes interactive search facility for finding contributors and recipients.

“Who Paid for This Election? A Mid-October Snapshot of CampaignFunding in the 2000 Elections.” Center for Responsive Politics. Availableonline. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/whospay00/index.asp.Posted in October 2000. Includes the “big picture” of historical fund-raising trends and disparities between candidates leading to noncompeti-tive races. Donors are then categorized by industry or ideological group,as well as top individual contributors.

Wright, Sarah. “PACs Remain Stealthy Despite Disclosure Law.” TheTracker [newsletter of the Campaign Finance Information Center]. Avail-able online. URL: http://www.campaignfinance.org/tracker/winter02/


196

stealthPACs.html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Even though a2000 regulation removed the “527” tax loophole that allowed PACs toslip under the disclosure radar, the groups are still avoiding disclosure byclaiming that they are not involved with specific election races. They cando so by avoiding certain key phrases, such as “vote for” or “vote against.”However, careful investigation can usually trace broadcast or print adsback to the “stealth PACs” that produced them and to the campaign theyare intended to help.

General Debate on Campaign Finance Reform

This section covers general debate on such topics as contribution andspending limits, PACs and independent expenditures, “soft money,” disclo-sure and public financing of campaigns as well as works about important re-formers. For discussion and debate that focuses on specific legislation see“Legislation and Its Consequences.”

BOOKS

Alexander, Paul. Man of the People: A Life of John McCain. New York: JohnWiley, 2002. A mainly laudatory biography of Senator John McCain(Rep.-Arizona), a leading advocate of campaign finance reform and a con-tender in the 2000 presidential primary. The author had previously writ-ten about McCain for Rolling Stone.

Anderson, Annelise, ed. Political Money: Deregulating American Politics: Se-lected Writings on Campaign Finance Reform. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover In-stitution Press, 2000. A collection of articles that survey the situation atthe end of the 1990s, describing competing proposals for campaign fi-nance reform. The book includes definitions of key concepts and termsand a thorough exploration of the constitutional issues. The collection iswell balanced between advocates of reform (who generally get more pub-licity) and opponents who argue against reform proposals on grounds ofefficacy, legality, and fairness.

Bartels, Larry M., and Lynn Vavreck, ed. Campaign Reform: Insights and Ev-idence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. A collection of ar-ticles reflecting the work of the Task Force on Campaign Reformsponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The book includes detailedanalysis of factors affecting the “quality” of campaigns, including negativecampaigning (the use of attack ads), which according to the authors doesnot actually decrease voter turnout. The use of voluntary agreements for


197

better practices in campaigns is also explored, as well as some modestchanges in electoral laws to provide for easier registration and access tothe polls.

Clean Campaigns: How to Promote Candidate Codes of Conduct. Denver, Co.:Institute for Global Ethics and National Civic League. 2001. A handbookfor citizens who are interested in getting candidates to agree to a code ofcampaign ethics. The book explains how to choose appropriate provi-sions, how to contact candidates, and how to work with the media.

Corrado, Anthony, ed. Campaign Finance Reform: Beyond the Basics. Wash-ington, D.C.: Century Foundation Press, 2000. A well-organized hand-book that explains the elements of the modern campaign finance system,including sources and types of contributions, the role of the parties, issueadvocacy ads, and the relevant legal framework. It concludes with a dis-cussion of possible reforms.

Corrado, Anthony, et al., eds. Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997. A collection ofsource documents for many aspects of election law and campaign reform.Each section is introduced by an editor. Topic areas include: the currentstate of the law, history of campaign finance law, the impact of the FirstAmendment on regulation, the various types of campaign participation(PACs, soft money, and issue advocacy), the role of the Federal ElectionCommission, and recent developments.

Drew, Elizabeth. Citizen McCain. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002. Aveteran political journalist recounts the political battles for campaign fi-nance reform led by Senator John McCain. The virtually blow-by-blowaccount reveals how McCain was able to build and sustain the coalitionthat eventually prevailed with the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Re-form Act of 2002.

Gais, Thomas. Improper Influence: Campaign Finance Law, Political InterestGroups, and the Problem of Equality. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress, 1996. The author suggests that campaign finance laws with theiroften complicated requirements actually discourage grassroots participa-tion, while not deterring the powerful interest groups (such as business)who can afford to navigate the regulations involving PACs and take ad-vantage of loopholes. A better alternative, he believes, would be to dereg-ulate campaign contributions and target public subsidies to giving smallergroups a more level playing field.

Haddock, Doris, and Dennis Burke. Granny D: Walking Across America inMy Ninetieth Year. New York: Villard Books, 2000. Describes the cross-country walk Doris “Granny D.” Haddock undertook to bring public at-tention to the need for campaign finance reform. In the course of herjourney, she encountered thousands of ordinary Americans and recorded


198

their often passionate thoughts on the subject of the “disconnect” be-tween the people and their government.

Lubenow, Gerald C., ed. A User’s Guide to Campaign Finance Reform. Lan-ham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Ten political scientists and policyanalysts provide a variety of contributions, including a history of campaignfinance law, a survey of popular opinion, a critique of the assumptions be-hind campaign finance laws, sources and uses of soft money, and the tan-gled legal issues surrounding campaign regulation. The book concludeswith Norman J. Ornstein’s list of eight proposed reforms that he believeswould be common sense, feasible, legally justifiable, and effective.

Luna, Christopher, ed. Campaign Finance Reform.New York: H. W. Wilson,2001. A collection of articles from various publications on campaign fi-nance issues. The articles are grouped into the following sections: TheHistory of Campaign Finance in the United States, Soft Money. PACsand Issue Advocacy, The Debate Over Campaign Finance Reform, andSteps Toward Reform. The book also includes a bibliography and list ofweb sources.

Martin, Justin. Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon. Cambridge, Mass.: PerseusPublishing, 2002. A biography of the peripatetic consumer advocatewhose confrontation with major corporations has in recent years led himincreasingly into political reform, including running for president as theGreen Party candidate in 2000. The author discusses his assessment ofNader’s strengths (tireless, articulate advocacy) and weaknesses (a certaininflexibility and a tendency to alienate people who might be expected tosupport him).

McCain, John S. Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir. New York: RandomHouse, 2002. Autobiography of the former prisoner of war in Vietnamand Arizona senator who has become one of the nation’s most tireless ad-vocates for campaign finance reform. He is also known for challengingGeorge W. Bush in the primaries of 2000. McCain assesses his strengthsand weaknesses and describes persons (such as Theodore Roosevelt) whoinspired him.

Neder, Ralph. Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for Pres-ident. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002. The 2000 Green Party presi-dential candidate describes how the two major parties exerted everypossible effort to shut him out of the presidential debates, even to the ex-tent of threatening him with arrest if he attended a debate as a ticketedmember of the audience. Nader passionately decries a system in which hesays that both major parties serve the same corporate interests and denyany real choice to voters. He also charges the media with laziness and in-difference to third-party campaigns and highlights reforms that he be-lieves would restore real democracy.


199

Nader, Ralph, and Barbara Ehrenreich. The Ralph Nader Reader. New York:Seven Stories Press, 2000. A collection of essays in which Nader describes avariety of ways he has taken on big corporate interests throughout his 40-year career. Looking to the future, he focuses on grassroots activism as a wayin which ordinary people can begin to take power into their own hands.

Schneider, Jerrold E. Campaign Finance Reform and the Future of the Democ-ratic Party. New York: Routledge, 2002. The author suggests that it ispossible to implement effective campaign finance reform, and that doingso would help the Democratic Party by allowing it to promote social pro-grams with broad popular support rather than special-interest bills pro-moted by big contributors. The factors that determine the strength ofpolitical parties are analyzed. Contrary to common belief, reform mightstrengthen the national parties.

ARTICLES

Abbe, Owen G., Nathan S. Begelow, and Paul S. Herrnson. “Campaign Re-form: Is There a Consensus?” Campaigns & Elections, vol. 23, July 2002,p. 44ff. A recent survey conducted by the Center for American Politicsand Citizenship at the University of Maryland with Campaigns & Electionsmagazine asked more than 4,000 candidates for a variety of state, local,and federal offices for their opinions on various aspects of campaign re-form. The authors summarize the results of the survey. Some opinionsbreak sharply along partisan lines: for example, about 70 percent of De-mocratic candidates support public campaign financing and want to bansoft money, while about an equal proportion of Republicans oppose bothpublic financing and the soft money ban. Higher proportions of Democ-rats than Republicans support banning issue ads, but prompt disclosure ofcontributions is supported by a majority in both parties.

Beinart, Peter. “TRB from Washington: Oversight.” The New Republic,March 18, 2002, p. 6. One general argument against passing new cam-paign finance reform laws is that politicians and contributors will alwaysmanage to find loopholes through which they can keep the money flow-ing. The author in effect says: “So what?” If the need to plug loopholeswas an argument against legislation, there would be no tax laws. As withthe Internal Revenue Service, what is needed is an agency that can effec-tively detect and deter violators. Yet opponents of campaign reform aregenerally the same people who have done whatever they could to keep theFederal Election Commission weak and ineffective.

———. “TRB from Washington: Speak Easy.” The New Republic, March 4,2002, p. 6. The author refutes arguments that campaign finance regulationsinfringe on free speech rights. He begins by saying that the sudden interest


200

in free speech by politicians who generally do not support it in other con-texts is disingenuous. Indeed, opponents first opposed soft money restric-tions on free speech grounds, but when that argument proved ineffective,they switched to claiming that the laws were not strict enough. Besides, theSupreme Court has already decided that limits on contributions are consti-tutional. Even the proposed new limits on soft money will not deprive in-dependent groups of the ability to produce issue ads, as long as they use hardmoney, which is capped by a maximum $5,000 per contributor per year.

“Campaign Finance—Veto.” National Review, vol. 54, March 11, 2002, p.12ff. Argues that President George W. Bush should veto the bipartisancampaign reform bill because of his own belief that it is unconstitutionaland violates principles he had stated during the previous campaign. Con-tributions are not inherently corrupting, and money is often simply themeans of promoting ideology—not the other way around. Besides,money will always find a way into the system, and adding layers of newcomplex rules will simply make it harder for ordinary citizens to exercisetheir political speech.

Rosenkranz, E. Joshua. “Faulty Assumptions in ‘Faulty Assumptions’: A Re-sponse to Professor Bradley Smith’s Critiques of Campaign Finance Re-form.” Connecticut Law Review, vol. 30, Spring 1998, pp. 867–896. Adetailed rebuttal of Bradley A. Smith’s assertions of faulty assumptionsbehind campaign finance reform and a defense of such reform as pro-moting democracy.

Scheiber, Noam. “Business School: Enron and the Irrelevance of CampaignFinance Reform.” The New Republic, February 4, 2002, p. 17. Looking athow interests such as the accounting industry have been able to defeat reg-ulations even in the wake of the Enron scandal, the author pessimisticallyconcludes that even strict limits on campaign contributions would not pre-vent such special influence. The reason is that big corporate interests offerthe prospect of remunerative future employment for legislators (or staffers)after they leave government service. Even if there is no direct quid pro quo,lawmakers will not want to alienate the interests that offer employment atseveral times congressional salaries. Corporate interests can also use theirinfluence over the appointment process to reward or punish legislators.

Schier, Steven E. “One Cheer for Soft Money.” Washington Monthly, July2000, p. 21. The author argues that soft money contributed to partiesrather than directly to candidates actually strengthens democracy and re-duces corruption. This is because giving more money to parties ratherthan directly to candidates promotes making elections about clearly de-fined issues rather than personalities. Strong parties promote democraticstability, and parties can serve as a “buffer” between contributors and theindividual politicians they seek to influence.


201

Smith, Bradley A. “Campaign Finance Reform: Faulty Assumptions andUndemocratic Consequences.” USA Today, vol. 126, January 1998, p.10ff. A point-by-point rebuttal of the assumptions underlying most argu-ments for campaign finance reform. For example, the author points outthat “Americans spend two to three times as much money each year onpotato chips as on political campaigns.” He also argues that people givemoney to candidates they feel are likely to win and that contributionshave little correlation with actual legislation. The author goes on to arguethat campaign contribution limits tend to entrench the status quo becausechallengers can seldom raise money as effectively as incumbents.

Sunstein, Cass R. “Political Equality and Unintended Consequences.” Co-lumbia Law Review, vol. 94, May 1994, pp. 1,390–1,414. (Also in Corrado,Anthony, et al., ed. Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook. Washington,D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997, pp. 113–120). The author agreesthat there is a valid social objective in preventing gross inequality in politi-cal power between the wealthy and ordinary citizens. He believes that Buck-ley v. Valeo was wrongly decided because it uncritically accepted existinginequality (just as the Lockner case had accepted inequality between em-ployers and employees with regard to the ability to set wages). However,there are a number of potential unintended negative consequences to cam-paign reform including the possible entrenchment of incumbents; a growthin the power of PACs as individual contributions are restricted (and the re-verse); and a shift from “hard money” to “soft money” limits on PACs dis-proportionately hurting labor and minority candidates.

WEB DOCUMENTS

“Campaign Finance, Corruption, and the Oath of Office.” Cato Institute.Available online. URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/hb107-10.pdf. Posted on January 1, 2001. In chapter 10 of its handbookfor Congress, the libertarian Cato Institute urges that Congress, whichhas an inherent conflict of interest in regulating the political process, re-frain from such regulations and instead reduce corruption by limiting thepower of government (which presumably would limit the incentive tomake contributions in return for favors).

“Campaign-Finance Reform: The Right Way.” Business Week Online.Available online. URL: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2002/nf20020212_7571.htm. Posted on February 12, 2002. Accordingto this article, banning “soft money” will not really help—what is neededis full, prompt disclosure of all contributions, with higher contributionlimits for individuals who, unlike anonymous-sounding committees, aremore readily identifiable. Disclosure should also be applied to anyonesponsoring so-called issue ads.


202

Ornstein, Norman J., et al.”Reforming Campaign Finance.” Brookings Insti-tution. Available online. URL: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cf/reformcf.htm. Issued on December 17, 1996, revised on May 7, 1997.[Later released by the League of Women Voters under the title “5 Ideas forPractical Campaign Reform.”] A group of scholars and activists proposewhat they see as five practical proposals for reforming election campaignsthat would not conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v.Valeo. The proposals include tightening the use of soft money and makingparties more accountable, while allowing individuals to give more moneydirectly to parties with increased party disclosure requirements. Therewould also be a 100 percent tax credit for the first $100 of contributions byan individual to federal candidates in the same state. To regulate politicaladvertising, all ads showing a candidate’s picture or name would be treatedas campaign ads, not as unregulated “issue ads.” Another interesting pro-posal would set up a “broadcast bank” into which media companies wouldhave to place minutes of free broadcast time, with qualified candidates andparties receiving vouchers that they could use to buy this time.

“Questions and Answers on Sham Issue Ads.” League of Women Voters.Available online. URL: http://www.lwv.org/elibrary/pub/qa_shamissues.htm#(1)%20A. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. The league distin-guishes between true issue ads, which are unconnected with specific cam-paigns, as being a proper exercise of free speech and “sham” issue ads,which are thinly disguised political “hit pieces.” The suggested distinction(ads appearing within 60 days of the election and showing or mentioninga candidate) was included in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

“10 Myths About Money in Politics.” Center for Responsive Politics. Avail-able online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/myths/contents.htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. A campaign reform advocacygroup refutes common arguments against the idea that the growingstream of money flowing into politics is pernicious. Some of the “myths”addressed include “The special interests balance each other out” and“The money buys only access—not votes.”

Legislation and Its Consequences

This section focuses on legislation, particularly the Bipartisan CampaignReform Act of 2002 and state and local campaign finance laws. It includeslegislative debate, discussion of the provisions of legislation, and debateabout consequences or effects. For legal cases and issues, see the followingsection, “Legal Issues Relating to Campaign Finance Reform.”


203

BOOKS

Bainter, R., and P. M. Levine. Local Campaign Finance Reform: Case Studies,Innovations & Model Legislation. Denver: National Civic League, 1998. Astudy of local campaign finance reform conducted by the New PoliticsProgram of the National Civic League. The book includes descriptionsof reform legislation in 75 cities from which they derive various “models”for campaign finance regulation. These models include Low Contribu-tion Limits (Fort Collins, Colorado), Public Financing (Tucson, Ari-zona), Conflict of Interest (Westminster, Colorado), Time Limits (LittleRock, Arkansas) and Voluntary Reform (Chapel Hill, North Carolina). A2001 addendum with additional case studies is also available in print oronline, at http://www.ncl.org/npp/lcfr/lcfr_addendum.pdf.

Bauer, Robert F. Soft Money, Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign FinanceLaw.Washington, D.C.: Perkins Cole, LLP, Political Law Group, 2002.Describes the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002as they apply to the different types of expenditures (hard and soft money)and players (the parties, PACs, individual contributors). The book in-cludes the text of the new law, which amends the Federal Election Cam-paign Act of 1971.

Dwyre, Dana, and Victoria A. Farar-Myers. Legislative Labyrinth: Congressand Campaign Finance Reform. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000. Theauthors use recent battles over campaign finance legislation as a casestudy of the operation of the legislative and policy-making process. Theroles of party leaders, floor leaders, and “issue entrepreneurs” are shownto interlock in intricate ways that determine the fate of important legisla-tion. The potential importance and impact of campaign finance reformon the legislative process itself is also explored.

Gais, Thomas L., and Michael J. Malbin. The Day After Reform: SoberingCampaign Finance Lessons from the American States. Albany, N.Y.: Rocke-feller Institute Press, 1998. The authors examine campaign finance re-form at the state level, surveying the current laws in all 50 states andexamining data disclosed by candidates, as well as interviewing a wide se-lection of state political leaders. As the title suggests, the authors foundthat many reforms did not work as intended or had negative unintendedconsequences. The authors close with proposed reforms that might morerealistically moderate campaign abuses while preserving freedom ofspeech and association.

Sandler, Joseph E., and Neil P. Reiff. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002: Law and Explanation. Riverwoods, Ill.: CCH Incorporated, 2002.This handbook includes detailed analysis of the provisions of the 2002campaign finance legislation, comparisons with relevant provisions of the


204

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and its amendments, andsummaries of current and pending cases that challenge the new law.

ARTICLES

Bainter, Ric, Paul Lhevine, et al. “Four Communities on the Cutting Edgeof Change: Seattle, Washington; Lee’s Summit, Missouri; Lima, Ohio;and Bronx County, New York.” National Civic Review, vol. 87, Fall 1998,p. 201ff. While Washington struggled slowly and painfully toward cam-paign finance reform, a number of local communities successfully insti-tuted their own political reforms. For example, Seattle passed a strongreform program in 1972 that included contribution limits, disclosure re-quirements, and public financing of local campaigns. About 60 cities nowhave similar requirements.

“Campaign Finance: Excerpts from House Debate on the Shays-MeehanCampaign Finance Bill.” New York Times, February 14, 2002, p. A30. Aselection of brief statements by members of the House during the debateon what would become the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

Castillo, Carl, and Mike McGrath. “Localism and Reform: The Benefits ofPolitical Diversity.” National Civic Review, vol. 90, Summer 2001, p. 137.The deadlocked 2000 presidential election has spurred new interest infundamental electoral reform. Although many proposals (such as uniformfederal standards for elections) are at the national level, some of the mostinteresting experimentation is being done by the states. The Arizona De-mocratic Party, for example, conducted its presidential primary via theInternet for the first time in history, while Oregon became the first stateto vote entirely by mail. Meanwhile, 75 cities have enacted some form ofcampaign finance legislation. Besides contribution limits, innovative ap-proaches include voluntary spending limits (enforced via public pressure),defining certain contributions as creating conflicts of interest for office-holders, and public financing of campaigns. Many of these approaches arelikely to withstand court challenges (the Supreme Court has banned com-pulsory spending limits).

Cohn, Jonathan. “Campaign Reform That Might Actually Work: TakingOffense.” The New Republic, November 29, 1999, p. 13. Reports on thesuccessful efforts of the group Public Campaign to defeat a compromisethat would have gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill by re-placing its outright ban on soft money contributions with a $60,000 cap,while increasing limits on other kinds of contributions.

Conniff, Ruth. “The Maine Chance.” The Progressive, vol. 64, July 2000, p. 12. Describes the hard-fought 10-year campaign that finally resulted inMaine adopting public funding of campaigns. Court challenges on free


205

speech grounds by the National Right to Life Committee and the ACLUhave failed, and in the fall election 115 candidates for state office will bereceiving public funding. The new program creates further pressure forcleaner campaigns by giving a qualifying candidate double funding if hisor her opponent refuses to participate.

Cooper, Marc. “A New Public-Funding Law Has Prompted Many Reform-ers to Run for Office: Clean Money in Maine.” The Nation, vol. 270, May29, 2000, p. 22. Describes the effects of the passage of Maine’s CleanElection Act. Because candidates who can gather a modest number of sig-natures now qualify for public funding, they can challenge even incum-bents who have special interest backing. Greens and Democrats arebenefiting most in this traditionally Republican state.

Crowley, Michael. “On the Hill: Mourning After.” The New Republic,March4, 2002, p. 14. Democratic Party leaders Tom Daschle and DickGephardt were outwardly jubilant when the 2002 campaign reform billwas finally passed by the House. Behind the scenes, however, Democratsare worried that the new law will disproportionately hurt their partymuch more than the Republicans, who receive more large hard-moneycontributions from wealthy individuals. Democrats will have to rely moreon state-level get-out-the-vote efforts (which can still raise money) andnonprofit groups such as the National Association for the Advancementof Colored People (NAACP).

Dewar, Helen. “Senate Approves Disclosure Measure.” Washington Post,June 30, 2000, p. A1. Reports on the passage of a bill closing the “527”loophole in the tax code that allowed for undisclosed campaign contribu-tions by political interest groups. Although the bill is hailed as a break-through, it does not limit “soft money” contributions but only requiresdisclosure.

Edsall, Thomas B. “‘Soft Money’ Ban Evasion Alleged: 2 Political PartiesAccused in Complaints Filed with FEC.” Washington Post, November 22,2002, p. A10. A complaint filed with the Federal Election Commissionaccuses both major parties and two Republican lobbyists of trying toevade the soft money regulations of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Actof 2002. The complaint was filed by a number of public interest groups(including Common Cause) as a way to test the enforcement of the newlaw. The parties and fund-raisers are accused of secretly continuing theflow of soft money and of forming special new groups to disguise thesource of contributions.

Fineman, Howard. “‘Everything Will Change.’ Or Not.” Newsweek, Febru-ary 25, 2002, p. 18. The new campaign finance legislation of 2002 meansdifferent winners and losers and unpredictable results. The Republicans,who tend to raise hard money rather than newly restricted soft money,


206

will be at an advantage, while the Democrats, who are beneficiaries oflarge soft money contributions from trial lawyers and other groups, arelikely to be hurt. Large organizations such as the Sierra Club and Na-tional Rifle Association (NRA) will be able to spend unlimited money onpolitical communications with their own members, but the ban on exter-nal communications will hamper smaller advocacy groups. Consultantsare already working on ways to get around soft money restrictions.

Foer, Franklin. “Petty Cash—Will McCain-Feingold Breed DemocraticFratricide?” The New Republic, June 3, 2002, p. 15. When the 2002 cam-paign reforms take effect, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) willhave to downsize because it can no longer raise soft money. (The Republi-cans, who receive more hard money, will be less affected.) The Democratsare making plans to decentralize their fund-raising and campaign efforts tothe state level, where soft money can still be spent on party-building and“get out the vote” efforts. They are also attempting to set up campaign co-ordination among nonprofit groups that traditionally support the party,such as the AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, and trial lawyers. This may result in lib-erals gaining more power in the party, and thus to “fratricide” between an-tibusiness interests and the party’s more centrist corporate backers.

Foerstel, Karen, Peter Wallenstein, and Derek Willis. “Campaign OverhaulMired in Money and Loopholes.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report,May 13, 2000, p. 1084. Reports on the struggle for campaign finance re-form in the 1990s and early 2000s, describing PACs and soft money “527”organizations that can make unlimited, undisclosed contributions. Thedesire of Republicans to protect their corporate fund-raising base and ofDemocrats to protect their unions and liberal PACs led to failure of re-form efforts in 1989 and 1992. (Even though a bipartisan reform bill fi-nally passed in 2002, the events recounted in this article are still relevantfor showing the interests and tactics likely to be employed in undermin-ing the new reforms.)

Green, Joshua. “Clean Money in Maine.” The American Prospect, vol. 11,September 25, 2000, p. 36. Of the state’s 353 candidates for election, 115are “running clean”—forgoing private contributions in return for publicfinancing under the new Maine Clean Election Act. Supporters of the lawsay it is already having an effect: “Clean” candidates are entering moreprimaries and elections for open seats, making them more competitive.The article includes the history of the campaign that led to the act’s pas-sage and remarks from candidates and officeholders who seem pleasedwith the new system. Some questions and obstacles remain, such aswhether candidates can have so-called leadership PACs and whether thepublic money provided will be enough to make clean candidates compet-itive, particularly in the governor’s race.


207

Gross, Kenneth. “The New Federal Campaign Finance Act—In a Nut-shell.” Campaigns and Elections, vol. 23, July 2002, p. 22ff. A summary ofkey provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, includ-ing individual contribution limits, the ban on raising soft money by na-tional party committees, restrictions on the use of soft money by statecommittees, criteria for “electioneering communications” (issue ads), andcoordinated expenditures.

Harshbarger, Scott, and Edwin Davis. “Federal Campaign Finance Reform:The Long and Winding Road.” National Civic Review, vol. 90, Summer2001, p. 125. Recounts the history of modern campaign finance reformsince the early 1970s and the congressional maneuvering surrounding theMcCain-Feingold bill since the mid-1990s.

Lehrer, Jeremy. “The Reform Quandary: As McCain-Feingold Awaits FinalJudgment, the Debate Continues About the Merit and Finer Points ofCampaign Finance Reform.” Human Rights, vol. 25, Winter 1998, p. 10ff.An overview of the debate on campaign finance reform in recent years.The article includes an historical overview, the 1974 Federal ElectionCampaign Act, and the impact of the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo de-cision, which seems to set the parameters for current proposals but islikely to face further challenges.

Miller, Ellen, and Nick Penniman. “The Road to Nowhere: Thirty Years ofCampaign-Finance Reform Yield Precious Little.” The American Prospect,vol. 13, August 12, 2002, p. 14ff. Ellen Miller, former director of the Cen-ter for Responsive Politics, and Nick Penniman, director of the PolicyAction Network, present a pessimistic assessment of the three decades ofcampaign reform efforts that culminated in the passage of McCain-Fein-gold in 2002. This law, after all, reflects acknowledgement that the mea-sures passed in the early 1970s had been fatally undermined, and itremains to be seen whether the new law will fare any better. Public fi-nancing, often seen as a panacea, is also problematic. State efforts inMaine, Vermont, Arizona, and Massachusetts are imperiled by inadequatefunding and court challenges. It is possible, however, that a mixture ofpublic pressure and litigation by groups such as the National VotingRights Institute (asserting that the present system of campaign financingdenies voters equal protection of the law) might enable the implementa-tion of reforms that stick.

Samples, John. “Campaign Finance ‘Reform.’” World and I, vol. 17, May2002, n.p. The author, director of the Center for Representative Gov-ernment at the Cato Institute, provides an introduction and analysis tocampaign finance reform, with particular reference to the Shays-Meehanbill that later passed Congress as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act(BCRA) of 2002. He argues that voter wishes, not campaign contribu-


208

tions, ultimately have the most decisive effect on officeholders and candi-dates. Constitutionally problematic regulation of campaign contributionsand spending has only weak justification and is likely to have undesirableconsequences, such as making it harder for challengers to unseat incum-bents. Tighter restrictions on campaign ads also have the effect of dis-proportionately hurting challengers, who may need to build namerecognition. Finally, the media (which is not subject to restrictions) islikely to become the dominant voice in political issues at the expense ofparties and candidates.

Schmitt, Mark. “New York City’s Campaign Finance System: Why Is theBest Hope for Reform Being Ignored?” National Civic Review, vol. 90,Summer 2001, p. 149. The debate over McCain-Feingold has largely ig-nored the alternative of total or partial public financing of campaigns. Yetstates such as Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona have passed “cleanmoney” reforms in which candidates who agree to renounce private fund-ing are provided with enough public funds to run a typical campaign forthat office. Partial public funding (usually through a matching funds sys-tem) may offer the most practical approach.

Shenk, Joshua Wolf. “Designed for Impotence: Why the Federal ElectionCommission Is a Lap Dog for the Political Class.” U.S. News and WorldReport, vol. 122, January 20, 1997, p. 30ff. The FEC, created in the wakeof the Watergate scandal, is revealed to be toothless, with violators ableto avoid or delay significant penalties. Congress has frequently respondedto attempts by the FEC to tighten regulations by cutting its budget. Fur-ther, court decisions such as Buckley v. Vallejo have taken away the abilityto regulate campaign expenditures.

Sifry, Micah L. “Clean Money, Clean Elections.” Tikkun, vol. 15, May 2000,p. 45. Because the effect of contribution limits on the ability of big moneyto influence elections is likely to be limited, activists are beginning tofocus on implementing “clean money” legislation. This provides for asystem in which candidates who raise a certain number of $5 contribu-tions and agree not to raise further private funds and to abide by spend-ing limits are given matching public funds. Further, additional publicfunds are provided if a “clean” candidate is outspent by an opponent re-ceiving private funding. Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Arizonahave adopted “clean money” systems, and efforts are underway in manyother states, including Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, North Car-olina, and Wisconsin.

Sullivan, Paul E. “The Devil’s in the Details: New Words and New Con-cerns for Associations and Unions.” Campaigns & Elections, vol. 23, July2002, p. 27. After the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002, the Federal Election Commission is in the process of drafting


209

regulations to implement the “soft money” provisions. This is introduc-ing new terminology that is likely to be subject to difficulties in interpre-tation. Examples include “agent,” “solicit,” and “nonfederal funds.”When is a person serving as an “agent” of a party, and does mere atten-dance at a fund-raising event constitute “solicitation”?

Waller, Douglas. “Looking for the Loopholes: Twenty-eight Years after theLast Campaign-Finance Reform, New Rules Look Set to Take Effect.”Time, vol. 159, February 15, 2002, p. 42ff. Even as the final stages for pas-sage of the 2002 campaign finance legislation are underway, corporations,unions, and interest groups are already planning ways around the regula-tions. Although soft money no longer can be used for broadcast attack adsbefore an election, money can still be used for direct mail, e-mail, and“get out the vote” activities. The parties, too, may be able to replace mostof their lost soft money with hard money, thanks to newly increased con-tribution limits. Campaign reform expert Anthony Corrado is quoted assaying that “Any campaign-finance reform law works for a period oftime,” but then new loopholes have to be plugged.

WEB DOCUMENTS

“Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.” Federal Election Commission.Available online. URL: http://www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/bcra_update.htm.Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Includes the text of the BCRA in PDFformat as well as FEC rulemaking for the BCRA and information re-ported under the law’s provisions.

“Federal Election Commission Creates Major Loopholes in the BipartisanCampaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Law)”. Public Citizen. Avail-able online. URL: http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/articles.cfm?ID=8445. Updated on January 2003. Ongoing analysis of FEC regu-latory rulings that the reform group Public Citizen believes are undermin-ing the effectiveness of the new campaign finance law. In general, as shownin the charts that accompany the article, Public Citizen believes the FECinterpretations would allow parties and independent committees to effec-tively bypass most of the supposedly tough new regulations on soft money.

Hoover Institution. “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001: DetailedSummary” Hoover Institution Public Policy Inquiry: Campaign Finance.Available online. URL: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/legislation/reformact.html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. A concise summary ofthe provisions of what was then the Shays-Meehan bill, passed in sub-stantially the same form as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

“Nationwide Numbers.” Center for Public Integrity. Available online.URL: http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/DRSearch.asp?L1=20&L2=9&


210

L3=25&L4=10&L5=0&State=&Display=DRNationwideNumbers.Downloaded on February 4, 2003. Scores and ranks the states on thequality of their campaign finance disclosure laws and procedures. 23 de-tailed questions were asked of each state and then scored. Clicking on astate provides its details. The top three states were Oregon, California,and Washington (the latter two tied.)

“Shadow Dancing: A Look at the Groups That Want to Keep Soft MoneyFlowing.” Center for Responsive Politics. Available online: URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_67.asp. Posted on November 25,2002. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that in only three weeksafter the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 took effect, dozens ofsupposedly “independent” or “issue” groups were formed. These groupscan still accept unlimited, undisclosed contributions. The report revealsthat many of the groups actually have ties to prominent national politi-cians in both major parties.

Legal Issues Relating to Campaign Finance Reform

This section covers constitutional issues relating to campaign finance regu-lations, such as freedom of speech and the significance of Supreme Courtdecisions such as Buckley v. Valeo.

BOOKS

Banks, Christopher P., and John C. Green. Superintending Democracy: TheCourts and the Political Process. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press,2001. The contentious 2000 presidential election and the controversialSupreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore have raised many questions aboutthe role of the courts in protecting the fundamental machinery of U.S.democracy. This collection of essays deals with the parameters of theSupreme Court’s jurisprudence in areas such as campaign finance reform,political patronage, racial gerrymandering, minority voting rights, andthe access of minor parties to the electoral process.

Rosenkranz, E. Joshua, ed. If Buckley Fell: A First Amendment Blueprint forRegulating Money in Politics.New York: Century Foundation, 1999. Argu-ing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), uphold-ing contribution limits but rejecting spending limits, is incoherent andultimately untenable, the contributors attempt to construct a legal frame-work based on the premise that Buckley is eventually overturned.


211

Slabach, Frederick G., ed. The Constitution and Campaign Finance Reform: AnAnthology.Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1998. A collection oflaw review articles on various aspects of campaign finance reform, in-cluding the question of whether “money is speech,” possible compellinggovernment interests in regulating campaigns, and a variety of alternativemethods of regulation.

ARTICLES

Gwirtzman, Milton S. “A Look At . . . Roadblocks to Campaign Reform.”Washington Post, January 12, 1997, p. C3. The author takes the SupremeCourt to task for its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which held that limitson campaign spending (but not contributions) were unconstitutional be-cause they violated the First Amendment’s protection of speech. He arguesthat the Court was naive in thinking that spending promoted increasedcoverage of issues and that “independent expenditures” reflected true ac-tivism rather than coordinated funneling of money to indirectly help cam-paigns. The author further suggests that Congress provoke areexamination of Buckley by passing spending limits again, buttressed bystrong findings of fact about the corrosive effects of the present system.

Lane, Charles. “High Court to Weigh Nonprofits’ Political Contributions:N.C. Antiabortion Group Says First Amendment Protects Its Support ofCandidates.” Washington Post, November 19, 2002, p. A13. The group,North Carolina Right to Life, argues that the First Amendment protectsits right to make campaign contributions. The Fourth Circuit court ofappeals had agreed with this position by a 2-1 vote, saying that the cor-ruption the law sought to prevent was not present for nonprofit corpora-tions. (In 1986 the Supreme Court had already decided that nonprofitcorporations could not be prevented from making indirect political con-tributions. In June 2003 the Court ruled that the First Amendment didnot preclude regulating contributions from nonprofit advocacy groups.)

Rosen, Jeffrey. “Talk Is Cheap: Campaign Finance Reform Meets the Inter-net.” The New Republic, February 14, 2000, p. 20. Argues that the tenuousdistinction announced in Buckley v. Valeo between campaign spending(protected as integral to speech) and campaign contributions has becomeeven less tenable, given the realities of the new electronic media. Todayanyone can be a “publisher” or the equivalent of an “opinion columnist”on the World Wide Web, for example, so money is less necessary for ef-fective speech. Further, the justification that spending regulation isneeded to prevent speech sponsored by powerful interests from drowningout more poorly funded voices is also suspect, given the world of hun-dreds of cable channels and millions of web sites.


212

Taylor, Stuart, Jr. “Censoring ‘Issue Ads’: A Direct Assault on Free Speech.”National Journal, vol. 33, September 8, 2001, p. 272ff. The ban on issueads within 60 days of an election (proposed as part of the Shays-Meehanbill) would effectively censor advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club,ACLU, or National Right to Life Committee from exercising their freespeech just when public attention on many issues is at its highest. It wouldalso serve to shield incumbent politicians from criticism. The rules about“coordination” would also make it problematic for ads to refer to a politi-cian that a group has had some dealings with in the past.

Tucker, Neely. “Campaign Law Case Brings Debate, Crowds.” WashingtonPost, December 5, 2002, p. A4. A major legal showdown over the Bipar-tisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the McCain-Feingold act) is under-way in a Washington, D. C., federal district court. Litigators in the oralarguments include former solicitor general Kenneth Starr (who opposesthe reform law) and Seth Waxman (who supports it). While defenders saythe law addresses the harmful effects of money in politics, opponents be-lieve it is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech (with regard tolimits on “issue ads”) as well as being unlikely to actually accomplish itsobjectives. The Justice Department is defending the law against an arrayof political parties and advocacy groups.

———. “McCain-Feingold Harms Poor, Group Says.” Washington Post, De-cember 6, 2002, p. A5. Attorneys representing the U.S. Public Interest Re-search Group and a group of poor voters argued before a federal districtcourt panel that the new campaign finance law will disenfranchise the poor.This is because the hard money, or direct contribution, limit is being raisedto $2,000. These large contributions can be “bundled” for greater impact,but this will mean that the small contributions that poor people might beable to afford will have comparatively less influence on politicians.

WEB DOCUMENTS

Goodman, Lee E. “Overview of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002: Prepared for the Republican Party of Virginia, December 7, 2002.”Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, 2002. Available online. URL: http://www.wrf.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/Overview_of_BCRA.pdf. An attorney pro-vides a summary of the provisions and impact of the new law with regardto soft money and hard money for national parties and state parties, aswell as the new restrictions on issue ads.

“Is the New Campaign Finance Reform Law Constitutional?” Public Citi-zen. Available online. URL: http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/issues/constitution/articles.cfm?ID=7421. Downloaded on March 13,2003. The reform group Public Citizen argues that the new restrictions


213

on the use of soft money and the banning of sham “issue ads” are consti-tutional and that the courts should view them as necessary and narrowlytailored ways to prevent corporations, unions, and other large contribu-tors from subverting the political process.

Raskin, Jamin B., and John Bonifaz. “The Wealth Primary: CampaignFundraising and the Constitution.” Center for Responsive Politics. Avail-able online. URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/law_wp/wealthindex.htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. An approach to legally challeng-ing the present system of campaign finance as being an undemocratic(and arguably unconstitutional) “wealth primary” that excludes all but thewealthy candidates (or those with wealthy backers).

ELECTORAL REFORM

Voting Rights, Minorities, and Redistricting

This section deals with several closely related legal issues: the right to vote,the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities in the electoral process, and re-districting (reapportionment), particularly when used to promote minorityrepresentation. Note that legal issues relating to Bush v. Gore and the 2000election are also included here because they deal mainly with voting rights.

BOOKS

Ackerman, Bruce A., ed. Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy. NewHaven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002. This varied collection of es-says by legal scholars focuses not on why the Supreme Court decidedBush v. Gore the way it did, but rather on the possible long-term implica-tions for the relationship between the courts and the political process, therule of law, and popular confidence in the justice system.

Bositis, David A., ed. Redistricting and Minority Representation: Learning fromthe Past, Preparing for the Future. Lanham, Md.: University Press of Amer-ica, 1998. Using data from the 1996 elections, the author analyzes thesuccess and failure of black and Hispanic candidates in white majority dis-tricts and what these results have to say about the composition of the dis-tricts. The author suggests ways in which the findings of the 2000 censuscan be used to provide better minority representation in the light ofchanging demographics.

Bugliosi, Vincent. The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Under-mined the Constitution and Chose Our President. New York: Thunder’s


214

Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2001. A veteran prosecutor and author in-dicts the U.S. Supreme Court for its Bush v. Gore decision, accusing themajority of the justices of being unprincipled and ignoring the funda-mental right to vote of millions of Americans. More passionate polemicthan analysis.

Butler, David, and Bruce E. Cain. Congressional Redistricting: Comparativeand Theoretical Perspectives.New York: Macmillan, 1992. The authors sur-vey the development of redistricting practices and discuss the many fac-tors that go into the process today, when the desire to gain partisanadvantage often comes into conflict with the need to improve minorityrepresentation. Congressional redistricting is also compared to state re-districting and to similar practices in other democracies.

Bybee, Keith J. Mistaken Identity: The Supreme Court and the Politics of Mi-nority Representation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998. AHarvard University professor of government argues that defenders ofgroup-based racial considerations in districting and their opponents whofocus on the individual are both guilty of a “mistaken identity.” The mis-take arises from not paying attention to the political identity and interestsof people, which is essential for seeing if they are being fairly represented.The author analyzes competing interpretations of the 1965 Voting RightsAct, including those by a conservative (Abigail Thernstrom) and a liberal(Lani Guinier), as well as Supreme Court decisions since the 1970s.

Canon, David T. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Con-sequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1999. Canon supports the general idea that districts should be drawn togive blacks and other minority groups effective representation. He be-lieves that the best approach is neither the so-called color-blind approachthat denies history and reality nor a rigid group-based politics that resultsin polarization. Rather, he emphasizes a “policy of commonality” inwhich representatives from majority-minority districts who may be race-conscious in dealing with certain issues can also effectively representwhite constituents in many common issues that have nothing in particu-lar to do with race. Canon supports his arguments with extensive statisti-cal data.

Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Elec-toral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution.New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2002. A comprehensive study of changing reapportion-ment practices and their electoral effects. After introducing the historicalbackground, the authors look at the partisan role in redistricting, the im-pact of court cases in the 1960s and beyond involving minority represen-tation, and the relationship between redistricting and the advantages ofincumbency.


215

Davidson, Chandler, and Bernard Grofman. Quiet Revolution in the South.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. Contributors to thiscollection of essays explore the impact of the Voting Rights Act of 1965and show how African-American and Hispanic activists, working with theJustice Department, broke down the barriers to minority voting in theSouth following the passage of the law and through the 1980s. There isalso a discussion of current issues and cases relating to treatment of mi-nority voting rights.

Dionne, E. J., and William Kristol, ed. Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and theCommentary.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2001. This exten-sive, well-balanced collection combines both legal commentary and abroad range of commentary from journalists and opinion columnists.Sources for the commentary include the New York Times, Washington Post,Wall Street Journal, New Republic, Weekly Standard, and National Review.The text of the relevant Florida court decisions as well as that of theSupreme Court is included.

Dover, Edwin D. The Disputed Presidential Election of 2000: A History and Ref-erence Guide. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2003. A collection ofessays on various aspects of the 2000 election debacle. Includes primarysources and a bibliography.

Dworkin, Ronald, ed. A Badly Flawed Election: Debating Bush v. Gore, theSupreme Court, and American Democracy. New York: New Press, 2002. Thiscollection of essays by noted legal scholars analyzes the issues surroundingthe 2000 presidential election and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v.Gore. Contributors Cass R. Sunstein and Richard A. Posner agree that theCourt’s decision had the virtue of avoiding protracted political instability,but only Posner believes that this objective justified what many scholars con-sider to be a legally unsound approach. Other contributors look beyond theelection debacle to consider electoral reforms: Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. sug-gests a modest tinkering with the Electoral College—enough to ensure thata loser in the popular vote cannot win the presidency. Lani Guinier arguesfor more fundamental change through adoption of proportional representa-tion in place of the current single-seat, winner-take-all election format.

Graham, Gene. One Man, One Vote: Baker v. Carr and the American Levelers.Boston: Little, Brown, 1972. The Supreme Court’s embracing of “oneman, one vote” as a primary principle is viewed as the culmination of a re-form movement seeking fundamental democracy, and the social and cul-tural consequences are explored.

Grofman, Bernard, and Chandler Davidson, eds. Controversies in MinorityVoting: The Voting Rights Act in Perspective.Washington, D.C.: BrookingsInstitution, 1992. A collection of essays assessing the impact of the 1965Voting Rights Act on its 25th anniversary. Topics include the history of


216

voting rights legislation, the process by which application of the VotingRights Act has been adjudicated in the courts and implemented by polit-ical leaders and whether the law is still useful and effective.

Grofman, Bernard, Lisa Handley, and Richard G. Niemi. Minority Repre-sentation and the Quest for Voting Equality. New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1992. The authors analyze the effects of the Voting Rights Actof 1965 and subsequent legal cases, then develop a model for determin-ing the extent to which voting in a district is racially polarized and formeasuring “vote dilution” in the light of changing legal standards.

Karlan, Pamela S. “Equal Protection: Bush v. Gore and the Making of aPrecedent.” In Rakove, Jack N., ed. The Unfinished Election of 2000. NewYork: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 159–199. Discusses the history of interpre-tation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as itapplies to the right to vote. The author concludes that Supreme Court’sremedy in Bush v. Gore (stopping the vote-counting process) is inconsis-tent with the Court’s general approach to equal protection cases. For onething, it left uncounted (excluded) more rather than fewer voters.

Keyssar, Alexander. “The Right to Vote and Election 2000.” In Rakove, JackN., ed. The Unfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp.75–102. Recounts the complex history of the right to vote, noting thateven as voting rights were being expanded (such as by removing propertyor taxpaying qualifications), new restrictions were often added, such as lit-eracy tests. Views the problems with voting and counting of votes in the2000 election in the light of this troubling history.

———. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the UnitedStates. New York: Basic Books, 2000. A comprehensive history of thestruggle for universal suffrage in the United States, in the broad contextof the social and economic changes of two centuries. The author suggeststhat contrary to the usual view of steady widening of the electorate, vot-ing rights for many Americans actually contracted from 1850 to 1920. Hesuggests that war has frequently expanded suffrage because of the need tokeep the allegiance of the working class that supported the military, whileclass conflict has often led to attempts to restrict the franchise.

Kousser, J. Morgan. Colorblind Injustice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undo-ing of the Second Reconstruction. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1999. Kousser begins his defense of race-conscious districting bylooking back to the “Second Reconstruction”—the period from theSupreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education to the Voting Rights Act of1965 and decisions that supported effective remedies for the minoritieswho had been discriminated against. He argues that the Supreme Courttook a fateful wrong turn in its 1994 decision Shaw v. Reno and its subse-quent suspicion of the use of race in districting (such as the creation of


217

so-called minority-majority districts that attempt to guarantee that a pro-portional number of minority representatives will be elected). Kousserpassionately argues that the Rehnquist court has ignored history and mis-applied constitutional principles in striking down race-based districts.

Kramer, Larry D. “The Supreme Court in Politics.” In Rakove, Jack N., ed.The Unfinished Election of 2000.New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 105–157.After a detailed analysis of the proceedings in the Florida and U.S. SupremeCourt, the author suggests that the Court’s uncharacteristic behavior in Bushv. Gore ultimately resulted not from a Republican coup to install Bush butfrom an equally problematic attitude by which the Court “deluded them-selves into believing that only they could save us from ourselves.”

Lamis, Alexander P. Southern Politics in the 1990s. Baton Rouge: LouisianaState University Press, 1999. This collection consists of papers by politi-cal science researchers, with chapters devoted to each southern state. To-gether they provide useful background for dealing with issues of votingrights, minority political representation, and reapportionment.

Lawson, Steven F. Black Ballots: Voting Rights in the South, 1944–1969. Lan-ham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2000. Explores the struggle for voting rightsin the South from the end of World War II to the “Second Reconstruc-tion,” epitomized by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The techniques usedby Southern white officials to disenfranchise blacks are described, includ-ing the white primary, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and poll taxes.Gradually, the Civil Rights movement developed legal arguments and po-litical tactics to overcome these barriers.

Lublin, David. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Mi-nority Interests in Congress. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,1997. According to the author, the “paradox of representation” is thatconcentrating minorities into “majority-minority” districts may ensurethe election of more minority representatives, but it may also mean thatmore conservative representatives opposed to the minority politicalagenda will be elected from surrounding districts. Thus, for example,more black Democrats may go to Congress, but Republicans may becomemore likely to gain control of that body. Lublin seeks to find a balance be-tween the objectives of minority representation and the election of a leg-islature that is more liberal overall. He suggests that drawing up districtswith 40 percent black and Latino constituents is likely to produce betterresults than having districts with 55 percent or more minorities.

Monmonier, Mark S. Bushmanders and Bullwinkles: How Politicians Manipu-late Electronic Maps and Census Data to Win Elections. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 2001. The ability of the party in power to control thedecennial redrawing of districts is crucial to either making competitivechallenges to the opposing party possible or defending one’s own incum-


218

bents. The author, a cartographer, criticizes the way both parties manip-ulate electoral maps to gain partisan advantage. This process can producestrange bedfellows: In 1991, the administration of George H. W. Bushaligned with minority activists to encourage the drawing-up of more mi-nority-majority districts. The result was that more minority politicianswere assured of election, while the concentration of the minority voters(who vote overwhelmingly Democratic) into a few districts diluted theDemocratic vote in many others, helping the Republicans achieve a ma-jority in the Congress. Many maps are included to help readers visualizethe districting process and electoral outcome.

Posner, Richard. Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution,and the Courts. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001. Posner,a distinguished appellate judge and legal scholar, explores the complexi-ties of election law and practice that had been uncovered by the Floridadeadlock in 2000. Posner argues that while both Gore’s and Bush’s legalpositions were reasonable, the scholarly “postgame analysis” largelymissed the practical considerations that guided the Supreme Court inmaking its controversial decision. In addition to critiquing the judges andlawyers who tried the case at the local, state, and federal levels, Posnersuggests modest reforms designed to prevent another close election fromending up in the courts.

Rakove, Jack N., ed. The Unfinished Election of 2000.New York: Basic Books,2001. A collection of essays analyzing the significance of the 2000 election,including the political forces that made it so difficult for either party toachieve a majority. Below the surface of the problems with voting and bal-lot processing is the fundamental question of whether the right to vote andaccess to the polls is really assured for all groups. Finally, the SupremeCourt’s decision in Bush v. Gore is criticized from a number of viewpoints.

Rush, Mark E. Does Redistricting Make a Difference? Partisan Representationand Electoral Behavior. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2001. Refutingconventional wisdom, the author argues that analysis of resulting votingpatterns shows that in most cases parties are unable to use redistricting togain lasting electoral advantage. This suggests that the expensive consul-tants and lawyers deployed in intensive partisan redistricting battles arecounterproductive and feed voters’ negative perceptions of the parties.The author argues, however, that redistricting based on race can be ef-fective in improving diversity of representation.

Rush, Mark E., ed. Voting Rights and Redistricting in the United States.West-port, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. This collection of es-says discusses the many controversial cases arising from enforcement ofthe 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was interpreted as requiring that dis-tricting (and redistricting) protect minority voting rights. As a result


219

white and minority voters were often put at odds, while scholars havestruggled to determine the effectiveness of race-based redistricting.

Rush, Mark E., and Richard L. Engstrom. Fair and Effective Representation?:Debating Electoral Reform and Minority Rights. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &Littlefield, 2001. In this debate on how diverse populations can achievefair and effective representation, Engstrom argues for electoral innova-tions such as preference or cumulative voting or a multiple-seat, propor-tional representation system as ways to avoid the endless litigation arisingfrom groups who feel they are at a disadvantage in a winner-take-all elec-tion. Rush critiques Engstrom’s proposals, questioning some of the justi-fications for proportional representation as well as possible negativeeffects of trying to graft a European-style election onto the complicatedorganism that is U.S. constitutional government. There are also excerptsand discussions of nine key Supreme Court voting rights cases.

Sunstein, Cass R., and Richard Alan Epstein, eds. The Vote: Bush, Gore, andthe Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Two dis-tinguished University of Chicago legal scholars bring together theiranalysis of Bush v. Gore and that of a variety of other contributors. Manyof the contributors compare and contrast the votes of various justices inBush v. Gore with those justices’ usual patterns of legal reasoning—point-ing out, for example, that conservative justices who generally profess toabhor “judicial activism” and who might be expected to narrowly con-strue equal protection principles did just the opposite in Bush v. Gore.Thecollection of contributors is well balanced; some argue that the SupremeCourt should not have taken the case at all, while others disagree onwhether the Supreme Court’s decision was motivated by justifiable legalpragmatism or tainted by partisanship.

Swain, Carol M. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Amer-icans in Congress. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. Theauthor approaches the question of minority representation from an inter-esting angle: She looks at members of the Congressional Black Caucus andsympathetic white representatives and correlates them with the constituencyof the districts they represent. She suggests that black interests can some-times be adequately represented by white representatives even in black ma-jority districts, while blacks in districts where they are a minority cansucceed by representing both black and broader interests. Swain argues,however, that blacks in Congress face many problems in balancing interests.

Thernstrom, Abigail. M. Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and MinorityVoting Rights. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. The au-thor asserts that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was badly needed and quiteeffective in giving blacks and other minorities access to the polls, but subse-quent regulations veered onto a wrong track in trying to ensure quotas for


220

minority representation. (An update of this discussion is in chapter 16 ofAbigail and Stephan Thernstrom’s 1999 book America in Black and White.)

ARTICLES

Caraley, Demetrios James. “Editor’s Opinion: Why Americans Need a Con-stitutional Right to Vote for Presidential Electors.” Political Science Quar-terly, Spring 2001, pp. 1–3. The author believes that while the SupremeCourt was technically correct in Bush v. Gore when it said “the individualcitizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for Presi-dent unless and until the state legislature chooses statewide election,” therealities in the wake of the 2000 election require an explicit statement ofvoting rights. The author suggests that electoral votes be retained but theactual electors be eliminated, thus avoiding the danger of electors takingmatters into their own hands.

Greenhouse, Linda. II “Supreme Court Takes Case on Black Voting Dis-tricts.” New York Times, January 18, 2003, p. 12. In response to the VotingRights Act of 1965, minority activists have promoted the creation of “max-black” or “majority-minority” districts. With concentrated numbers ofblacks and other minorities, such districts could ensure the election of mi-nority representatives to state legislations. Republicans often joined withthe activists because concentrating minorities (who usually vote Democra-tic) meant that the other districts were more likely to be won by Republi-can candidates. In recent years, white and black Democrats have tried toreverse some of this minority concentration in order to give the party bet-ter electoral chances. However, a federal district court in Georgia ruled thatshrinking the large black majorities to slightly less than 50 percent violatedthe Voting Rights Act. Now the case will be heard by an apparently reluc-tant U.S. Supreme Court. In an ironic twist, Democrats are taking a states’rights position while Republicans are backing race-based districting. (TheSupreme Court in 2003 ruled that the Democrats’ plan did not impermis-sibly dilute minority voting strength.)

“How to Rig an Election: Congressional Redistricting.” The Economist (U.S.).April 27, 2002, p. 29. Increasingly in America, representatives choose theirvoters, rather than the other way around. Both partisan and race considera-tions lead to a wave of redistricting after each 10-year census, and the re-drawn districts can be bizarrely shaped. For example, in Illinois twoHispanic areas on either side of a black district are joined by a sort of um-bilical cord to form a single Hispanic district. Today, thanks to geographicaldatabases available from the government and special software, the party inpower can more reliably redraw districts to suit its political needs. Becauseof this tinkering and the natural advantages of incumbency, fewer Housedistricts than ever are truly competitive, driving down voter interest.


221

McDonald, Laughlin. “The New Poll Tax: Republican-Sponsored Ballot-Security Measures Are Being Used to Keep Minorities from Voting.” TheAmerican Prospect, vol. 13, December 30, 2002, p. 26ff. The author, di-rector of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil LibertiesUnion, argues that the Voting Integrity Initiative announced by the De-partment of Justice is really the latest effort by Republicans to suppressminority voting in the guise of preventing fraud. The Justice Depart-ment’s first action, an intensive investigation of registration of NativeAmericans in South Dakota, raises troubling implications of racial profil-ing. Other examples of alleged voter intimidation by Republicans includethe use of hundreds of “spotters” at the polls in heavily Democraticprecincts in Michigan and challenging the rural route addresses of SouthCarolina voters, many of whom are African American. The use of pictureidentification also discriminates against minorities, who are less likely tohave it, and has not been shown to be effective in reducing fraud.

Puzzanghera, Jim. “Redistricting, Incumbency Lead to NoncompetitiveRaces.” Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, November 1, 2002, p. K7455. Usually, redistricting results in some challenges for incum-bents who find new voters in their districts and lose some of their cur-rent supporters. In the redistricting following the 2000 census, however,Democratic and Republican leaders in California opted to protect in-cumbents rather than to improve their competitive chances. As a result,California congressional districts are less competitive than ever. Exam-ples of specific races are included.

Rosenbaum, David E. “Supreme Court Takes Up Redistricting Case inMississippi.” New York Times, December 11, 2002, p. A28. Amid chargesthat the Justice Department under President Bush is using the VotingRights Act to reject or manipulate districts drawn by Democrats, theSupreme Court heard arguments about a disputed Mississippi congres-sional district. The Court’s questions were procedural and did not dealwith the larger Voting Rights Act issues.

Tam Cho, Wendy K., and Albert H. Yoon. “Strange Bedfellows: Politics,Courts, and Statistics; Statistical Expert Testimony in Voting RightsCases.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 10, Spring 2001, p. 237ff. Expert witnesses frequently duel in court over the use of sta-tistical techniques for redrawing districts to comply with Voting RightsAct mandates. To defend the creation of a majority-minority district,proponents must show that a relevant minority group is geographicallycompact and has political cohesion (tends to vote as a group) and thatthe majority white population also tends to vote as a bloc. These show-ings depend crucially on the statistical methods or models used, andjudges have only limited qualifications in this area. Two possible ways ofsolving this problem are to create a special panel of experts to advise the


222

courts or to create specialized courts for dealing with this and other sci-entific issues.

WEB DOCUMENTS

“Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States.” The SentencingProject. Available online. URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/brief/pub1046.pdf. Downloaded on March 13, 2002. Summarizes the state lawsthat disenfranchise (deny the right to vote) convicted felons at various stagessuch as while incarcerated (all but two states) and while on parole (33 states).Describes the impact in terms of numbers permanently or temporarily dis-enfranchised, as well as the disparate impact on African Americans.

“Redistricting Case Summaries.” National Conference of State Legisla-tures. Available online. URL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/redistrict/casesumm.htm. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. Summarizesdozens of redistricting cases, including Supreme Court decisions in the1990s, early 2000s, and pending cases.

“Redistricting Data.” United States Census Bureau. Available online. URL:http://www.census.gov/clo/www/redistricting.html. Updated on March19, 2002. Contains 2000 census data in spreadsheet form, mainly relatingto racial proportions, to be used for redistricting.

“Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election.”United States Commission on Civil Rights. URL: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm. Posted on June 2001. After investiga-tion and hearing testimony at public hearings, the commission concludedthat violations of the Voting Rights Act had occurred during the electionin Florida. While the report did not find that election officials deliber-ately sought to disenfranchise voters, it did find that certain actions (orinactions) by officials and others did in effect deny some citizens their fullvoting rights. In particular, African Americans had a disproportionateshare of their ballots “spoiled” or rejected for various reasons.

Term Limits

This section covers the debate over term limits, including legality and effects.

BOOKS

Benjamin, Gerald, and Michael J. Malbin, ed. Limiting Legislative Terms.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1992. The volume begins by laying out thebasic issues involving term limits. Contributors then look at the underlying


223

political theory, the history of term limits campaigns, and the long-termoutcomes of this reform. Appendices include material on retention rates forlegislators and the actual text of representative term limit measures.

Carey, John M., Richard G. Niemi, and Lynda W. Powell. Term Limits inState Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. A de-tailed study of the effects of limiting the terms of state legislators, basedon a survey of 3,000 state legislators in 1995 and in-depth interviews with22 leading legislators in states that have term limits. Effects studied in-clude changes in the “professionalization” of legislators, changes in indi-vidual and institutional behavior, and effects on the overall electoralprocess. Results of the study suggest that term limits have not signifi-cantly changed the composition of state legislatures but do reduce theamount of focus by legislators on securing legislative “pork” for theirconstituents. There may also be a long-term shift in power from legisla-tors to professional staff and possibly to state governors.

Coyne, and James K., and John H. Fund. Cleaning House: America’s Cam-paign for Term Limits. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1992. Theauthors begin their argument for congressional term limits by giving ex-amples of how unlimited terms in office make representatives too cozywith special interests and not responsive enough to ordinary constituents.They then defend term limits on legal grounds and rebut common ob-jections to the reform.

Farmer, Rick. The Test of Time: Coping with Legislative Term Limits. Lanham,Md.: Lexington Books, 2002. A collection of 15 articles, including in-depth case studies of term limits in California, Michigan, Maine, and Col-orado. The studies and articles measure and assess the effects of state termlimit legislation, including on the linkages between legislators and lobby-ists, the competitiveness of election races, and the representation of vari-ous groups, including women. In general, the contributors find a numberof problematic consequences to this well-intended reform. There is also acomprehensive annotated bibliography and a historical overview.

Kamber, Victor. Giving Up on Democracy: Why Term Limits Are Bad for Amer-ica.Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1995. The author argues that term lim-its amount to an admission of defeat for democracy and that removingexperienced legislators would make the system less, not more, responsiveto constituents’ needs. Campaign finance reform and greater citizen par-ticipation, not term limits, is the real solution.

Will, George F. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Recovery of Delib-erative Democracy. New York: Free Press, 1992. The author begins his ar-gument for term limits by giving anecdotes showing how congressionalrepresentatives have become self-serving, careerist seekers of “pork”rather than the kind of deliberative legislators envisaged by the framers ofAmerica’s political system. Will relates this to the growth of big, intrusive


224

government and believes that Congress can be “restored” to its importantbut limited functions by having legislators with limited terms who retaintheir ties to the larger community.

ARTICLES

Edwards, Catherine. “The Promise of Term Limits.” Insight on the News,vol. 15, June 28, 1999, p. 46. An overview of the debate on term limits anddevelopments in the 1990s, with a focus on voluntary term limit pledges.A study by the National Taxpayers’ Union found that self-limited legisla-tors spend about one-third as much taxpayers’ money than do their “un-limited” colleagues. A group called the Citizen Legislators’ Caucus(CLC) has been formed to help legislators keep voluntary term limitpledges and to ease their transition after leaving office.

Elhauge, Einer. “What Term Limits Do That Ordinary Voting Cannot.”Cato Institute Policy Analysis, No. 328, December 16, 1998. Also availableonline. URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa328.pdf. The author ar-gues that elections alone are ineffective for removing entrenched office-holders, because voters are afraid of the loss of local “clout” involved inreplacing a senior legislator with a new one. Voters’ “rational” behaviorthus puts them in conflict with whatever support they might have forterm limits. But to the extent that term limits can be enacted widely, theywould overcome the cost of voting out entrenched legislators and puteveryone on a more level playing field.

Hicks, Jonathan P. “Seats in Albany Beckon Ex-Officeholders.” New YorkTimes, June 9, 2002, p. 44ff. Not surprisingly, politicians who have been“termed out” often look for ways to continue their political career. In thiscase, many New York City politicians are taking advantage of redistrict-ing in the state legislature to vie for seats there.

Lynch, Michael W. “Exit Interviews.” Reason, vol. 32, October 2000, p. 39. Aretrospective on the term-limits movement and its effects. The SupremeCourt overturned congressional term limits in 1995, but 18 states have en-acted term limits for their own legislators. In 2000, 380 state legislators willbe “termed out” and have to seek a different position. The author interviewsa selection of these individuals and asks them about issues and their careers.

Wilson, Ethan. “The Legislative Shuffle.” Washington Monthly, vol. 32, Sep-tember 2000, p. 39. As a case study, the Ohio state legislature suggeststhat term limits are likely to have a deleterious effect on legislation andpublic life. Some legislators have left early to take advantage of attractivejob opportunities, depriving the legislature of its most experienced mem-bers. With the term limit clock ticking, new legislators feel pressured to“make their mark” quickly, perhaps with ill-considered legislation. Mean-


225

while, incumbents are likely to face fewer challenges while serving theirallotted limit of terms. This is because challenging an incumbent is diffi-cult and expensive, and it may make more sense for a would-be challengerto wait until the incumbent has been “termed out.”

WEB DOCUMENTS

“State Gubernatorial Term Limits.” U.S. Term Limits, Inc., 2003. Availableonline. URL: http://termlimits.org/Current_Info/State_TL/ gubernatorial.html. Updated on February 13, 2003. Lists term limits for governors bystate, including the year the law took effect and the percentage of voterswho voted to enact it.

“State Legislative Term Limits.” U.S. Term Limits, Inc., 2002. Availableonline. URL: http://termlimits.org/Current_Info/State_TL/index.html.Updated on February 6, 2002. Lists legislative term limits by state, in-cluding the length of term, the year the law took effect and the percent-age of voters who voted to enact it.

“Term Limits & Frequent Rotation in Office: Historical Background.” Ore-gon Term Limits. Available online. URL: http://www.oregontermlimits.org/background.html. Downloaded on March 10, 2003. This page offershistorical background, cartoons, and quotations relating to the fight overterm limits in Oregon as well as the issue in general.

Buckley, James. “Corruption, Campaign Finance, and Term Limits.” CATOPolicy Report. March/April 2000. Also available online. URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v22n2/buckley.html. Posted in 2000.The author, a federal appellate judge and former U.S. senator, was the leadplaintiff in the famous Buckley v. Valeo case, in which the Supreme Courtoverturned campaign spending limits. Buckley points out that the cam-paign reform debate is interesting in that it does not divide along tradi-tional liberal/conservative lines but rather sets political “insiders” andreformers against libertarians. He suggests that besides being constitution-ally problematic, campaign finance reform misses the larger point that “thecurrency of corruption in elective office is not money, but votes.” Tradingvotes for policy is inevitable in a democracy and that often subordinatespublic interest to special interests. Buckley argues that only term limits caneffectively control this inherent flaw in the political system.

Voting Procedures and Problems

This section deals with voter registration and what goes on at the pollingplace. Issues covered include problems with voting and counting votes and


226

the use of new voting technology. Relevant events of the 2000 election inFlorida are included.

BOOKS

Gritzalis, Dimitris, ed. Secure Electronic Voting.New York: Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 2002. A collection of articles on current and proposed elec-tronic and Internet-based voting systems. Developing such systems willrequire the meeting of high standards for reliability, accuracy, privacy,and resistance to fraud or tampering. Designers of electronic voting sys-tems must also take into account the legal framework for elections andthe possible social impact of new technology. Three case studies of actualelectronic voting systems are included.

Lane, Janet B., ed. Voter Registration. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Pub-lishers, 2002. The contributors discuss issues relating to voter registra-tion using data from elections in the second half of the 20th century.Topics include the relationship between voter registration and turnoutand voter registration by state and party affiliation.

Montjoy, Robert S. Innovations in Election Administration: Mail Voter Regis-tration Programs. Collingdale, Pa.: DIANE Publishing Company, 1994.Describes the operation and considerations (such as prevention of fraud)for mail-in voter registration systems now used in about half the states.

National Commission on Federal Election Reform. To Assure Pride and Con-fidence in the Electoral Process: Report of the National Commission on FederalElection Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002.Following the 2000 presidential election, a commission was formed underthe sponsorship of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center for PublicAffairs and the Century Foundation to investigate problems with electionadministration and to recommend reforms. The recommendations of thecommission, whose chairpersons included former presidents JimmyCarter and Gerald Ford, include making voter registration and vote-counting standards uniform in each state, ensuring voting rights and ac-cess to the polls for all citizens, establishing standards for accuracy ofvoting equipment, and restraining the media from projecting election re-sults while the polls are still open.

ARTICLES

Barstow, David, and Don Van Natta, Jr. “Examining the Vote: How BushTook Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote.” New York Times, July15, 2001, p. 1ff. According to a six-month-long New York Times investi-gation, the decisive factor in Bush’s strategy to capture Florida’s electoral


227

votes (and the presidency) lay in a stream of absentee votes coming infrom overseas Republican-leaning voters. The Bush campaign mounted alegal and public-relations offensive to have these votes counted, includinghundreds that were invalid under election laws because they had missingor improper postmarks or lacked signatures. Ironically, the many differ-ent standards used to count these votes violated the equal protection prin-ciples for which Bush’s lawyers were arguing in the courts. It is uncertainwhether discarding all the questionable absentee votes would have madeGore the winner.

Becker, Ted, and Deborah M. Phillips. “Symposium.” Insight on the News,vol. 17, June 25, 2001, p. 40. A debate between Becker, political scienceprofessor at Auburn University in Alabama and a proponent of electronicvoting, and Phillips, founder of the Voting Integrity Project, who opposesthis technology. While acknowledging that there are legitimate concernsabout fraud, election security, and the “digital divide” disadvantaging vot-ers, Becker believes that these concerns are used as window dressing forthe real agenda of the “political class”—keeping ordinary people fromrocking the electoral boat and challenging the comfortable power struc-ture. He points out that in its limited trials (such as in the Arizona De-mocratic primary) electronic voting has not had problems and that thetraditional systems have their share of flaws and vulnerabilities as well.Phillips counters that electronic voting will not solve voter fraud prob-lems or necessarily enfranchise more voters. She cites the conclusion of aconsortium of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Cali-fornia Institute of Technology that studied the matter and concluded thatemphasis should be placed on voter education and poll-worker trainingrather than on new voting technology. Further, electronic technology islikely to lack means of independent verification of both registration andvoting, leading to many possibilities for abuse.

Canedy, Dana. “Florida Official Criticized amid Familiar Election Chaos.”New York Times, January 25, 2003, p. A12. Broward County, Florida, su-pervisor of elections Miriam M. Oliphant has had a rough few monthsfollowing widespread problems with voting equipment and proceduresduring the November 2000 election, and her office is now well over bud-get. There were so many problems that Florida officials have decided topostpone voting on a number of state referendums. Some of Oliphant’ssupporters (she is a black Democrat) have accused critics of racism.

Guinier, Lani. “Fiasco 2000 Shows Need for Overhaul to Reach Fair Rep-resentation.” Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, December 20, 2000, p.K6171. The author, an electoral reform advocate, argues that the Floridaelection debacle revealed deep, underlying problems not only with thetechnology of voting but also with the electoral system itself. Many black


228

voters were disenfranchised because their counties used the oldest, leastreliable voting technology. Technology to verify registration of voterswho had moved was slow or unavailable, leading to thousands beingturned away at the polls. About 400,000 people (many of them black)were stripped of their right to vote because they had been convicted of afelony, even though they had served their time. Further, many nameswere erroneously included on lists of ineligible felons. Besides the needto reform voting procedures and equipment, structural reform such asproportional representation should be used to give all voters a moremeaningful say in their governance.

Hicks, Jonathan P. “Survey Finds Poll Workers Often Misinformed VotersLast Election.” New York Times, January 21, 2003, p. B3. Reports that asurvey by the New York Public Interest Group has found little improve-ment in the accuracy of instructions given by poll workers in New YorkCity elections, nor in their ability to correctly follow procedures intendedto assist voters.

Keating, Dan. “Fla. Vote Uncovers a Problem: Overwhelmed Poll Work-ers.” Washington Post, September 14, 2002, p. A6. Reports that in the 2002primary election, Florida’s poll workers were unable to cope with com-plicated new rules and procedures that had been adopted in the wake ofthe 2000 presidential election. Some of the poll workers, who are mainlyelderly volunteers, never showed up at all. As a result, many precinctsopened late and vote counts were delayed.

Keyssar, Alex. “Reform and an Evolving Electorate.” New York Times, Au-gust 5, 2001, Section 4, p. 13. In this Op-Ed article, the author takes thereport by the National Commission on Federal Election Reform (led byformer presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) to task. He believe thereport is naive in treating the many things that happened to Florida vot-ers (including being forced to use antiquated equipment and not havingvotes properly counted) as merely accidental rather than reflecting strate-gies intended to disenfranchise black and poor voters. This resistance todemocracy has many historical antecedents, particularly in the South.

Rutenberg, Jim. “Joint Service for Exit Polls Is in Danger of Dissolution.”New York Times, December 30, 2002, p. C1. Most major television net-works as well as the Associated Press are ending their relationship withthe Voter News Service, the polling organization that was responsible forproblems with exit polls in the 2000 presidential election. In particular,faulty data for Florida led the networks to prematurely “call” the electionfor Gore. Republicans claim that this may have cost Bush much of hiswinning margin.

Seelye, Katharine Q. “The 2002 Elections: The Pitfalls; In Florida, Police(and Millions of Dollars) Avert Calamity.” New York Times, November 6,


229

2002, p. B8. In the presidential election of 2000 and again in the Sep-tember 2002 primary, there were massive problems with many pollingplaces in Florida. Florida officials were determined to not have a repeatdisaster in the November 2002 general election, so they put thousands ofpolice to work helping to train poll workers and secure ballots (althoughthey did not enter the polls themselves). This time they were successful,but at an as yet unknown (but undoubtedly high) cost. Meanwhile, therewere scattered voting problems in other parts of the country, includingmalfunctioning touch-screen voting machines in Georgia.

Vilbig, Peter. “Debugging the Ballot.” New York Times Upfront, vol. 135, No-vember 1, 2002, p. 14ff. Despite reform efforts following the 2000 election,many first-time voters (including many young people) will face confusingballots and voting procedures. Indeed, the September 11, 2002, primary inFlorida experienced another rash of voting problems as machines brokedown and the number of staff available proved inadequate. Voters shouldbe sure they are registered and prepare themselves by studying the sampleballot they receive before the election. The article also includes a summaryof the major types of voting systems in use in the United States.

WEB DOCUMENTS

Adler, Jim. “Internet Voting Primer.” VoteHere.net, 2002. Available on-line. URL: http://www.votehere.net/ada_compliant/ourtechnology/whitepapers/primer.html. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. This paperintroduces Internet voting, discussing the criteria needed for a satisfac-tory system. These include screening out ineligible voters, preventingvoters from voting more than once, protecting voters’ privacy, “sound-ness” (preventing tampering or making it evident), verifiability of results,and the ability of voters to change their mind (within a limited time).

Adler, Jim. “Internet Voting Security.” VoteHere.net. Available online. URL:h t t p : / /www.vo t ehe r e . n e t / ad a_comp l i an t /ou r t e chno logy /technicaldocs/security.html. Posted in January 2000. Describes the neces-sity of balancing two conflicting issues in designing Internet voting sys-tems: ballot secrecy and election integrity. Secrecy requires removingidentifying information from the electronic ballot, but once the informa-tion has been removed, it may be impossible to verify that the votes havenot been tampered with. Describes the system used by VoteHere.net,which provides secret but secure voting by using certain cryptographicprinciples and by providing for distributed trust (in which no one person orinstitution has the sole ability to authenticate the vote).

Arent, Lindsey. “Vote in Your Underwear.” Wired News. Available online.URL: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32266,00.html. Posted


230

on November 2, 1999. Describes Internet voting technology that is al-ready being tried out for mock elections. Also describes how voters areincreasingly getting information about candidates online and how candi-dates are reaching out to voters via the Internet.

Burke, Lynn. “The Tangled Web of E-Voting.” Wired News. Available on-line. URL: http://www.wired.com/new/politics/0,1283,37050,00.html.Posted on June 26, 2000. Reports on the efforts of companies such asElection.com (which ran the first Internet election primary in Arizona),VoteHere.net, and eBallot.net. The companies are trying to become cer-tified (like makers of conventional voting equipment), but the results ofthe Arizona election and various straw polls show that electronic votingsystems still have numerous kinks to be ironed out.

“Citizens’ Guide to Voting Equipment.” Center for Voting and Democracy.Available online. URL: http://www.fairvote.org/administration/index.html. Posted in October 2002. Includes discussion and links to FEC stan-dards for voting equipment and attempts to improve voting equipment inthe aftermath of the 2000 Florida election. The Center for Voting andDemocracy has evaluated new voting technologies (including opticalscanners and electronic voting systems) and believes that it can “provideextremely accurate and reliable results.”

“Election Integrity Index.” Administration and Cost of Elections Project.Available online. URL: http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/ei. Up-dated on November 18, 2000. Describes many aspects of integrity in elec-tions. Divided into four main topics: integrity in election administration,integrity in participation, monitors of election integrity, and enforcementof election integrity.

“Motor Voter Act.” League of Women Voters. Available online. URL:http://www.motorvoter.com/motorhome.htm. Downloaded on February4, 2003. Introduction and links relating to the National Voter Registra-tion Act of 1993, commonly called the “Motor Voter Act.” The site re-ports that the law has had considerable impact on increasing voterregistration, particularly among young people.

“States Call for Voting Reforms.” About.com.2001. Available online.URL: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa021401a.htm. Re-ports on recommendations issued on February 6, 2001, by the ElectionStandards Task Force of the National Association of Secretaries ofState. In all, they recommended 12 different state reforms and four tobe implemented by Congress. Recommendations include promotingstandards for voting systems, enforcing antidiscrimination policies toensure access to the polls for all (including the disabled and overseasvoters), modernizing voting equipment and procedures, providing uni-form standards for both vote counting and for handling election


231

challenges and recounts, improving training for election officials, andexpanding voter education.

“What Do You Want to Know about the Florida Vote Count.” Available on-line. URL: http://www.geocities.com/floridavotecount. Downloaded onFebruary 4, 2003. A well-balanced site that attempts to answer manyquestions about the Florida election debacle including the vote count andlegal strategies of the two sides. The site includes questions and answersand links to short pieces on various topics. The explanations appear to beclear and unbiased, however the author does not identify him or herself.

Alternative Electoral Systems

The final section of this bibliography deals with the ultimate ground rulesof elections, including the debate over the Electoral College and proposedalternative electoral systems such as instant runoff, cumulative, or prefer-ence voting, and proportional representation.

BOOKS

Amy, Douglas. Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems.Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2000. Most Americans have not considered al-ternatives to the usual voting system—plurality voting, where the candi-date with the most votes wins, or majority systems, where if a candidatedoes not get more than 50 percent of votes, a runoff election between thetop two candidates is held. The author explains a variety of systems usedin other democracies. These include proportional representation inwhich seats are awarded to parties in proportion to their vote, and sys-tems in which the voter lists candidates in order of preference and thesecondary preferences are used to resolve elections in which there is nomajority. The relationship between voting systems and the dominance ofthe two-party system is also explored.

Barber, Kathleen L. A Right of Representation: Proportional Election Systems forthe Twenty-first Century. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2000.The author surveys the development of various forms of proportionalrepresentation (PR) and single transferable vote (STV) systems. Such sys-tems were used by a number of cities in the Progressive era, earlier in the20th century, but now have largely been abandoned. She argues that suchsystems were eventually rejected not because of inherent flaws, but be-cause of opposition by various political interests. Arguing that recent po-litical and legal thinking has extended the right to vote to a “right to


232

representation,” the author asserts that proportional representation is thenext logical step in implementing that right.

Best, Judith. The Choice of the People? Debating the Electoral College. Lanham,Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996. The author surveys the history of thedebate over the Electoral College and then defends the institution by ar-guing that it reflects the balance between state and national interest in thedesign of the federal system itself. Thus, if the Electoral College is obso-lete, so would be the Senate. Using the Electoral College also promotesstability and avoids splintering of parties.

Bullock, Charles S., III, and Loch K. Johnson. Runoff Elections in the UnitedStates. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992. A discus-sion of the little-studied problem of whether the runoff election (as op-posed to, for example, electing by plurality) is the fairest way of decidingamong multiple substantial candidates. One problem discussed, calledCondorcet’s Paradox, represents a situation in which the winner is deter-mined not by absolute preference but by the ordering of the votingprocess. The relationship between the two-party system, runoffs, andracial minorities is also considered.

Cox, Gary W. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Elec-toral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. The authorstudies various electoral systems (such as single-seat and multiple-seatdistricts and single elections versus runoff systems) using a game theoreticanalysis of constituents’ “strategic voting” interests. The data is drawnfrom 77 democracies throughout the world.

Dummett, Michael. Principles of Electoral Reform. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1997. The author uses criteria to analyze and evaluate compet-ing proposals for electoral reform, including proportional representation,the single transferable vote, and multimember districts. He argues that oneneed not hold to the “constituency principle” in which all representativesin a legislature represent specific constituencies that elected them.

Guinier, Lani. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Represen-tative Democracy. New York: Free Press, 1994. When Lani Guinier wasnominated for assistant attorney general by the President Clinton in1993, opponents branded her a “quota queen” and an extremist primarilybecause she advocated a new cumulative voting system in which the abil-ity of a voter to cast multiple votes for multiple candidates could help en-sure minority representation. In this collection of papers, Guinier givesthe justifications for such a voting system and explains how it might work.

Hardaway, Robert M. The Electoral College and the Constitution: The Case forPreserving Federalism. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994. As indicated bythe title, this author (like Judith Best) believes that the case for the Elec-toral College is essentially the case for federalism itself, and he believes


233

that federalism still serves an important function today. The author doessupport modest electoral reforms that preserve the federalist principle.

Hill, Steven. Fixing Elections: The Failure of America’s Winner Take All Politics.New York: Routledge, 2002. This provocative book suggests that the rootof many U.S. political problems is the winner-take-all nature of U.S. leg-islative elections. Because there is only one seat to be won in a given race,only the two entrenched major parties have a realistic chance of winningit—and in many areas where one party dominates, people with differingviews have no voice at all. The winner-take-all system also promotes nega-tive campaigning at the expense of serious engagement with the issues. Theauthor suggests that multiseat elections with proportional representationand possibly cumulative preference voting would give many more voters astake in the political process. This would increase election turnout, providefor a more representative government and strengthen democracy.

Rakove, Jack N. “The E-College in the E-Age.” In Rakove, Jack N., ed. TheUnfinished Election of 2000. New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 201–251.Argues that the “federalist” (state-oriented) justification for retention ofthe Electoral College no longer has relevance to the way voters think anddecide about electing a president (if it ever did). Rakove evaluates threepossible reforms: assigning electors by congressional district, assigningelectors proportional to a statewide vote, and abolishing the ElectoralCollege entirely in favor of a straightforward national popular vote.

Richie, Robert, and Steven Hill. Reflecting All of Us: The Case for ProportionalRepresentation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999. The authors, associated withthe Center for Voting and Democracy, argue that the traditional Americanwinner-take-all elections discourage voter participation because peoplewith minority views have no hope of influencing policy. Proportional rep-resentation, as found in many European democracies, would give voices toa much greater variety of interests. It would also avoid the contentious po-litical and legal battles over reapportionment, since minority groups wouldhave potential representation equal to their proportion in the population.A number of invited commentators then respond to the authors’ argument.

Rule, Wilma, and Joseph F. Zimmermann, eds. United States Electoral Sys-tems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities. Westport, Conn.: PraegerPublishers, 1992. A collection of studies that explore how the choice ofdifferent electoral systems (such as cumulative voting or multimemberdistricts) might affect the ability of women and minorities to be elected tooffice. The book includes recommendations for making the electoral sys-tem more inclusive, representative and responsive.

Schumaker, Paul D., and Budett A. Loomis, eds. Choosing a President: TheElectoral College and Beyond.New York: Chatham House, 2002. One resultof the near deadlock in the 2000 presidential election was a renewed in-


234

terest in reforming or replacing the Electoral College as the means ofelecting the president. This volume offers background on the ElectoralCollege as well as evaluation of six different possible reforms. Each alter-native is explored in terms of fundamental fairness and social values aswell as possible impact on other aspects of electoral politics such as fed-eralism, campaign strategy, and the role of the political parties.

ARTICLES

“Amarillo Adopts Cumulative Voting.” The New Rules Journal, Spring 2001,p. 2. Reports that the Amarillo, Texas, school board, which had not electeda minority member for more than 20 years, elected an African Americanand a Latina member after adopting a form of cumulative voting. In thissystem, each voter has as many votes as there are seats to be decided, andthe voter can cast more than one of his or her votes for a given candidate.This allows voters who strongly want a candidate to be elected to “weight”the vote for that candidate. One effect is the ability of minority voters toimprove their chances of having at least some representation.

Amy, Douglas. “Proportional Representation: A New Option for LocalElections.” National Civic Review, vol. 82, Summer, p. 275ff. The authorintroduces proportional representation (PR) as a fairer and more respon-sive way to conduct municipal elections. He shows how various versionsof PR would work and how they would give voters more and betterchoices. The cumulative result would give minorities representationwhile reflecting the interest of the majority. It would also eliminate con-tentious redistricting battles and gerrymandering. The author also re-sponds to common criticisms of PR.

“Electoral College: Anachronism or Bulwark of Democracy?” CongressionalDigest, vol. 80, January 2001, n.p. This entire issue of Congressional Digestfocuses on the formerly obscure Electoral College and the debate overwhether it should be modified or even replaced. The issue includes anoverview of the Electoral College (including which states bind their elec-tors by law to vote for their pledged candidate) and a summary of themain arguments for and against the Electoral College. Opponents of theinstitution point out that it can lead to a president who actually receiveda minority of the popular vote and that it is arbitrary and undemocratic.Supporters argues that the Electoral College can actually help protect re-gional and minority interests and that it reflects the federal system, withits separate spheres for states and the national government.

Guterman, Lila. “When Votes Don’t Add Up: Mathematical Theory Re-veals Problems in Election Procedures.” The Chronicle of Higher Education,vol. 47, November 3, 2000, p. A 18ff. Also available online at http://


235

chronicle.com/free/v47/i10/10a01801.htm. According to mathemati-cians, if there are more than two candidates in an election, the candidateconsidered acceptable by the largest percentage of the population can ac-tually lose because of votes for minor candidates. One intriguing alterna-tive is “approval voting,” where the voter can vote for any and allcandidates that are considered acceptable. This would ensure both thatvoters could safely support minor candidates and that the winner actuallyhas the approval of a majority of the voters. A weighted preference votecalled the Borda Count (where a first place vote for a candidate might beworth 5 points, second place 4 points, and so on) might give even betterresults.

Klarreich, Erica. “Election Selection: Are We Using the Wrong Proce-dure?” Science News, vol. 162, November 2, 2002, p. 280ff. There aremany alternative electoral procedures that would allow voters to expressmore than just their single top choice. These include preference, or “in-stant runoff ” voting and approval voting, in which a voter may vote foras many of a pool of candidates as he or she wants. The standard plural-ity system works fine when there are only two candidates, but when thereare many candidates the winner may actually be supported only by a mi-nority of the voters. According to “Arrow’s Theorem,” no voting proce-dure can guarantee that if candidate A is preferred by everyone overcandidate B, the presence of a candidate C (or D) will not sometimes leadto B winning despite the preference for A. However, systems such as pref-erence or instant runoff voting have the best chance of honoring the ma-jority of voters’ preferences.

Lind, Michael. “Alice Doesn’t Vote Here Anymore.” Mother Jones, April/May 1998, p. 52ff. Available online. URL: http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA98/lind.html. An amusing critique of the current single-member plurality electoral system via an “explanation” of it to a bemusedAlice. Along the way, the reader learns about the idea of proportional rep-resentation, which is portrayed as being much more rational.

WEB DOCUMENTS

Amy, Douglas. “Common Criticisms of PR and Responses to Them.” PR Li-brary: Department of Politics, Mount Holyoke College. Available online.URL:http : / /www.mtholyoke .edu/acad/pol i t /damy/art ic les/common_criticisms_of_pr.htm. Downloaded on February 4, 2003. An ex-pert on electoral systems reviews 11 criticisms of proportional representa-tion (PR) and offers refutations. He concludes that the advantages of PRcompared to the current single-seat majority or plurality systems outweighthe relatively minor drawbacks.


236

———. “Instant Runoff Voting: No Substitute for Proportional Represen-tation.” Mount Holyoke College Politics Program. Available online.URL: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm.Downloaded on February 4, 2003. The author, an advocate of propor-tional representation (PR), distinguishes it from the currently popular in-stant runoff voting (IRV) system. IRV does have important advantagesover the plurality system for single-office elections (such as for mayor orgovernor) where it ensures that the winner reflects a majority preferenceand eliminates the role of minor candidates as “spoilers.” However, forlegislative elections IRV would still be a single-winner system and wouldnot provide representation for minority interests as would proportionalrepresentation with multimember districts. Advocates of IRV might actu-ally hurt the cause of reform if they lead to the adoption of that systemfor legislative as well as executive offices.

Bonsor, Kevin. “How E-Voting Will Work.” HowStuffWorks. Available on-line. URL: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/e-voting.htm. Downloadedon March 13, 2003. The author shows how e-voting systems work, using atouch-screen system as an example. E-voting is compared with several tra-ditional voting systems and its advantages and possible risks are discussed.

Holcombe, Randall G. “Origins of the Electoral College.” Ludwig vonMises Institute. Available online. URL: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=545. Posted on November 9, 2000. The author explains thatthe Electoral College was based not on democracy but on “republican”principles intended to limit the power of the majority and thus the powerof government. The changing role of the electors (who gradually losttheir status as independent agents) is traced through the 19th century.Public attitudes toward (and criticism of) this institution mirror thegrowth of democracy (and direct democracy) as political ideals.

“Instant Runoff Voting.” Center for Voting and Democracy. Available on-line. URL: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html. Updated on January15, 2003. Explains the system of instant runoff voting, in which votersrank candidates and second choices are used to determine the winner ifno candidate wins an initial majority. The site includes fact sheets, fre-quently asked questions, and PowerPoint and animated demonstrationsof this voting system.

Kimport, Ky. “Approval Voting,” personal website. Available online. URL:http://idhop.cjb.net/av. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. The author de-scribes a system in which each voter can indicate approval of as many ofthe candidates as he or she wishes, and argues that the system is superiorto majority voting because voters can vote their preferences without hav-ing to “vote strategically”—the winner reflects broad approval. The valueof targeting particular candidates (negative campaigning) is minimized.


237

Lanphier, Rob. “A Case for Condorcet’s Method,” personal website. Avail-able online. URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics/condorcet-explain.html. Downloaded on March 13, 2003. Describes and justifies anunusual voting method in which voters’ ranked preferences are used tosimulate all possible two-way elections among the candidates, and thewinner is the one who wins all relevant two-way pairings. The result is ef-fectively the “compromise candidate” who arguably best represents thewishes of the electorate.

“Proportional Representation (PR).” Center for Voting and Democracy.Available online. URL: http://www.fairvote.org/pr/index.html. Updatedon December 23, 2002. Explains the case for proportional representationover winner-take-all voting, provides answers to frequently asked ques-tions, and gives examples of the use of proportional representationaround the world.


238

ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES

Following are listings for selected organizations and agencies involved withelectoral regulation and reform. Government agencies are listed first, thenprivate advocacy and research groups.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The federal government has several agencies involved with campaign andelection regulation as well as voter rights and assistance.

239

CHAPTER 8

Department of CommerceU.S. Census BureauURL: http://www.census.govE-mail: [email protected]: (301) 457-4100 or

(301) 457-4608Washington, DC 20233-0900Although not directly involved withelections, the U.S. Census Bureauprovides the data used for reappor-tioning congressional districts andstate legislative districts every 10years. For information about thisfunction of the census, see the pageat http://www.census.gov/clo/www/redistricting.html.

Department of JusticeCivil Rights Division

Voting SectionURL: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/

votingPhone: (800) 253-3931 or

(202) 307-2767Room 7254—NWBDepartment of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530The Voting Section of the CivilRights Division of the Departmentof Justice is charged with enforcingthe Voting Rights Act and relatedregulation. It responds to com-plaints of discrimination againstvoters in any election by investiga-tion and, if necessary, sending fed-eral observers. See the web page athttp://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/

misc/faq.htm for answers to fre-quently asked questions about vot-ing rights and the agency’s work.

Federal Election CommissionURL: http://www.fec.govEmail: [email protected]: (800) 424-9530 or

(202) 694-1100999 E Street, NWWashington, DC 20463The Federal Election Commission(FEC) regulates federal (congres-sional and presidential) elections.Its original charter followed thepassage of the Federal ElectionCampaign Act (FECA) and itsamendments in the early 1970s.With the passage of the BipartisanCampaign Reform Act (BCRA) in2002 the FEC has new enforce-ment responsibilities, particularlyin the area of soft money and issueads. The FEC web site includeshelpful links, such as to campaignfinance laws and to the data gath-ered from the required disclosures.This data is available in tabular ordatabase form and is used by manypolitical scientists studying cam-paign finance issues and trends inAmerican politics. The FEC website also contains guides for findingand researching disclosure infor-mation at the state level, including adirectory of state offices that collectcampaign finance data.

Federal Voting AssistanceProgram

URL: http://www.fvap.gov/index.html

E-mail: [email protected]: (800) 438-8683DirectorFederal Voting Assistance

ProgramOffice of the Secretary of

DefenseWashington Headquarters

Services1155 Defense PentagonWashington, DC 20301-1155The Federal Voting Assistance Pro-gram (FVAP) was established to implement the Uniformed andOverseas Citizens Absentee VotingAct of 1986. As the name of the lawsuggests, its purpose is to provideuniform procedures, voter educa-tion, and other support for the sev-eral million voters in the military orotherwise overseas during an elec-tion. The FVAP is under the officeof the secretary of defense and worksclosely with the Defense Depart-ment to support voters in the mili-tary and to implement the NationalVoter Registration Act (NVRA).The FVAP trains voting assistanceofficers throughout the military andarranges for voter registration andmilitary recruiting stations.

STATE ELECTORALAGENCIES

Each state has its own elections of-fice (often as part of the office of thesecretary of state). This office ischarged with overseeing and regu-lating statewide elections. In somestates, the elections office also ad-


240

ministers such campaign finance anddisclosure laws as the state may havepassed. In other states, there is aseparate agency charged with cam-paign finance–related matters. Ofcourse, cities and counties also havetheir own election departments.The following list gives contact

information for election offices inall 50 states. Note that most pro-vide online access to election andcampaign finance reports and/orsearchable databases of candidates,committees, and contributors.

ALABAMA

Office of the Secretary of Stateof Alabama, Elections Division

URL: http://www.sos.state.al.us/election/index.cfm

Email: Web formPhone: (334) 242-7210 or

(800) 274-8683P.O. Box 5616Montgomery, AL 36103-5616The Elections Division providesinformation about contributions tostate election campaigns, lists ofPACs, and a summary and text ofcampaign finance regulations.

ALASKA

Alaska Division of ElectionsURL: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/

Itgov/elections/homepage.htmlE-mail: Elections_Webmaster@

gov.state.ak.usPhone: (907) 465-4611P.O. Box 110017Juneau, AK 99811-0017

The Division of Elections providesbasic information about registra-tion, voting, and elections. Cam-paign finance–related matters areadministered by the Alaska PublicOffices Commission (see above).

Alaska Public OfficesCommission

URL: http://www.state.ak.us/apoc/index.htm

Phone: (907) 276-4176 or (800) 478-4176

Email: [email protected]

2221 East Northern Lights,#128

Anchorage, AK 99508-4149This agency is responsible for en-forcing state laws requiring disclo-sure of campaign and lobbyingactivities, and provides disclosurestatements online. Their web sitealso includes the text of laws and re-lated legal decisions and advisoryopinions.

ARIZONA

Secretary of State, State ofArizona

URL: http://www.sosaz.comE-mail: [email protected]: (602) 542-42851700 West WashingtonSeventh FloorPhoenix, AZ 85007-2888Election-related services are in-cluded within the secretary ofstate’s office rather than in a sepa-rate department. The Election Ser-vices links on the home page

O r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d A g e n c i e s

241

include provisions of state campaignfinance laws, online searching forexpenditure filings for state races(including PACs and other commit-tees), as well as links to informationabout congressional races.

ARKANSAS

Arkansas Ethics CommissionURL: http://www.arkansasethics.

comE-mail: ContactUS@

ArkansasEthics.comPhone: (501) 324-9600P.O. Box 1917Little Rock, AR 72203-4917The Arkansas Ethics Commissionadministers ethics and campaign fi-nance regulations and provides in-formation about rules as well as theability to search for disclosure in-formation.

Arkansas Secretary of StateURL: http://www.sosweb.state.

ar.usE-mail: General_info@sosmail.

state.ar.usPhone: (501) 682-1010State CapitolRoom 256Little Rock, AR 72201The secretary of state’s office pro-vides basic information aboutelections, election districts, andregistration.

CALIFORNIA

California Secretary of State,Elections Division

URL: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm

E-mail: [email protected]: (916) 657-21661500 11th StreetSacramento, CA 95814The Elections Division providesbasic information about elections(including ballot initiatives) andregistration.

California Secretary of State,Political Reform Division

URL: http://www.ss.ca.gov/prd/prd.htm

E-mail: Web formPhone: (916) 653-62241500 11th StreetRoom 495Sacramento, CA 95814The Political Reform Division re-views all required disclosures bycandidates and committees and en-forces applicable regulations. Itmakes all disclosure documentsavailable for public scrutiny.

COLORADO

Colorado Secretary of State,Elections Center

URL: http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/main.htm

E-mail: [email protected]: (303) 894-2200

ext. 6307(303) 894-2200 ext. 6306 (Fair

Campaign PracticesInformation)

1560 BroadwaySuite 200Denver, CO 80202-5169


242

The Elections Center provides in-formation including results of re-cent elections, current campaignfinance laws, listings of registeredlobbyists, and searchable candidatefinancial disclosures.

CONNECTICUT

Connecticut Secretary of State,Election Services Division

URL: http://www.sots.state.ct.us/ElectionsDivision/ElectionIndex.html

E-mail: [email protected]: (860) 509-621230 Trinity StreetHartford, CT 06106Election-related services providedinclude general election informa-tion as well as a link to the state’sCampaign Finance InformationSystem, which can be searched on-line for information about candi-dates, political committees, andindividual contributors.

DELAWARE

State of Delaware,Commissioner of Elections

URL: http://www.state.de.us/election

E-mail: [email protected]: 1 (800) 273-950032 West Loockerman Street,

M101Dover, DE 19904The Delaware election commis-sioner’s office provides completeelection information including on-

line searching of campaign disclo-sure records.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

District of Columbia, Board ofElections and Ethics

URL: http://www.dcboee.orgE-mail: [email protected]: (202) 727-2525441 Fourth Street, NWSuite 250 NWashington, DC 20001This office provides general admin-istration and information aboutelections in the District of Colum-bia. For campaign finance–relatedinformation, see the followingentry.

District of Columbia, Office ofCampaign Finance

URL: http://ocf.dc.gov/index.shtm

2000 14th Street, NWWashington, DC 20009E-mail: Web formPhone: (202) 671-0550The Office of Campaign Financeprovides guidelines for candidatesand committees as well as candidateand committee reports and sum-maries for the public.

FLORIDA

Florida. Department of State,Division of Elections

URL: http://election.dos.state.fl.us

E-mail: [email protected]


243

Phone: (850) 245-6200107 West Gaines StreetThe Collins BuildingRoom 100Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250The Division of Elections providesadministration and enforcement ofelection laws. The searchable cam-paign finance information data-base can be found on the homepage, at the link “Candidates &Committees.”

GEORGIA

Georgia. Secretary of State,Elections Division

URL: http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/default.htm

E-mail: [email protected]: (404) 656-28812 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive,

SESuite 1104West TowerAtlanta, GA 30334-1530The Elections Division is dividedinto four areas: Elections Section,Commissions Section, RegistrationSection, and Campaign DisclosureSection, which provides reportsthat can be viewed or downloadedin PDF format.

HAWAII

State of Hawaii. CampaignSpending Commission

URL: http://www.hawaii.gov/campaign

235 South Beretania StreetRoom 300Honolulu, Hl 96813E-mail [email protected]: (808) 586-0285The Campaign Spending Com-mission enforces state campaignfinance and disclosure laws (in-cluding public funding of cam-paigns) and provides reports aboutcomplying and noncomplyingcandidates and committees.

State of Hawaii, Office ofElections

URL:http://www.state.hi.us/index/elections.htm

E-mail: [email protected]: (808) 453-8683802 Lehua AvenuePearl City, HI 96782The Office of Elections adminis-ters elections and election law, andprovides services to voters andcandidates.

IDAHO

State of Idaho, Secretary ofState, Election Division

URL:http://www.idsos.state.id.us/elect/eleindex.htm


Phone: (208) 334-2300700 West JeffersonRoom 203P.O. Box 83720Boise, ID 83720-0080The Election Division administerselections and provides information


244

for voters and candidates. A search-able database of campaign contri-butions is available online.

ILLINOIS

State of Illinois, Illinois StateBoard of Elections

URL: http://www.elections.state.il.us


Phone: (312) 814-64401020 South Spring StreetP.O. Box 4187Springfield, IL 62708The Board of Elections provideselection services, including en-forcement and reporting of cam-paign finance laws. There are“quick links” online to disclosurereports and a searchable contribu-tions database.

INDIANA

State of Indiana, Secretary ofState, Election Division

URL: http://www.state.in.us/sos/elections.html

E-mail: [email protected]: (317) 232-3939302 West Washington StreetRoom E-204Indianapolis, IN 46204The Elections Division administerselections including campaign fi-nance laws. Its Campaign FinanceManual is available online, as arecandidate and committee spendingreports in PDF format.

IOWA

Iowa Campaign DisclosureBoard

URL: http://www.state.ia.us/government/iecdb/Entry.html

E-mail: NonePhone: (515) 281-4028514 East LocustSuite 104Des Moines, IA 50309-1912The Campaign Disclosure Boardenforces state laws relating to po-litical campaign and lobbying dis-closures. Electronically filed andscanned disclosure reports areavailable online.

State of Iowa, Secretary of StateURL: http://www.sos.state.ia.usE-mail: [email protected]: (515) 281-8993Lucas BuildingFirst Floor321 East 12th StreetDes Moines, IA 50319In Iowa, the secretary of state alsoserves as the commissioner of elec-tions. Links to election-related ser-vices are provided online under thelink “Voter/Elections Center.”

KANSAS

Kansas Governmental EthicsCommission

URL: http://www.accesskansas.org/ethics

E-mail: [email protected] Southwest Ninth AvenueSuite 504Topeka, KS 66612


245

The Governmental Ethics Com-mission is charged with adminis-tering, interpreting, and enforcingthe state’s Campaign Finance Act.It receives required disclosureforms from candidates, commit-tees, individual contributors, andlobbyists and makes them availableonline.

State of Kansas, Secretary ofState, Elections andLegislative Division

URL: http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections.html

E-mail: [email protected]: (785) 296-4559Memorial HallFirst Floor120 Southwest 10th AvenueTopeka, KS 66612-1594The Elections and Legislative Divi-sion of the Kansas secretary ofstate’s office administers state elec-tions and provides general informa-tion for voters.

KENTUCKY

Kentucky Registry of ElectionFinance

URL: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kref/krefhome.htm


Phone:(502) 573-2226140 Walnut StreetFrankfort, KY 40601The Registry of Election Financeadministers state campaign financeand disclosure laws. It providesforms, legal reference information,

and a searchable online database offinancial disclosures.

Kentucky State Board ofElections

URL: http://www.kyelect.com/%5Cindex%5Cmain%5Celecdiv.asp


Phone: (502) 573-7100140 Walnut StreetFrankfort, KY 40601The State Board of Elections ad-ministers elections and provides in-formation for voters and candidates.

LOUISIANA

Louisiana Board of Ethics,Ethics AdministrationProgram, SupervisoryCommittee on CampaignFinance Disclosure

URL: http://www.ethics.state.la.us

E-mail [email protected]

Phone: (225) 763-8777 or (800) 842-6630

2415 Quail DriveThird FloorBaton Rouge, LA 70808The ethics program includes re-sponsibility for enforcing campaignfinance regulations. Disclosure re-ports from candidates, committees,lobbyists, and public officials can beviewed online.

Louisiana Department ofElections and Registration


246

URL: http://www.elections.state.la.us


Phone: (225) 219-9600P.O. Box 4729Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4729The Department of Elections andRegistration administers the elec-toral process and provides informa-tion for voters and candidates.

MAINE

State of Maine, Commission onGovernmental Ethics andElection Practices

URL: http://www.state.me.us/ethics

Phone: (207) 287-4179E-mail: webmaster_ethics@

state.me.us242 State StreetAugusta, ME 84333-0135The Commission on Governmen-tal Ethics and Election Practicesenforces the Maine Clean ElectionsAct, including the system of publiccampaign financing. Campaign fi-nance disclosure data can be viewedthrough the “Maine Campaign Fi-nance Electronic Filing” link.

State of Maine, Department ofthe Secretary of State, Bureauof Corporations, Electionsand Commissions

URL: http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/elec/elec.htm


Phone: (207) 624-7650

Division of Elections andCommissions

101 State House StationAugusta, ME 04333-0101This office is charged with the gen-eral administration of elections, including registration, voting proce-dures, and candidacy filings.

MARYLAND

Maryland State Board ofElections

URL: http://www.elections.state.md.us


Phone: (410) 269-2840P.O. Box 6486Annapolis, MD 21401-0486The board of elections administersboth electoral procedures and thestate campaign finance laws. Cam-paign finance disclosures can besearched and viewed online.

MASSACHUSETTS

Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, Office ofCampaign and PoliticalFinance

URL: http://www.state.ma.us/ocpf

E-mail: [email protected]: (617) 727-8352 or

(800) 462-OCPFJohn W. McCormack BuildingOne Ashburton PlaceRoom 411Boston, MA 02108


247

The Office of Campaign and Polit-ical Finance is an independent stateagency that enforces the state’scampaign finance law and theClean Elections Law. A searchableonline database of campaign fi-nance activity is available.

Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, Secretary ofthe Commonwealth, ElectionsDivision

URL: http://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/eleidx.htm


1 (800) 462-VOTEMcCormack BuildingRoom 1705One Ashburton PlaceBoston, MA 02108The elections office administersstate election laws and proceduresand provides information for votersand candidates.

MICHIGAN

State of Michigan, Secretary ofState

URL:http://www.michigan.gov/sos

E-mail: [email protected]: (517) 373-2540208 North Capitol AvenueFourth FloorLansing, MI 48918-1700Election administration (includingenforcement of campaign financeregulations) is handled within theoffice of the secretary of state.Candidate and lobbyist financial

disclosure information is availableonline.

MINNESOTA

Minnesota Campaign Financeand Public Disclosure Board

URL: http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us

190 Centennial Office Building658 Cedar StreetSt. Paul, MN 55155E-mail: [email protected]: (651) 296-5148;

(800) 657-3889This board administers state politi-cal ethics and campaign financeregulations. Summaries, lists, and asearchable database are availableunder the “For Citizens” link.

Minnesota Secretary of State,Elections Division

URL: http://www.sos.state.mn.usE-mail: secretary.state@state.

mn.usPhone: (877) 600-8683 or

(651) 215-1440180 State Office Building100 Constitution AvenueSt. Paul, MN 55155-1299The Elections Division administerselections and provides informationfor voters and candidates.

MISSISSIPPI

Mississippi Secretary of StateURL: http//www.sos.state.ms.usE-mail: NonePhone: (800) 829-6786 or

(601) 359-1350


248

P.O. Box 136Jackson, MS 39205-0136The secretary of state’s office ad-ministers elections and providesinformation for voters and candi-dates as well as enforcing statecampaign finance laws. Campaignfinance reports are available inPDF format.

MISSOURI

Missouri Ethics CommissionURL: http://www.moethics.

state.mo.usE-mail: [email protected]: (573) 751-2020 or

(800) 392-86603411-A Knipp DriveP.O. Box 1370Jefferson City, MO 65102The Missouri Ethics Commissionis charged with enforcing the state’scampaign finance, officeholder fi-nance, and lobbyist regulations.Disclosures by committees and lob-byists can be searched online.

Missouri Secretary of State,Elections Division

URL: http://www.sos.state.mo.us/elections


Phone: (573) 751-2301P.O. Box 1767Jefferson City, MO 65102The Elections Division administersall statewide elections and ballotinitiatives. It provides informationfor voters and candidates.

MONTANA

Montana Commissioner ofPolitical Practices

URL: http://www2.state.mt.us/cpp/css/default.asp

E-mail: Web formPhone: (406) 444-29421205 Eighth AvenueP.O. Box 202401Capitol StationHelena, MT 59620-2401This office enforces political prac-tices laws including campaignfinance regulations. Disclosure in-formation does not appear onlineas of early 2003.

Montana Secretary of StateURL: http://sos.state.mt.us/css/

index.aspE-mail: [email protected]: (406) 444-4732Room 260Capitol BuildingP.O. Box 202801Helena, MT 59620-2801The secretary of state’s office is re-sponsible for administering state-wide elections and enforcing stateelection laws.

NEBRASKA

Nebraska Accountability andDisclosure Commission

URL http://nadc.nol.orgE-mail: [email protected]: (402) 471-2522State Capitol11th Floor


249

P.O. Box 95086Lincoln, NE 68509This office enforces Nebraska’sstate campaign finance laws. Infor-mation about PACs and candidatecommittees is available. Additionalsearchable information is availablethrough the following URL: http://www.searchsystems.net/list.php?nid=36 (see items beginning with“Campaign Finance”).

Nebraska Secretary of State,Election Administration

URL: http://www.sos.state.ne.usE-mail: [email protected].

usPhone: (402) 471-3229Suite 2300State CapitolLincoln, NE 68509This office administers statewideelections and provides informationfor voters, candidates, and electionofficials.

NEVADA

Nevada Secretary of State,Elections Division

URL: http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/index.htm


Phone: (775) 684-5705101 North Carson StreetSuite 3Carson City, NV 89701The Elections Division adminis-ters elections and enforces elec-tion laws including campaignfinance regulations. Reports and

searchable information are avail-able online, including some for cityelections.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

New Hampshire Secretary ofState, Election Division

URL: http://www.state.nh.us/sos/elections.htm


Phone: (603) 271-3242107 North Main StreetConcord, NH 03301This office administers and pro-vides basic information about stateelections. Expenditure reports forcandidates, committees, and lobby-ists are available online.

NEW JERSEY

New Jersey Department of Lawand Public Safety, Division ofElections

URL: http://www.njelections.orgE-mail: [email protected].

state.nj.usPhone: (609) 292-376025 Market StreetPO Box 304Trenton, NJ 08625-0304This office administers statewideelections and provides basic infor-mation for voters and candidates.

New Jersey Election LawEnforcement Commission

URL: http://www.elec.state.nj.usE-mail: NonePhone: (609) 292-8700


250

P.O. Box 185Trenton, NJ 08625-0185This office enforces election lawsincluding campaign finance and dis-closure rules. Regulations and re-ports can be viewed online andsearched by contributor.

NEW MEXICO

New Mexico Office of theSecretary of State, Bureau ofElections

URL: http://web.state.nm.us/Election/ElectionInfo.htm


Phone: (505) 827-3600 or (800) 477-3632

State Capitol Annex North325 Don GasparSuite 300Santa Fe, NM 87503This office administers statewideelections and provides informationfor voters and candidates. Cam-paign disclosure forms can beviewed online.

NEW YORK

New York State Board ofElections

URL: http://www.elections.state.ny.us


Phone: (518) 474-622040 Steuben StreetAlbany, NY 12207-2109The Board of Elections adminis-ters elections and provides infor-

mation for voters and candidates. Italso provides online access to itsFinancial Disclosure InformationSystem.

NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina State Board ofElections

URL: http://www.sboe.state.nc.us

E-mail: NonePhone: (919) 733-7173P.O. Box 27255Raleigh, NC 27611-7255The Board of Elections administerselections and provides informationfor voters and candidates. Somecampaign finance information isavailable online via the “Data andStatistics/Campaign Finance Re-ports” link.

NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota Secretary ofState, Elections Division

URL: http://www.state.nd.us/sec/Elections/Elections.htm


(800) 352-0867 ext. 8-4146600 East Boulevard AvenueFirst Floor, Department 108Bismarck, ND 58505-0500The Board of Elections adminis-ters elections and provides infor-mation for voters and candidates.Summary reports on campaignfinance disclosures are availableonline.


251

OHIO

Ohio Secretary of StateURL: http://www.state.oh.us/sosE-mail: [email protected]: (614) 466-2585180 East Broad Street16th FloorColumbus, OH 43215The secretary of state’s office ad-ministers elections and provides in-formation, including a searchableonline campaign finance database.

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma State Election BoardURL: http://www.oklaosf.state.

ok.us/~electionsE-mail: [email protected].

ok.usPhone: (405) 521-2391State Capitol BuildingRoom B-6P.O. Box 53156Oklahoma City, OK 73152The State Election Board adminis-ters state elections, overseeingcountry election boards. It providesgeneral information for voters andcandidates.

Oklahoma State EthicsCommission

URL: http://www.ethics.state.ok.us

E-mail: Web linkPhone: (405) 521-49052300 North Lincoln BoulevardRoom 85Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4812The Ethics Commission compilesthe legally required disclosure

forms from candidates and lobby-ists. However, electronic filing iscurrently not required and onlyinformation from candidates whofiled electronically is availableonline.

OREGON

Oregon Secretary of State,Elections Division

URL: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/elechp.htm


141 State CapitolSalem, OR 97310The Elections Division of the sec-retary of state’s office administerselections and provides informationfor voters and candidates, includ-ing disclosure reports and a search-able online campaign financedatabase.

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Department ofState, Bureau of Commissions,Elections, and Legislation

URL:http://www.dos.state.pa.us/bcel/site/default.asp

E-mail:[email protected]: (717) 787-5280210 North Office BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120This office oversees elections andprovides information for voters andcandidates, including a searchableonline campaign finance databasefor statewide candidates.


252

RHODE ISLAND

Rhode Island Board of ElectionsURL:http://www.elections.state.

ri.usE-mail: campaignfinance@

electionsstate.ri.usPhone: (401) 222-4424 (for

campaign finance department)50 Branch AvenueProvidence, RI 02904-2790This office enforces the state’s elec-tion laws, including those relatingto campaign finance. An onlinedatabase for campaign finance re-ports for state elections is available.(Filings for federal candidates inRhode Island are handled by theElections Division of the secretaryof state’s office—see the next entry.)

State of Rhode Island, Secretaryof State, Elections Division

URL:http://www.corps.state.ri.us/ELECTIONS/elections_division.htm

E-mail: [email protected]: (401) 222-2340100 North Main StreetSecond FloorProvidence, RI 02903-1335This office administers electionsand provides information for votersand candidates. It also providescampaign finance disclosure infor-mation for federal candidates andcommittees in Rhode Island.

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina State ElectionCommission

URL:http://www.state.sc.us/scsecE-mail: [email protected].

sc.usPhone: (803) 734-9060P.O. Box 5987Columbia, SC 29250-5987The State Election Commission’sprimary purpose is to manage voterregistration, the preparation of bal-lots, and the electoral process ingeneral.

South Carolina State EthicsCommission

URL:http://www.state.sc.us/ethics

E-mail: NonePhone: (803) 253-41925000 Thurmond MallSuite 250Columbia, SC 29201This office enforces state ethics andcampaign finance regulations. Al-though it has information aboutlaws and guidance for candidates, itdoes not appear to have disclosureinformation available online as ofearly 2003.

SOUTH DAKOTA

South Dakota State Board ofElections

URL:http://www.state.sd.us/sos/Elections%20home%20page.htm

E-mail: [email protected]: (605) 773-3537Capitol Building500 East Capitol AvenueSuite 204Pierre, SD 57501-5070


253

The State Board of Elections ad-ministers elections and provides in-formation including campaignfinance information and reportsummaries online.

TENNESSEE

Tennessee Registry of ElectionFinance

URL:http://www.state.tn.us/tref/contact.htm

E-mail: [email protected]: (615) 741-7959404 James Robertson ParkwaySuite 1614Nashville, TN 37243This office was created to enforcestate laws relating to campaign fi-nance, lobbying, and officeholderconflict of interest. Disclosure in-formation was not available onlineas of early 2003.

Tennessee Secretary of StateDivision of Elections

URL:http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election.htm


Phone: (615) 741-7956312 Eighth Avenue NorthWilliam R. Snodgrass TowerEighth FloorNashville, TN 37243This office coordinates the effortsof the county election boards andprovides uniform materials andguidelines for interpreting stateelection laws.

TEXAS

Texas Ethics CommissionURL: http://www.ethics.state.tx.

usE-mail: Web formPhone: (512) 463-5800 or

(800) 325-8506201 East 14th Street10th FloorP.O. Box 12070Austin, TX 78711-2070This agency enforces the state’scampaign finance laws and providesonline access to disclosure reports.

Texas Secretary of State,Elections Division

URL: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/index.shtml

E-mail: [email protected]: (800) 252-8683P.O. Box 12887Austin, TX 78711-2887This department within the secre-tary of state’s office administerselections and enforces state electionlaws. It also provides general infor-mation for voters and candidates.

UTAH

Utah State Elections OfficeURL: http://elections.utah.govE-mail: [email protected]: (801) 538-1041115 State Capitol BuildingSalt Lake City, UT 84114This office administers state elec-tions and enforces election laws, in-cluding campaign finance laws.


254

Disclosure reports are availableonline.

VERMONT

Vermont Secretary of StateURL: http://vermont-elections.

org/soshome.htmE-mail: [email protected]: (802) 828-2464 or

(800) 439-8683Elections and Campaign

Finance Division26 Terrace StreetMontpelier, VT 05609-1101The secretary of state’s office is re-sponsible for administering elec-tions and enforcing election laws,including campaign finance regula-tions. Disclosure reports for statecandidates and PACs are availableonline.

VIRGINIA

Virginia State Board of Elections

URL: http://www.sbe.state.va.usE-mail: [email protected]: (804) 786-6551 or

(800) 552-9745200 North Ninth StreetSuite 101Richmond, VA 23219-3485The Board of Elections administerselections and enforces electionlaws, including campaign financeregulations. Disclosure reports forstate candidates and committees areavailable online.

WASHINGTON

Washington Secretary of State,Department of Elections

URL: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections


Phone: (360) 902-4180 or (800) 448-4881

520 Union Avenue, SEOlympia, WA 98504-0229This office administers state elec-tions and provides general informa-tion about the electoral process.

Washington State PublicDisclosure Commission

URL: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/default.asp

E-Mail: [email protected] Capital WayRoom 206P.O. Box 40908Olympia, WA 98504-0908Phone (360) 753-1111Fax: (360) 753-1112The Public Disclosure Commissionis charged with enforcing disclosurerequirements for candidates, com-mittees, lobbyists, and officeholders.It provides extensive background in-formation, including a searchabledatabase.

WEST VIRGINIA

West Virginia Secretary ofState, Elections and LicensingDivision

URL: http://www.wvsos.com/elections/main.htm


255

E-mail: [email protected]: (304) 558-6000Building 1Suite 157-K1900 Kanawha Boulevard EastCharleston, WV 25305-0770In West Virginia, the secretary ofstate is responsible for administer-ing elections and enforcing electionlaws, including campaign financeregulations. Campaign finance dis-closures can be searched for andviewed online.

WISCONSIN

Wisconsin State Elections Board

URL: http://elections.state.wi.usE-mail: [email protected]: (608) 266-8005132 East Wilson StreetSuite 200P.O. Box 2973Madison, WI 53701-2973

This office administers state elec-tions and enforces election laws,including campaign finance regula-tions. Summary reports of contri-butions activity are available online.

WYOMING

Wyoming Secretary of State,Election Administration

URL: http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/election.htm

E-mail: [email protected]: (307) 777-7186Capitol BuildingRoom B-38200 West 24th StreetCheyenne, WY 82002-0020This office is responsible for over-seeing state electoral procedures.Limited information about regis-tered lobbyists and PACs is avail-able online. Currently candidatesare not required to file disclosureforms until after the election.


256

ADVOCACY AND RESEARCHORGANIZATIONS

A considerable number of national organizations are devoted to research-ing and/or promoting various forms of campaign finance and electoral re-form. Some of the major ones are listed below. Note that most of theseorganizations favor campaign reform, but several (such as the AmericanCivil Liberties Union) oppose some reform provisions on civil libertariangrounds.In addition to these national organizations, there are a number of state

organizations promoting campaign finance reform, term limits, or electoralreforms such as preference voting or proportional representation. Links tothese organizations can often be found on web sites for national reform or-ganizations.

Alliance for Better CampaignsURL: http://www.

bettercampaigns.orgE-mail: alliance@

bettercampaigns.orgPhone: (202) 659-13001150 17th Street, NWSuite 600Washington, DC 20036This organization promotes bettercampaigns through getting more(and better) information to voters.Their principle goal is to pass lawsthat would provide free broadcasttime for candidates.

American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU)

URL: http://www.aclu.orgE-mail: http://www.aclu.org/

feedback/feedback.cfm (form)125 Broad Street18th FloorNew York, NY 10004The ACLU opposes campaign con-tribution limits as an unconstitu-tional infringement on free speechand supports public funding ofcampaigns as an alternative. Formore information about theACLU’s analysis and litigation re-garding campaign finance laws, seeits web page at http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech-list.cfm?c=20.

Americans for Limited TermsURL: http://www.limitedterms.

orgE-mail: [email protected]: 888-TLIMITS504 East Madison Street

P.O. Box 279Spring Green, WI 53588This education and advocacy organi-zation is working for term limits as away to promote “citizen legislators”as an alternative to “career incum-bency and perpetual electioneering.”

Campaign Finance InformationCenter

URL: http://www.campaignfinance.org

E-mail: [email protected]: (573) 882-2042c/o Investigative Reporters and

EditorsMissouri School of Journalism138 Neff AnnexColumbia, MO 65211This center supports investigativejournalists with seminars, tools andinformation to aid them in report-ing on campaign finance issues. Inturn this will promote voter aware-ness of these issues.

Campaign Finance Institute(CFI)

URL: http://www.cfinst.orgE-mail: [email protected]: (202) 969-88901990 M Street, NWSuite 380Washington, DC 20036The CFI is a nonpartisan, nonprofitresearch institute affiliated withGeorge Washington University. Itperforms research on topics relatingto campaign finance reform, pub-lishes books and articles, and makespolicy recommendations.


257

Cato InstituteURL: http://www.cato.orgPhone: (202) 842-02001000 Massachusetts Avenue,

NWWashington, DC 20001-5403This libertarian think tank pro-motes limited government, freemarkets, and individual liberty. Itopposes regulation of campaigncontributions and spending, exceptfor disclosure. See http://www.cato.org/research/crg/finance.html forthe organization’s news and viewson campaign finance–related issues.

Center for Public IntegrityURL: http://www.

publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp

Phone: 202-466-1300910 17th Street, NWSeventh FloorWashington, DC 20006The center develops high-qualityinvestigative journalism to promotea better-informed citizenry andmore accountable government. Itdraws its contributors from morethan 80 investigative reportersworking in more than 40 countries.

Center for Responsive PoliticsURL: http://www.opensecrets.

orgE-mail: [email protected]: (202) 857-00441101 14th Street NWSuite 1030Washington, DC 20005-5635This nonpartisan, nonprofit orga-nization researches and tracks the

flow of money in politics and its ef-fect on elections and public policy.It carries out extensive statistical re-search that is made available to aca-demics, activists, and the media.

Center for Voting andDemocracy

URL: http://www.fairvote.orgE-mail: [email protected]: (301) 270-46166930 Carroll AvenueSuite 610Takoma Park, MD 20912This nonprofit organization “isdedicated to fair elections whereevery vote counts and all voters arerepresented.” It promotes this ob-jective through research, analysis,education and advocacy.

Common CauseURL: http://www.commoncause.

orgPhone: (202) 833-1200 or

1 (800) 926-10641250 Connecticut Avenue, NWSuite 600Washington, DC 20036This large grassroots organization(with more than 200,000 members)calls itself a “nonprofit, nonparti-san citizen’s lobbying organizationpromoting open, honest, and ac-countable government.” Campaignreform plays an important part inthe organization’s broad progressivereform agenda. The “Soft MoneyLaundromat” on the CommonCause web site provides an accessi-ble way to search for large politicalcontributors by name and industry.


258

ElectionReform.orgURL: http://www.electionreform.

org/ERMainE-mail: [email protected]/o Chris McGrath1600 Wilson BoulevardSuite 800Arlington, VA 22209This organization promotes elec-toral reform, including ElectoralCollege reform, instant runoff vot-ing, Internet voting, and access bysmaller parties to the ballot and topresidential debates.

Institute for Global EthicsProject on Campaign ConductURL: http://www.

campaignconduct.orgE-mail: mailto:info@

campaignconduct.orgPhone: (207) 236-6658P.O. Box 563Camden, ME 04843-0563This project promotes voluntarycodes of campaign ethics in whichcandidates would renounce the useof attack ads and other negativecampaign tactics.

National Association ofSecretaries of State

URL: http://www.nass.orgE-mail: [email protected]: (202) 624-3525Hall of States444 North Capitol Street, NWSuite 401Washington, DC 20001The secretary of state of each stateis generally in charge of election

administration and regulation. Thissite provides links to cooperate ef-forts for voter education and elec-tion reform being undertaken bystate governments.

National Civic LeagueURL: http://www.ncl.org/about/

contact.htmlE-mail: [email protected]: (303) 571-43431445 Market StreetSuite 300Denver, CO 80202The National Civic League wasfounded in 1894 to improve munic-ipal government. Today its NewPolitics Program continues to pro-mote political reform, includinglocal campaign finance legislation.The league produces numerouspublications, such as model citycharters and plans for improvinglocal government.

National Voting Rights Institute(NVRI)

URL: http://www.nvri.org/contact/index.shtml

E-mail: [email protected]: (617) 368-9100One Bromfield StreetThird FloorBoston, MA 02108The National Voting Rights Insti-tute promotes campaign finance re-form as the latest stage in thestruggle to secure meaningful vot-ing rights for all citizens. It pursuesits agenda through public educationand litigation.


259

Project Vote SmartURL: http://www.vote-smart.orgE-mail: comments@vote-smart.

orgPhone: 1 (888) 868-3762One Common GroundPhilipsburg, MT 59838Project Vote Smart is dedicated toproviding accurate informationabout candidates and issues in anonprofit, nonpartisan effort. Foreach election cycle it publishes the“Voter’s Self Defense Manual,” list-ing key votes and special interestgroup ratings for each member ofCongress. The 2002 edition isavailable for download at http://www.vote-smart.org/index.phtml.

Public CampaignURL: http://www.publicampaign.

org

E-mail: [email protected]: (202) 293-02221320 19th Street, NWSuite M-1Washington, DC 20036This is a nonprofit, nonpartisan or-ganization that advocates and edu-cates for campaign reform. Theybuild coalitions with other organiza-tions and develop educational kits.

U.S. Term LimitsURL: http://www.termlimits.orgE-mail: [email protected]: (800) 733-6440 or

(202) 379-300010 G Street, NESuite 410Washington, DC 20002This organization promotes termlimits at the state, local and con-gressional levels.


260

PART III

APPENDICES

STATISTICS RELATED TO

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

The following charts, which are based on Federal Election Commission(FEC) statistics, show some important trends in campaign contributionsthrough the 2000 presidential election. Updates can be expected around2004.

263

APPENDIX A

TOTAL PARTY FUND-RAISING

As seen in the following chart, both major parties about doubled theirtotal fund-raising between the 1991–92 and 1999–2000 presidential elec-tion cycles, but the Republicans raised substantially more funds than didthe Democrats.


264

Tota

ls in

Mill

ion

s

0

300

600

900

1200

$1,500

1999–2000 20011997–981995–961993–941991–92

Democrats

Republicans

Total

Source: Federal Election Commission. “Campaign Finance Reports and Data.” URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softglance.asp and http://www.fec.gov/finance_reports.html.

Year

TOTAL PARTY FUND-RAISING, 1991–2001

THE GROWTH IN POLITICAL ACTIONCOMMITTEES (PACS)

The following chart summarizes the growth in different types of politicalaction committees from 1977 through 1998. Clearly, PACs became an in-creasingly important vehicle for many kinds of organizations and intereststo contribute to political campaigns.

A p p e n d i x A

265

Nu

mb

er

of

PA

Cs

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

Corporate

Trade/Membership/Health

Labor

Nonconnected

Corporate without stock

Cooperative

400

200

0

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Source: Federal Election Commission. “PAC Count: 1977 to Present.” URL: http://www.fec.gov/press/paccnt_grph.html.

Year

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACS) COUNT, 1977–1998

SOFT AND HARD MONEY

In the 1990s, “soft money” contributions (contributions not subject to fed-eral regulations under the Federal Election Campaign Act) became an in-creasingly large component of fund-raising for both major parties.

SOFT MONEY FUND-RAISING

The following chart shows the amounts of soft money raised by the twomajor parties from 1991 to 2001. The amount raised is higher in presiden-tial than in midterm elections, but has generally been increasing in both.Note that in the 1999–2000 cycle the Democrats had become about equalto the Republicans in their ability to raise soft money.


266

Tota

ls in

Mill

ion

s

1999–2000 20011997–981995–961993–941991–920

100

200

300

400

$500

Democrats

Republicans

Total


Year

SOFT MONEY FUND-RAISING, 1991–2001

RATIO OF SOFT MONEY TO HARD MONEY

As the following chart shows, the percentage (proportion) of party fundsconsisting of soft money increased steadily through the 1990s. Note that ingeneral, Democrats are more dependent on soft money, and Republicansraise more hard money.

A p p e n d i x A

267

Perc

en

t

1999–2000 20011997–981995–961993–941991–920

10

20

30

40

50

60%

Democrats

Republicans

Total


Year

PROPORTION OF PARTY FUNDS

RAISED FROM SOFT MONEY, 1991–2001

BUCKLEY V. VALEO (1976)

Following are excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions in thislandmark case, which limited the ability of Congress to regulate campaignfinance. These excerpts focus on the First Amendment issues involved inregulating campaign contributions and expenditures, since these are themost controversial parts of the decision and the most relevant to the ongo-ing debate over campaign finance reform. Footnotes and many case cita-tions have been omitted for space.

U.S. SUPREME COURT

BUCKLEY V. VALEO, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

424 U.S. 1BUCKLEY ET AL. v. VALEO, SECRETARY OF

THE UNITED STATES SENATE, ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.No. 75-436.

Argued November 10, 1975.Decided January 30, 1976.

PER CURIAM

These appeals present constitutional challenges to the key provisions of theFederal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (Act), and related provisions of theInternal Revenue Code of 1954, all as amended in 1974. . . .

In this Court, appellants argue that the Court of Appeals failed to givethis legislation the critical scrutiny demanded under accepted First Amend-ment and equal protection principles. In appellants’ view, limiting the use of

268

APPENDIX B

money for political purposes constitutes a restriction on communication vi-olative of the First Amendment, since virtually all meaningful political com-munications in the modern setting involve the expenditure of money . . .

I. CONTRIBUTION ANDEXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS

The intricate statutory scheme adopted by Congress to regulate federalelection campaigns includes restrictions on political contributions and ex-penditures that apply broadly to all phases of and all participants in the elec-tion process. The major contribution and expenditure limitations in the Actprohibit individuals from contributing more than $25,000 in a single year ormore than $1,000 to any single candidate for an election campaign and fromspending more than $1,000 a year “relative to a clearly identified candi-date.” Other provisions restrict a candidate’s use of personal and family re-sources in his campaign and limit the overall amount that can be spent by acandidate in campaigning for federal office.

The constitutional power of Congress to regulate federal elections is wellestablished and is not questioned by any of the parties in this case. Thus, thecritical questions presented here go not to the basic power of Congress tolegislate in this area, but to whether the specific legislation that Congresshas enacted interferes with First Amendment freedoms or invidiously dis-criminates against nonincumbent candidates and minor parties in contra-vention of the Fifth Amendment.

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of themost fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issuesand debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operationof the system of government established by our Constitution. The FirstAmendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression inorder “to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing aboutof political and social changes desired by the people.” . . .

The First Amendment protects political association as well as politicalexpression. The constitutional right of association explicated in NAACP v.

Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958), stemmed from the Court’s recognitionthat “[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particu-larly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association.” Sub-sequent decisions have made clear that the First and FourteenthAmendments guarantee “‘freedom to associate with others for the common

A p p e n d i x B

269

advancement of political beliefs and ideas,’” a freedom that encompasses“‘[t]he right to associate with the political party of one’s choice.’”

It is with these principles in mind that we consider the primary con-tentions of the parties with respect to the Act’s limitations upon the givingand spending of money in political campaigns. Those conflicting con-tentions could not more sharply define the basic issues before us. Appelleescontend that what the Act regulates is conduct, and that its effect on speechand association is incidental at most. Appellants respond that contributionsand expenditures are at the very core of political speech, and that the Act’slimitations thus constitute restraints on First Amendment liberty that areboth gross and direct.

In upholding the constitutional validity of the Act’s contribution and ex-penditure provisions on the ground that those provisions should be viewedas regulating conduct, not speech, the Court of Appeals relied upon United

States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). . . . The O’Brien case involved a de-fendant’s claim that the First Amendment prohibited his prosecution forburning his draft card because his act was “‘symbolic speech’” engaged in asa “‘demonstration against the war and against the draft.’” On the assump-tion that “the alleged communicative element in O’Brien’s conduct [was]sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment,” the Court sustained theconviction because it found “a sufficiently important governmental interestin regulating the non-speech element” that was “unrelated to the suppres-sion of free expression” and that had an “incidental restriction on allegedFirst Amendment freedoms . . . no greater than [was] essential to the fur-therance of that interest.”

We cannot share the view that the present Act’s contribution and expen-diture limitations are comparable to the restrictions on conduct upheld inO’Brien. The expenditure of money simply cannot be equated with suchconduct as destruction of a draft card. Some forms of communication madepossible by the giving and spending of money involve speech alone, someinvolve conduct primarily, and some involve a combination of the two. Yetthis Court has never suggested that the dependence of a communication onthe expenditure of money operates itself to introduce a non speech elementor to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment . . .

Nor can the Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations be sustained,as some of the parties suggest, by reference to the constitutional principlesreflected in [previous decisions.] Those cases stand for the proposition thatthe government may adopt reasonable time, place, and manner regulations,which do not discriminate among speakers or ideas, in order to further animportant governmental interest unrelated to the restriction of communi-cation. . . . The critical difference between this case and those time, place,and manner cases is that the present Act’s contribution and expenditure lim-


270

itations impose direct quantity restrictions on political communication andassociation by persons, groups, candidates, and political parties in additionto any reasonable time, place, and manner regulations otherwise imposed.

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend onpolitical communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantityof expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth oftheir exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because vir-tually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requiresthe expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill orleaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and ralliesgenerally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’sincreasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for newsand information has made these expensive modes of communication indis-pensable instruments of effective political speech.

The expenditure limitations contained in the Act represent substantialrather than merely theoretical restraints on the quantity and diversity of po-litical speech. The $1,000 ceiling on spending “relative to a clearly identi-fied candidate,” 18 U.S.C. 608 (e) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), would appear toexclude all citizens and groups except candidates, political parties, and theinstitutional press from any significant use of the most effective modes ofcommunication. Although the Act’s limitations on expenditures by cam-paign organizations and political parties provide substantially greater roomfor discussion and debate, they would have required restrictions in the scopeof a number of past congressional and Presidential campaigns and wouldoperate to constrain campaigning by candidates who raise sums in excess ofthe spending ceiling.

By contrast with a limitation upon expenditures for political expression,a limitation upon the amount that any one person or group may contributeto a candidate or political committee entails only a marginal restrictionupon the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication. A contri-bution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and hisviews, but does not communicate the underlying basis for the support. . . .While contributions may result in political expression if spent by a candi-date or an association to present views to the voters, the transformation ofcontributions political debate involves speech by someone other than thecontributor . . .

The overall effect of the Act’s contribution ceilings is merely to requirecandidates and political committees to raise funds from a greater number ofpersons and to compel people who would otherwise contribute amountsgreater than the statutory limits to expend such funds on direct political ex-pression, rather than to reduce the total amount of money potentially avail-able to promote political expression.

A p p e n d i x B

271

The Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations also impinge on pro-tected associational freedoms. Making a contribution, like joining a politi-cal party, serves to affiliate a person with a candidate. In addition, it enableslike-minded persons to pool their resources in furtherance of common po-litical goals. The Act’s contribution ceilings thus limit one important meansof associating with a candidate or committee, but leave the contributor freeto become a member of any political association and to assist personally inthe association’s efforts on behalf of candidates. And the Act’s contributionlimitations permit associations and candidates to aggregate large sums ofmoney to promote effective advocacy. By contrast, the Act’s $1,000 limita-tion on independent expenditures “relative to a clearly identified candidate”precludes most associations from effectively amplifying the voice of theiradherents, the original basis for the recognition of First Amendment pro-tection of the freedom of association. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. . . .

In sum, although the Act’s contribution and expenditure limitationsboth implicate fundamental First Amendment interests, its expenditureceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected free-doms of political expression and association than do its limitations on fi-nancial contributions.

B. CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS

1. The $1,000 Limitation on Contributions by Individuals and Groups toCandidates and Authorized Campaign CommitteesAppellants contend that the $1,000 contribution ceiling unjustifiably bur-dens First Amendment freedoms, employs overbroad dollar limits, and dis-criminates against candidates opposing incumbent officeholders and againstminor-party candidates in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We addresseach of these claims of invalidity in turn.

(A)

As the general discussion in Part I-A, supra, indicated, the primary FirstAmendment problem raised by the Act’s contribution limitations is their re-striction of one aspect of the contributor’s freedom of political association.The Court’s decisions involving associational freedoms establish that theright of association is a “basic constitutional freedom,” that is “closely alliedto freedom of speech and a right which, like free speech, lies at the founda-tion of a free society.” . . . In view of the fundamental nature of the right toassociate, governmental “action which may have the effect of curtailing thefreedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” Yet, it is clear that“[n]either the right to associate nor the right to participate in political ac-


272

tivities is absolute.” CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 567 (1973). Evena “‘significant interference’ with protected rights of political association”may be sustained if the State demonstrates a sufficiently important interestand employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of asso-ciational freedoms.

Appellees argue that the Act’s restrictions on large campaign contribu-tions are justified by three governmental interests. According to the partiesand amici, the primary interest served by the limitations and, indeed, by theAct as a whole, is the prevention of corruption and the appearance of cor-ruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large finan-cial contributions on candidates’ positions and on their actions if elected tooffice. Two “ancillary” interests underlying the Act are also allegedly fur-thered by the $1,000 limits on contributions. First, the limits serve to mutethe voices of affluent persons and groups in the election process and therebyto equalize the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elec-tions. Second, it is argued, the ceilings may to some extent act as a brake onthe skyrocketing cost of political campaigns and thereby serve to open thepolitical system more widely to candidates without access to sources of largeamounts of money.

It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act’s primary purpose—to limit theactuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual fi-nancial contributions—in order to find a constitutionally sufficient justifica-tion for the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of privatefinancing of elections, a candidate lacking immense personal or familywealth must depend on financial contributions from others to provide theresources necessary to conduct a successful campaign. The increasing im-portance of the communications media and sophisticated mass-mailing andpolling operations to effective campaigning make the raising of large sumsof money an ever more essential ingredient of an effective candidacy. To theextent that large contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quofrom current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of rep-resentative democracy is undermined. Although the scope of such perni-cious practices can never be reliably ascertained, the deeply disturbingexamples surfacing after the 1972 election demonstrate that the problem isnot an illusory one.

Of almost equal concern as the danger of actual quid pro quo arrange-ments is the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from publicawareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large indi-vidual financial contributions. . . . Congress could legitimately concludethat the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence “is also criti-cal . . . if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to beeroded to a disastrous extent.”

A p p e n d i x B

273

Appellants contend that the contribution limitations must be invalidatedbecause bribery laws and narrowly drawn disclosure requirements constitutea less restrictive means of dealing with “proven and suspected quid pro quoarrangements.” But laws making criminal the giving and taking of bribes dealwith only the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to in-fluence governmental action. And while disclosure requirements serve themany salutary purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress wassurely entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial measure, andthat contribution ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to dealwith the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permittingunlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contribu-tors and the amounts of their contributions are fully disclosed.

The Act’s $1,000 contribution limitation focuses precisely on the prob-lem of large campaign contributions—the narrow aspect of political associ-ation where the actuality and potential for corruption have beenidentified—while leaving persons free to engage in independent political ex-pression, to associate actively through volunteering their services, and to as-sist to a limited but nonetheless substantial extent in supporting candidatesand committees with financial resources. Significantly, the Act’s contribu-tion limitations in themselves do not undermine to any material degree thepotential for robust and effective discussion of candidates and campaign is-sues by individual citizens, associations, the institutional press, candidates,and political parties.

We find that, under the rigorous standard of review established by ourprior decisions, the weighty interests served by restricting the size of financialcontributions to political candidates are sufficient to justify the limited effectupon First Amendment freedoms caused by the $1,000 contribution ceiling.

(C)

Apart from these First Amendment concerns, appellants argue that the con-tribution limitations work such an invidious discrimination between incum-bents and challengers that the statutory provisions must be declaredunconstitutional on their face. In considering this contention, it is importantat the outset to note that the Act applies the same limitations on contribu-tions to all candidates regardless of their present occupations, ideologicalviews, or party affiliations. Absent record evidence of invidious discrimina-tion against challengers as a class, a court should generally be hesitant to in-validate legislation which on its face imposes evenhanded restrictions. . . .

There is no such evidence to support the claim that the contribution lim-itations in themselves discriminate against major-party challengers to in-cumbents. Challengers can and often do defeat incumbents in federal


274

elections. Major-party challengers in federal elections are usually men andwomen who are well known and influential in their community or State.Often such challengers are themselves incumbents in important local, state,or federal offices. . . .

The charge of discrimination against minor-party and independent candi-dates is more troubling, but the record provides no basis for concluding thatthe Act invidiously disadvantages such candidates. As noted above, the Act onits face treats all candidates equally with regard to contribution limitations.And the restriction would appear to benefit minor-party and independentcandidates relative to their major-party opponents because major-party can-didates receive far more money in large contributions. Although there is someforce to appellants’ response that minor-party candidates are primarily con-cerned with their ability to amass the resources necessary to reach the elec-torate rather than with their funding position relative to their major-partyopponents, the record is virtually devoid of support for the claim that the$1,000 contribution limitation will have a serious effect on the initiation andscope of minor-party and independent candidacies. Moreover, any attempt toexclude minor parties and independents en masse from the Act’s contributionlimitations overlooks the fact that minor-party candidates may win electiveoffice or have a substantial impact on the outcome of an election.

In view of these considerations, we conclude that the impact of the Act’s$1,000 contribution limitation on major-party challengers and on minor-party candidates does not render the provision unconstitutional on its face.

2. THE $5,000 LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS BY

POLITICAL COMMITTEES

. . . Appellants argue that these qualifications unconstitutionally discrimi-nate against ad hoc organizations in favor of established interest groups andimpermissibly burden free association. The argument is without merit.Rather than undermining freedom of association, the basic provision en-hances the opportunity of bona fide groups to participate in the electionprocess, and the registration, contribution, and candidate conditions servethe permissible purpose of preventing individuals from evading the applic-able contribution limitations by labeling themselves committees. . . .

4. THE $25,000 LIMITATION ON TOTAL

CONTRIBUTIONS DURING ANY CALENDAR YEAR

In addition to the $1,000 limitation on the nonexempt contributions that anindividual may make to a particular candidate for any single election, theAct contains an overall $25,000 limitation on total contributions by an

A p p e n d i x B

275

individual during any calendar year. . . . The overall $25,000 ceiling doesimpose an ultimate restriction upon the number of candidates and commit-tees with which an individual may associate himself by means of financialsupport. But this quite modest restraint upon protected political activityserves to prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limitation by a personwho might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particularcandidate through the use of unearmarked contributions to political com-mittees likely to contribute to that candidate, or huge contributions to thecandidate’s political party. . . .

C. EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS . . .1. THE $1,000 LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES

“RELATIVE TO A CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CANDIDATE”

The plain effect of [this provision] is to prohibit all individuals, who are nei-ther candidates nor owners of institutional press facilities, and all groups,except political parties and campaign organizations, from voicing theirviews “relative to a clearly identified candidate” through means that entailaggregate expenditures of more than $1,000 during a calendar year. Theprovision, for example, would make it a federal criminal offense for a per-son or association to place a single one-quarter page advertisement “relativeto a clearly identified candidate” in a major metropolitan newspaper.

Before examining the interests advanced in support of [this] expenditureceiling, consideration must be given to appellants’ contention that the pro-vision is unconstitutionally vague. . . .

The key operative language of the provision limits “any expenditure . . .relative to a clearly identified candidate.” Although “expenditure,” “clearlyidentified,” and “candidate” are defined in the Act, there is no definitionclarifying what expenditures are “relative to” a candidate. The use of so in-definite a phrase as “relative to” a candidate fails to clearly mark the bound-ary between permissible and impermissible speech, unless other portions ofmake sufficiently explicit the range of expenditures covered by the limita-tion. The section prohibits “any expenditure . . . relative to a clearly identi-fied candidate during a calendar year which, when added to all otherexpenditures . . . advocating the election or defeat of such candidate, ex-ceeds $1,000.” This context clearly permits, if indeed it does not require,the phrase “relative to” a candidate to be read to mean “advocating the elec-tion or defeat of ” a candidate. . . .

The constitutional deficiencies . . . can be avoided only by reading [it] aslimited to communications that include explicit words of advocacy of elec-tion or defeat of a candidate . . . We agree that in order to preserve the pro-vision against invalidation on vagueness grounds, [these provisions] must be


276

construed to apply only to expenditures for communications that in expressterms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate forfederal office.

We turn then to the basic First Amendment question—whether [theseprovisions], even as thus narrowly and explicitly construed, impermissiblyburdens the constitutional right of free expression. The Court of Appealssummarily held the provision constitutionally valid on the ground that “[it]is a loophole-closing provision only” that is necessary to prevent circum-vention of the contribution limitations. We cannot agree.

The [earlier] discussion . . . , explains why the Act’s expenditure limita-tions impose far greater restraints on the freedom of speech and associationthan do its contribution limitations. The markedly greater burden on basicfreedoms caused by [this provision] thus cannot be sustained simply by in-voking the interest in maximizing the effectiveness of the less intrusive con-tribution limitations. Rather, the constitutionality of [this provision] turnson whether the governmental interests advanced in its support satisfy theexacting scrutiny applicable to limitations on core First Amendment rightsof political expression.

We find that the governmental interest in preventing corruption and theappearance of corruption is inadequate to justify [the] ceiling on indepen-dent expenditures. . . . Unlike the contribution limitations’ total ban on thegiving of large amounts of money to candidates, [this provision] preventsonly some large expenditures. So long as persons and groups eschew ex-penditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearlyidentified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promotethe candidate and his views. The exacting interpretation of the statutorylanguage necessary to avoid unconstitutional vagueness thus underminesthe limitation’s effectiveness as a loophole-closing provision by facilitatingcircumvention by those seeking to exert improper influence upon a candi-date or office-holder. It would naively underestimate the ingenuity and re-sourcefulness of persons and groups desiring to buy influence to believe thatthey would have much difficulty devising expenditures that skirted the re-striction on express advocacy of election or defeat but nevertheless bene-fited the candidate’s campaign. . . .

Second, quite apart from the shortcomings of [the provision] in prevent-ing any abuses generated by large independent expenditures, the indepen-dent advocacy restricted by the provision does not presently appear to posedangers of real or apparent corruption comparable to those identified withlarge campaign contributions. . . . Unlike contributions, such independentexpenditures may well provide little assistance to the candidate’s campaignand indeed may prove counterproductive. The absence of prearrangementand coordination of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent not only

A p p e n d i x B

277

undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate, but also alleviatesthe danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for impropercommitments from the candidate. Rather than preventing circumvention ofthe contribution limitations, [this provision] severely restricts all indepen-dent advocacy despite its substantially diminished potential for abuse.

While the independent expenditure ceiling thus fails to serve any sub-stantial governmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of cor-ruption in the electoral process, it heavily burdens core First Amendmentexpression. For the First Amendment right to “‘speak one’s mind . . . on allpublic institutions’” includes the right to engage in “‘vigorous advocacy’ noless than ‘abstract discussion.’” . . . Advocacy of the election or defeat ofcandidates for federal office is no less entitled to protection under the FirstAmendment than the discussion of political policy generally or advocacy ofthe passage or defeat of legislation.

It is argued, however, that the ancillary governmental interest in equaliz-ing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome ofelections serves to justify the limitation on express advocacy of the electionor defeat of candidates imposed by [the] expenditure ceiling. But the con-cept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our soci-ety in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to theFirst Amendment, which was designed “to secure ‘the widest possible dis-semination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,’” and “‘toassure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political andsocial changes desired by the people.’ . . . The First Amendment’s protec-tion against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly bemade to depend on a person’s financial ability to engage in public discus-sion . . .

For the reasons stated, we conclude that [the] independent expenditurelimitation is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

2. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES BY CANDIDATES

FROM PERSONAL OR FAMILY RESOURCES . . .

The ceiling on personal expenditures by candidates on their own behalf, likethe limitations on independent expenditures, imposes a substantial restrainton the ability of persons to engage in protected First Amendment expres-sion. The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First Amendmentright to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tire-lessly to advocate his own election and the election of other candidates. In-deed, it is of particular importance that candidates have the unfetteredopportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelli-gently evaluate the candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on vital


278

public issues before choosing among them on election day. . . . [the] ceilingon personal expenditures by a candidate in furtherance of his own candidacythus clearly and directly interferes with constitutionally protected freedoms.

The primary governmental interest served by the Act—the prevention ofactual and apparent corruption of the political process—does not support thelimitation on the candidate’s expenditure of his own personal funds. . . . In-deed, the use of personal funds reduces the candidate’s dependence on outsidecontributions and thereby counteracts the coercive pressures and attendantrisks of abuse to which the Act’s contribution limitations are directed.

The ancillary interest in equalizing the relative financial resources ofcandidates competing for elective office, therefore, provides the sole rele-vant rationale for [the] expenditure ceiling. That interest is clearly not suf-ficient to justify the provision’s infringement of fundamental FirstAmendment rights. . . . The First Amendment simply cannot tolerate [this]restriction upon the freedom of a candidate to speak without legislative limiton behalf of his own candidacy. We therefore hold that [the] restriction ona candidate’s personal expenditures is unconstitutional.

3. LIMITATIONS ON CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES . . .

No governmental interest that has been suggested is sufficient to justify therestriction on the quantity of political expression imposed by . . . campaignexpenditure limitations. The major evil associated with rapidly increasingcampaign expenditures is the danger of candidate dependence on large con-tributions. The interest in alleviating the corrupting influence of large con-tributions is served by the Act’s contribution limitations and disclosureprovisions rather than by [the] campaign expenditure ceilings. . . .

The interest in equalizing the financial resources of candidates compet-ing for federal office is no more convincing a justification for restricting thescope of federal election campaigns. Given the limitation on the size of out-side contributions, the financial resources available to a candidate’s cam-paign, like the number of volunteers recruited, will normally vary with thesize and intensity of the candidate’s support. There is nothing invidious, im-proper, or unhealthy in permitting such funds to be spent to carry the can-didate’s message to the electorate. Moreover, the equalization of permissiblecampaign expenditures might serve not to equalize the opportunities of allcandidates, but to handicap a candidate who lacked substantial name recog-nition or exposure of his views before the start of the campaign.

The campaign expenditure ceilings appear to be designed primarily toserve the governmental interests in reducing the allegedly skyrocketingcosts of political campaigns . . . [but] the First Amendment denies govern-ment the power to determine that spending to promote one’s political views

A p p e n d i x B

279

is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Consti-tution it is not the government, but the people—individually as citizens andcandidates and collectively as associations and political committees—whomust retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issuesin a political campaign.For these reasons we hold that 608 (c) is constitutionally invalid. . . .

CONCLUSION

In summary, we sustain the individual contribution limits, the disclosureand reporting provisions, and the public financing scheme. We conclude,however, that the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent ex-penditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidatefrom his personal funds are constitutionally infirm. Finally, we hold thatmost of the powers conferred by the Act upon the Federal Election Com-mission can be exercised only by “Officers of the United States,” appointedin conformity with Art. II, 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution, and therefore can-not be exercised by the Commission as presently constituted. . . .

So ordered.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS took no part in the consideration or deci-sion of these cases.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring in part and dissentingin part.

(2)CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS

I agree fully with that part of the Court’s opinion that holds unconstitu-tional the limitations the Act puts on campaign expenditures which “placesubstantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, andassociations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that theFirst Amendment cannot tolerate.” Yet when it approves similarly stringentlimitations on contributions, the Court ignores the reasons it finds so per-suasive in the context of expenditures. For me contributions and expendi-tures are two sides of the same First Amendment coin.

By limiting campaign contributions, the Act restricts the amount ofmoney that will be spent on political activity and does so directly. Appelleesargue, as the Court notes, that these limits will “act as a brake on the sky-


280

rocketing cost of political campaigns,” In treating campaign expenditure lim-itations, the Court says that the “First Amendment denies government thepower to determine that spending to promote one’s political views is waste-ful, excessive, or unwise.” Limiting contributions, as a practical matter, willlimit expenditures and will put an effective ceiling on the amount of politicalactivity and debate that the Government will permit to take place. . . .

The Court attempts to separate the two communicative aspects of politi-cal contributions—the “moral” support that the gift itself conveys, which theCourt suggests is the same whether the gift is $10 or $10,000, and the factthat money translates into communication. The Court dismisses the effect ofthe limitations on the second aspect of contributions: “[T]he transformationof contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other thanthe contributor.” On this premise—that contribution limitations restrictonly the speech of “someone other than the contributor”—rests the Court’sjustification for treating contributions differently from expenditures. Thepremise is demonstrably flawed; the contribution limitations will, in specificinstances, limit exactly the same political activity that the expenditure ceil-ings limit, and at least one of the “expenditure” limitations the Court findsobjectionable operates precisely like the “contribution” limitations.

The Court’s attempt to distinguish the communication inherent in politicalcontributions from the speech aspects of political expenditures simply “will notwash.” We do little but engage in word games unless we recognize that peo-ple—candidates and contributors—spend money on political activity becausethey wish to communicate ideas, and their constitutional interest in doing so isprecisely the same whether they or someone else utters the words. . . .

(4)

I cannot join in the attempt to determine which parts of the Act can survivereview here. The statute as it now stands is unworkable and inequitable.

I agree with the Court’s holding that the Act’s restrictions on expendituresmade “relative to a clearly identified candidate,” independent of any candi-date or his committee, are unconstitutional. Paradoxically the Court upholdsthe limitations on individual contributions, which embrace precisely thesame sort of expenditures “relative to a clearly identified candidate” if thoseexpenditures are “authorized or requested” by the “candidate or his agents.”The Act as cut back by the Court thus places intolerable pressure on the dis-tinction between “authorized” and “unauthorized” expenditures on behalf ofa candidate; even those with the most sanguine hopes for the Act might wellconcede that the distinction cannot be maintained. . . .

Moreover, the Act—or so much as the Court leaves standing—createssignificant inequities. A candidate with substantial personal resources is now

A p p e n d i x B

281

given by the Court a clear advantage over his less affluent opponents, whoare constrained by law in fundraising, because the Court holds that the“First Amendment cannot tolerate” any restrictions on spending. Minorityparties, whose situation is difficult enough under an Act that excludes themfrom public funding, are prevented from accepting large single-donor con-tributions. At the same time the Court sustains the provision aimed atbroadening the base of political support by requiring candidates to seek agreater number of small contributors, it sustains the unrealistic disclosurethresholds of $10 and $100 that I believe will deter those hoped-for smallcontributions. Minor parties must now compete for votes against two majorparties whose expenditures will be vast. Finally, the Act’s distinction be-tween contributions in money and contributions in services remains, withonly the former being subject to any limits. . . .

One need not call problems of this order equal protection violations torecognize that the contribution limitations of the Act create grave inequitiesthat are aggravated by the Court’s interpretation of the Act. . . .

In my view Congress can no more ration political expression than it canration religious expression; and limits on political or religious contributionsand expenditures effectively curb expression in both areas. There are manyprices we pay for the freedoms secured by the First Amendment; the risk ofundue influence is one of them, confirming what we have long known: Free-dom is hazardous, but some restraints are worse.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I

I dissent . . . from the Court’s view that the expenditure limitations of 18U.S.C. 608 (c) and (e) (1970 ed., Supp. IV) violate the First Amendment.

Concededly, neither the limitations on contributions nor those on ex-penditures directly or indirectly purport to control the content of politi-cal speech by candidates or by their supporters or detractors. What theAct regulates is giving and spending money, acts that have First Amend-ment significance not because they are themselves communicative with re-spect to the qualifications of the candidate, but because money may beused to defray the expenses of speaking or otherwise communicatingabout the merits or demerits of federal candidates for election. The act ofgiving money to political candidates, however, may have illegal or otherundesirable consequences: it may be used to secure the express or tacit un-derstanding that the giver will enjoy political favor if the candidate iselected. Both Congress and this Court’s cases have recognized this as a


282

mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps mustbe taken.

Since the contribution and expenditure limitations are neutral as to thecontent of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of thepolitical speech of particular candidates or of political speech in general, thiscase depends on whether the nonspeech interests of the Federal Govern-ment in regulating the use of money in political campaigns are sufficientlyurgent to justify the incidental effects that the limitations visit upon theFirst Amendment interests of candidates and their supporters. . . .

It would make little sense to me, and apparently made none to Congress,to limit the amounts an individual may give to a candidate or spend with hisapproval but fail to limit the amounts that could be spent on his behalf. Yetthe Court permits the former while striking down the latter limitation. . . .

In any event, as it should be unnecessary to point out, money is not al-ways equivalent to or used for speech, even in the context of political cam-paigns. I accept the reality that communicating with potential voters is theheart of an election campaign and that widespread communication has be-come very expensive. There are, however, many expensive campaign activi-ties that are not themselves communicative or remotely related tospeech. . . . The judgment of Congress was that reasonably effective cam-paigns could be conducted within the limits established by the Act and thatthe communicative efforts of these campaigns would not seriously suffer. Inthis posture of the case, there is no sound basis for invalidating the expen-diture limitations, so long as the purposes they serve are legitimate and suf-ficiently substantial, which in my view they are.

In the first place, expenditure ceilings reinforce the contribution limitsand help eradicate the hazard of corruption. . . . Without limits on total ex-penditures, campaign costs will inevitably and endlessly escalate. Pressure toraise funds will constantly build and with it the temptation to resort in“emergencies” to those sources of large sums, who, history shows, are suffi-ciently confident of not being caught to risk flouting contribution limits. . . .

I have little doubt in addition that limiting the total that can be spent willease the candidate’s understandable obsession with fundraising, and so freehim and his staff to communicate in more places and ways unconnectedwith the fundraising function. There is nothing objectionable—indeed itseems to me a weighty interest in favor of the provision—in the attempt toinsulate the political expression of federal candidates from the influence in-evitably exerted by the endless job of raising increasingly large sums ofmoney. I regret that the Court has returned them all to the treadmill.

It is also important to restore and maintain public confidence in federalelections. It is critical to obviate or dispel the impression that federal elec-tions are purely and simply a function of money, that federal offices are

A p p e n d i x B

283

bought and sold or that political races are reserved for those who have thefacility—and the stomach—for doing whatever it takes to bring togetherthose interests, groups, and individuals that can raise or contribute largefortunes in order to prevail at the polls. . . .

I also disagree with the Court’s judgment that 608 (a), which limits theamount of money that a candidate or his family may spend on his campaign,violates the Constitution. Although it is true that this provision does notpromote any interest in preventing the corruption of candidates, the provi-sion does, nevertheless, serve salutary purposes related to the integrity offederal campaigns. By limiting the importance of personal wealth, 608 (a)helps to assure that only individuals with a modicum of support from oth-ers will be viable candidates. . . .

As with the campaign expenditure limits, Congress was entitled to deter-mine that personal wealth ought to play a less important role in politicalcampaigns than it has in the past. Nothing in the First Amendment standsin the way of that determination.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring in part and dissenting inpart.

I join in all of the Court’s opinion except Part I-C-2, which deals with 18U.S.C. 608 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). That section limits the amount a can-didate may spend from his personal funds, or family funds under his con-trol, in connection with his campaigns during any calendar year. See ante,at 51–52, n. 57. . . .

To be sure, 608 (a) affects the candidate’s exercise of his First Amendmentrights. But unlike the other expenditure limitations contained in the Act andinvalidated by the Court—the limitation on independent expenditures rela-tive to a clearly identified candidate, 608 (e), and the limitations on overallcandidate expenditures, 608 (c)—the limitations on expenditures by candi-dates from personal resources contained in 608 (a) need never prevent thespeaker from spending another dollar to communicate his ideas. Section608 (a) imposes no overall limit on the amount a candidate can spend; itsimply limits the “contribution” a candidate may make to his own campaign.The candidate remains free to raise an unlimited amount in contributionsfrom others. So long as the candidate does not contribute to his campaignmore than the amount specified in 608 (a), and so long as he does not ac-cept contributions from others in excess of the limitations imposed by 608(b), he is free to spend without limit on behalf of his campaign. . . .

Large contributions are the less wealthy candidate’s only hope of coun-tering the wealthy candidate’s immediate access to substantial sums ofmoney. With that option removed, the less wealthy candidate is without the


284

means to match the large initial expenditures of money of which the wealthycandidate is capable. In short, the limitations on contributions put a pre-mium on a candidate’s personal wealth.

In view of 608 (b)’s limitations on contributions, then, 608 (a) emergesnot simply as a device to reduce the natural advantage of the wealthy candi-date, but as a provision providing some symmetry to a regulatory schemethat otherwise enhances the natural advantage of the wealthy. Regardless ofwhether the goal of equalizing access would justify a legislative limit on per-sonal candidate expenditures standing by itself, I think it clear that that goaljustifies 608 (a)’s limits when they are considered in conjunction with the re-mainder of the Act. I therefore respectfully dissent from the Court’s invali-dation of 608 (a).

A p p e n d i x B

285

THE FEDERAL ELECTION

CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1974

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was the basic federal cam-paign finance reform law until the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Re-form Act of 2002. Below is a summary of the law prepared by the FederalElection Commission. For additional text and resources, see http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.htm#The%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law.

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

The basic provisions of the FECA are described below.

Disclosure

The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs tofile periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Candidatesmust identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give themcontributions, and they must identify individuals who give them more than$200 in a year. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200per year to any individual or vendor.

Contribution Limits

The FECA places limits on contributions by individuals and groups to can-didates, party committees and PACs. The chart below shows how the lim-its apply to the various participants in federal elections.

286

APPENDIX C

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures

The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by cer-tain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from mak-ing contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:

• Corporations;

• Labor organizations;

• Federal government contractors; and

• Foreign nationals.

Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:

• No one may make a contribution in another person’s name.

• No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.

In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures infederal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, na-tional banks and other federally chartered corporations from making con-tributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.

A p p e n d i x C

287

CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

To a Candidate To a National To Any Other

or Candidate Party Political

Committee Committee Committee Total per

Total per per Calendar per Calendar Calendar

Contribution Amount Election Year Year* Year

Amount individual may give $1,000 $20,000 $5,000 $25,000Amount multicandidate $5,000 $15,000 $5,000 No limit

committee† may giveAmount other political $1,000 $20,000 $5,000 No limit

committee may give

* Exception: If a contributor gives to a committee knowing that a substantial portion of thecontribution will be used to support a particular candidate, then the contribution countsagainst the donor’s limit for that candidate (first column on the chart).

† A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributorswhich has been registered for at least six months and, with the exception of state partycommittees, has made contributions to five or more candidates for federal office.

Independent Expenditures

Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as a PAC) maymake unlimited “independent expenditures” in connection with federalelections.

An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communicationwhich expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candi-date and which is made independently from the candidate’s campaign. To beconsidered independent, the communication may not be made with the co-operation or consent of the candidate or his or her campaign; nor may it bemade upon a request or suggestion of either the candidate or the campaign.While there is no limit on how much anyone may spend on an independentexpenditure, the law does require persons making independent expendituresto report them and to disclose the sources of the funds they used. The pub-lic can review these reports at the FEC’s Public Records Office.

Corporate and Union Activity

Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributionsor expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establishPACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a re-stricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidatesand political committees.

Apart from supporting PACs, corporations and labor organizations mayconduct other activities related to federal elections, within certain guide-lines. For more information, call the FEC or consult 11 CFR Part 114.

Political Party Activity

Political parties are active in federal elections at the local, state and nationallevels. Most party committees organized at the state and national levels aswell as some committees organized at the local level are required to registerwith the FEC and file reports disclosing their federal campaign activities.

Party committees may contribute funds directly to federal candidates,subject to the contribution limits. National and state party committees maymake additional “coordinated expenditures,” subject to limits, to help theirnominees in general elections. Finally, state and local party committees mayspend unlimited amounts on certain grassroots activities specified in the lawwithout affecting their other contribution and expenditure limits (for exam-ple, voter drives by volunteers in support of the party’s Presidential nomi-nees and the production of campaign materials for volunteer distribution).Party committees must register and file disclosure reports with the FEConce their federal election activities exceed certain dollar thresholds speci-fied in the law.


288

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN

FUND ACT

Under the Internal Revenue Code, qualified Presidential candidates receivemoney from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which is an accounton the books of the U.S. Treasury.

The Fund is financed exclusively by a voluntary tax checkoff. By check-ing a box on their income tax returns, individual taxpayers may direct $3 oftheir tax to the Fund (up to $6 for joint filers). Checking the box does notincrease the amount a taxpayer owes or reduce his or her refund; it merelydirects that three dollars from the U.S. Treasury be used in Presidentialelections. Checkoff funds may not be spent for other federal programs.The funds are distributed under three programs:

Primary Matching Payments

Eligible candidates in the Presidential primaries may receive public funds tomatch the private contributions they raise. While a candidate may raisemoney from many different sources, only contributions from individuals arematchable; contributions from PACs and party committees are not. Fur-thermore, while an individual may give up to $1,000 to a primary candidate,only the first $250 of that contribution is matchable.

To participate in the matching fund program, a candidate must demon-strate broad-based support by raising more than $5,000 in matchable con-tributions in each of 20 different states. Candidates must agree to use publicfunds only for campaign expenses, and they must comply with spendinglimits. Beginning with a $10 million base figure, the overall primary spend-ing limit is adjusted each Presidential election year to reflect inflation. In1996, the limit was $30.91 million.

General Election Grants

The Republican and Democratic candidates who win their parties’ nomina-tions for President are each eligible to receive a grant to cover all the ex-penses of their general election campaigns. The basic $20 million grant isadjusted for inflation each Presidential election year. In 1996, the grant was$61.82 million.

Nominees who accept the funds must agree not to raise private contri-butions (from individuals, PACs or party committees) and to limit theircampaign expenditures to the amount of public funds they receive. Theymay use the funds only for campaign expenses.

A third party Presidential candidate may qualify for some public fundsafter the general election if he or she receives at least five percent of thepopular vote.

A p p e n d i x C

289

Party Convention Grants

Each major political party may receive public funds to pay for its nationalPresidential nominating convention. The statute sets the base amount ofthe grant at $4 million for each party, and that amount is adjusted for infla-tion each Presidential election year. In 1996, the major parties each received$12.36 million.

Other parties may also be eligible for partial public financing of theirnominating conventions, provided that their nominees received at least fivepercent of the vote in the previous Presidential election.


290

LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY OF THE

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM

ACT OF 2002

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) substantiallyamended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which for about 30years formed the basis for federal campaign finance regulation. The follow-ing summary of the BCRA was prepared by the Congressional ResearchService and can be found on the Library of Congress THOMAS web siteby searching for Public Law 107-155.155. H.R. 2356 : To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 toprovide bipartisan campaign reform.

Sponsor: Rep. Shays, ChristopherCommittees: House Administration; House Energy and Commerce;

House JudiciaryLatest Major Action: 3/27/2002 Became Public Law No: 107-155Note: H.R. 2356 [Shays-Meehan] was originally introduced as H.R. 380. A

Senate companion bill, S. 27 [McCain-Feingold] was passed by the Sen-ate on 4/2/2001. On 2/13/2002, H.R. 2360 [Ney-Wynn], with somemodifications, was offered as a substitute amendment [H.Amdt. 430] toH.R. 2356. The amendment was not agreed to. H.R. 2356 was passed bythe House on 2/14/2002 and by the Senate on 3/20/2002.

[notes]SUMMARY AS OF:2/14/2002—Passed House, amended. (There are 2 other summaries)Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002—Title I: Reduction of Special

Interest Influence—Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of1971 (FECA) to prohibit: (1) national political party committees (includ-

291

APPENDIX D

ing any officer, agent, or entity they directly or indirectly establish, fi-nance, maintain, or control) (officer, agent, or entity) from soliciting, re-ceiving, directing, transferring, or spending money that is subject toFECA limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements; (2) softmoney spending (not currently subject to FECA) for a Federal electionactivity, in general, by State, district, and local political party committees(including any officer, agent, or entity) or by an association or similargroup of candidates for State or local office or State or local officials; (3)soft money spending for fundraising costs by any such committee, officer,agent, or entity; (4) national, State, district, or local political party com-mittees (including national political party congressional campaign com-mittees, entities, officers, or agents) from soliciting, any funds for, ormaking or directing any donations to certain tax-exempt organizations;and (5) candidates for Federal office, Federal office holders, or theiragents from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spendingfunds in connection with a Federal election, including funds for any Fed-eral election activity, unless they are subject to FECA limitations, prohi-bitions, and reporting requirements, or in connection with anynon-Federal election unless such funds meet specified requirements.

(Sec. 101) Prohibits any funds for soft money accounts from being solicited,received, directed, transferred, or spent in the name of national politicalparties, Federal candidates or officials, or by joint fundraising activities bytwo or more party committees.

Defines Federal election activity to include: (1) voter registration activity in thelast 120 days of a Federal election; (2) voter identification, get-out-the-vote,or generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an election inwhich a Federal candidate is on the ballot; (3) public communications thatrefer to a clearly identified Federal candidate and promote, support, attack,or oppose a candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether they ex-pressly advocate a vote for or against); or (4) services by a State, district, orlocal political party employee who spends at least 25 percent of paid time permonth on activities in connection with a Federal election.

Defines generic campaign activity as a campaign activity that promotes a po-litical party and does not promote a candidate or non-Federal candidate.

Defines public communications as communications by means of any broad-cast, cable, satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor adver-tising facility, mass mailing (over 500 identical or substantially similarpieces mailed within any 30-day period), or phone bank (over 500 identicalor substantially similar telephone calls made within any 30-day period) tothe general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.

(Sec. 102) Increases limit on individual contributions to a State committeeof a political party from $5,000 to $10,000 per year.


292

(Sec. 103) Codifies Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations on dis-closure of all national political party committee activity, both Federal andnon-Federal.

Requires disclosure by State and local parties of spending on Federal elec-tion activities, including any soft money permitted to be used for such ac-tivities.

Terminates the building fund exception to the definition of contribution.Title II: Noncandidate Campaign Expenditures—Subtitle A: Election-

eering Communications—Amends FECA to require disclosure to theFEC of electioneering communications by any spender exceeding an ag-gregate of $10,000 per year in disbursements for them (including con-tracts to disburse), within 24 hours of each specified disbursement date(disclosure date).

(Sec. 201) Requires such disclosure to include: (1) identification of spender,of any person with control over the activities of such person, and of thecustodian of the spender’s books and accounts; (2) the spender’s principalplace of business (if the spender is not an individual); (3) amount of dis-bursements of over $200 and identification of recipient; (4) the electionand candidates to which communications pertain; and (5) identification ofall contributors of $1,000 or more (either to a separate segregated fundor, if none, to the spender).

Defines electioneering communication as any broadcast, cable, or satellitecommunication that refers to a clearly identified Federal candidate, madewithin 60 days of a general, special, or runoff election, or within 30 daysof a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a polit-ical party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office thecandidate seeks, and, in the case of a communication that refers to a can-didate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted tothe relevant electorate. Provides an alternative definition of the term ifthe first definition is held to be constitutionally insufficient. Lists excep-tions to the definition of electioneering communication. Provides that acommunication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal of-fice is “targeted to the relevant electorate” if the communication can bereceived by 50,000 or more persons in the district the candidate seeks torepresent, in the case of a candidate for Representative in, or Delegate orResident Commissioner to, Congress or in the State the candidate seeksto represent, in the case of a candidate for Senator.

Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to compile,maintain, and publicize on its website any information the FEC may re-quire to carry out these requirements.

(Sec. 202) Treats an electioneering communication that is coordinated witha candidate or an authorized committee of such candidate, a Federal,

A p p e n d i x D

293

State, or local political party or committee thereof, or an agent or officialof any such candidate, party, or committee as a contribution to, and ex-penditure by, such candidate or such party.

(Sec. 203) Bans disbursements for electioneering communications fromunion or certain corporate funds, except certain tax-exempt corporationsmaking electioneering communications: (1) paid for exclusively with fundsprovided directly by individuals who are citizens or permanent residentaliens; and (2) which are not targeted electioneering communications.

Subtitle B: Independent and Coordinated Expenditures—AmendsFECA to define independent expenditure as an expenditure by a personexpressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candi-date, and that is not made in concert or cooperation with or at the requestor suggestion of such candidate, the candidate’s authorized political com-mittee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.

(Sec. 212) Outlines reporting requirements for certain independent expen-ditures, including the time frame for filing reports with the FEC on in-dependent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more and $10,000 ormore.

(Sec. 213) Prohibits a committee of a political party from making both in-dependent and coordinated expenditures for a general election candidate.

(Sec. 214) Provides that expenditures made by any person (other than a can-didate or candidate’s authorized committee) in cooperation, consultation,or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a national, State, orlocal committee of a political party, shall be considered to be contribu-tions made to such party committee.

Repeals current FEC regulations, and directs the FEC to promulgate newregulations on coordinated communications paid for by persons otherthan candidates, authorized committees of candidates, and party commit-tees. Prohibits such regulations from requiring agreement or formal col-laboration to establish coordination.

Title III: Miscellaneous—Amends FECA to codify FEC regulations onpermissible uses for contributions and donations, while retaining the banon the conversion of a contribution or donation to personal use.

(Sec. 302) Revises the ban under the Federal criminal code against solicita-tion or receipt of campaign contributions by Federal officials and fromanyone located in any Federal government building used to discharge of-ficial duties. Extends the ban to: (1) specify State and local as well as Fed-eral elections; and (2) cover soft money.

(Sec. 303) Amends FECA to revise the ban on campaign contributions fromforeign nationals to include donations, expenditures, independent expen-ditures, disbursements for an electioneering communication, as well ascontributions or donations to any political party committee.


294

(Sec. 304) Specifies formulae for increasing the limits on individual and po-litical party committee contributions for a Senate candidate whose oppo-nent exceeds the threshold level of spending from personal funds in thecampaign, whose basic formula shall be $150,000 plus $0.04 times thevoting age population.

Limits repayment of a candidate’s personal loans incurred in connection withhis or her campaign to $250,000 from contributions made to the candidateor any authorized committee of the candidate after the election.

(Sec. 305) Declares that a candidate for Federal office shall not be entitledto the lowest unit rate broadcast time unless he or she certifies to thebroadcast station that the candidate (or any of his or her authorized com-mittees) will not refer directly to another candidate for the same officeunless a broadcast ad includes the candidate’s photo or image on TV anda statement of the candidate’s approval printed for display on TV andspoken by the candidate on radio.

(Sec. 306) Amends FECA to require: (1) the FEC to promulgate stan-dards for and to provide standardized software for filing FEC reportselectronically; (2) candidates’ use of such software; and (3) the FEC topost any information received electronically on the Internet as soon aspracticable.

(Sec. 307) Raises: (1) the limit on aggregate individual contributions tonational political party committees from $20,000 to $25,000 per year;(2) the limit on annual aggregate individual contributions to Federalcandidates, political action committees (PACs), and parties from$25,000 to $37,500 in the case of contributions to candidates and theauthorized committees of candidates, and to $57,500 in the case of anyother contributions, of which not more than $37,500 may be attribut-able to contributions to political committees which are not politicalcommittees of national political parties during a specified period; and(3) the special limit on combined contributions to Senate candidates bynational and senatorial party committees $17,500 to $35,000 in year ofelection.

Provides for indexing for inflation of limits on certain contributions andexpenditures.

(Sec. 308) Amends Federal law on presidential inaugural ceremonies to re-quire disclosure to the FEC by Presidential Inaugural Committees of anydonation made to them in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than$200. Bans foreign national donations to a Presidential Inaugural Com-mittee. Directs the FEC to make any report filed by such a Committeeaccessible to the public at FEC offices and on the Internet.

(Sec. 309) Amends FECA to prohibit fraudulent misrepresentation in thesolicitation of campaign funds.

A p p e n d i x D

295

(Sec. 310) Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congresson statistics for and effects of public financing (clean money clean elec-tions) of the 2000 elections in Arizona and Maine.

(Sec. 311) Amends FECA to require: (1) sponsorship identification on allelection-related advertising (including on electioneering communica-tions) by the political committee or other person paying for the commu-nication and the name of any connected organization of the payor; and (2)enhanced visibility or other disclosure of such identification in the com-munication.

(Sec. 312) Increases criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations in-volving: (1) contributions, expenditures, or donations in amounts aggregat-ing from $2,000 to $25,000 per year; and (2) contributions, expenditures,or donations in amounts aggregating $25,000 or more per year.

(Sec. 313) Changes from three to five years the statute of limitations forcriminal violations of Federal election law.

(Sec. 314) Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to promulgatepenalty guidelines and to make legislative or administrative recommen-dations to Congress regarding enforcement of Federal election law.

(Sec. 315) Imposes specific civil money and criminal penalties for knowingand willful violations of the ban on contributions made in the name of an-other person (conduit contribution ban).

(Sec. 316) Provides that: (1) for purposes of determining the aggregateamount of expenditures from a candidate’s personal funds used in deter-mining the opposition personal funds amount in Senate elections, suchaggregate amount shall include the gross receipts advantage of the candi-date’s authorized committee; and (2) the ban on contributions and dona-tions from foreign nationals does not include U.S. nationals.

(Sec. 318) Prohibits contributions to candidates and donations to politicalparty committees by individuals age 17 or younger.

(Sec. 319) Amends FECA to provide that if the opposition personal fundsamount with respect to a candidate for election to Congress exceeds$350,000: (1) the individual contribution limit with respect to the Houseof Representatives candidate shall be tripled (from $1,000 to $3,000); (2)the aggregate annual individual contribution limit ($25,000) shall notapply with respect to any contribution made with respect to the candidateif the contribution is made under such increased limit; and (3) the limitson any expenditure by a State or national committee of a political partyon behalf of the candidate shall not apply.

Title IV: Severability; Effective Date—Sets forth severability, effectivedate, and judicial review provisions.

Title V: Additional Disclosure Provisions—Amends FECA to require alldesignations, statements, reports, and notifications filed with the FEC to


296

be available for public inspection in FEC offices and to be accessible tothe public on the Internet within 48 hours after FEC receipt. (Retains thecurrent law requirement that such disclosure materials filed electronicallywith FEC be accessible to the public on the Internet within 24 hours afterFEC receipt.)

(Sec. 502) Directs the FEC to maintain a central site on the Internet tomake accessible to the public all publicly available election-related reportsand information.

(Sec. 503) Amends FECA to require: (1) principal campaign committees ofcandidates for the House or for the Senate to file additional quarterly re-ports in non-election years; and (2) national committees of a politicalparty to file monthly reports in all years.

(Sec. 504) Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require a licensee tomaintain, and make available for public inspection, records of broadcasttime purchase requests by or on behalf candidates, or to communicatemessages relating to any political matter of national importance.

A p p e n d i x D

297

AABC Network 29abolitionism 124, 125absentee ballot 33, 134gaccessibility 118cACLU. See American CivilLiberties Union

ADA (Americans withDisabilities Act) 118c

Adams, Abigail 15Adams, John 104cAdams, John Quincy

election of 1824105c,106c

election of 1828 8Adams County, Ohio 110cadvertising

issue ads 56, 102print v. broadcast 20, 102

African Americans. See alsovoting rights for minorities;white primaryeffects of Voting RightsAct 115c

election of 2000 5and the Electoral College39

voting rights 17–18age requirements

for House ofRepresentatives 46

for Senate 47for voting 51, 116c

A.H. Belo Corp. 29Alabama

Gomillion v. Lightfoot67–68

Reynolds v. Sims 68–70

Alien and Sedition Laws105c

Allen v. State Board of Elections115c

Alliance for BetterCampaigns 257

alternative ballot systems39–42, 232–238

amendments to theConstitution. See also specificamendmentsand the Electoral College38

relating to voting rights49–51

American Bar Association 37American Civil LibertiesUnion (ACLU) 134g, 257and BCRA 32Buckley v. Valeo 75–78and campaign financereform 27

Laughlin McDonald 129web site 158

American ConservativeUnion 76

American Independent Party74

American (“Know-Nothing”)Party 106c

Americans for Limited Terms257

Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) 118c

American Woman SuffrageAssociation (AWSA) 107c

Amy, Douglas J. 124banonymous pamphleteering89–90

Anthony, Susan Brownell124b–125bCarrie Chapman Cattand 126

and NWSA 107cElizabeth Cady Stantonand 132

and woman suffrage 16

Anti-Masonic Party 106cappeals rulings, on BCRA56–57

appointments, political 51apportionment (districting)18–19, 134g. See alsoreapportionmentColegrove v. Green 63–64,112c

constitutional provisionsfor 46

court cases 57Reynolds v. Sims 68–70Shaw v. Reno 86–87Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71

ArkansasArkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 94–96, 120c

state campaign financelegislation 30

U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v.Thornton 91–92

Arkansas Educational TelevisionCommission v. Forbes94–96, 120c

armed forces members 113c,118c

assembly, freedom of 49“assessments” 10

INDEX

Page numbers in boldface indicate main topics. Page numbers followed by b indicate biographicalentries. Page numbers followed by c indicate chronology entries. Page numbers followed by gindicate glossary entries.

298

association, freedom of 49,134gBrown v. Socialist Workers’74 Campaign Committee82–84

California DemocraticParty v. Jones 99–100

court cases 57Democratic Party of theUnited States v.Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette 81–82

and freedom of speech 81right of political partiesto 81–82

Tashjian v. RepublicanParty of Connecticut84–85

Timmons v. Twin CitiesArea New Party 92–94

Astor, John Jacob 12at large 134g“Australian” ballot 93, 107c,108cRichard Henry Dana III127

electoral reform 11AWSA (American WomanSuffrage Association) 107c

BBaker v. Carr 64, 70ballot 33, 96, 97, 134g, 135gballot access requirements74, 75

ballot initiatives. Seeinitiatives

ballot reform 32–42ballot security measures 129ballot tampering 62–63banking associations 78–80Bank of the United States 9base 135gbattleground state 135gBCRA. See BipartisanCampaign Reform Act of2002

Belmont, Perry 12, 125bBeyond the Ballot Box(Douglas J. Amy) 124

bibliography 174–238alternative electoralsystems 232–238

campaign finance reform187–214

elections and theelectorate 178–187

electoral reform 214–238general debate oncampaign financereform 197–203

general reference175–178

the influence of moneyon politics 187–197

legal issues relating tocampaign financereform 211–214

legislation and itsconsequences 203–211

reference and background175–187

term limits 223–226voting procedures andproblems 226–232

voting rights, minorities,and redistricting214–223

bicameral legislatures 69bipartisan 135gBipartisan Campaign ReformAct of 2002 (BCRA)31–32, 53, 55–57, 135g,143gBuckley v. Valeo 75–78filibuster 120clegal challenges 123clegislative summary291–297

John McCain 128, 129McConnell v. FEC

101–103passage of 121csoft money changes 122c

Biracial Politics (ChandlerDavidson) 127

Black, Hugoand Colegrove v. Green64

and Wesbury v. Sanders71

and Williams v. Rhodes74–75

and Wright v. Rockefeller72

“black codes” 17Blackmun, Harry 87

blanket primary 99–100California DemocraticParty v. Jones120c–121c

and primary electionreform 36

bloc 135g“Bonus Plan” 39Breedlove v. Suttles 72, 111cBrennan, Walter 75Breyer, Stephen 87, 98broadcast media

advertising via 56FECA of 1971 and 21Political CampaignBroadcast ActivityImprovements Act122c

print advertising vs. 102Brown v. Socialist Workers ‘74Campaign Committee82–84

Bryan, William Jennings110c

Buchanan, Patrick 131Buckley v. Valeo 75–78, 117c,

268–285FECA amendments tocomply with 55

FECA and 54First Amendment rights21–22

First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti 80

harassment vs. disclosurerequirements of 83, 84

“Bull Moose” Party 132bundling 28, 135gBurger, Warren 80–81Burr, Aaron 105cBush, George W. See alsoBush v. GoreBCRA 121celection of 2000 4, 121cand the Electoral College37

John McCain 129Ralph Nader 130

Bush v. Gore 34, 96–99,121c

Bush v. Vera 87Bustamante, Cruz 123cbutterfly ballot 33, 96, 97,135g

I n d e x

299

CCalifornia

California DemocraticParty v. Jones 36,99–100, 120c–121c

Citizens Against RentControl v. City ofBerkeley 80–81


public funding 120crecall election (2003)123c


term limits 36California Democratic Party v.Jones 36, 99–100,120c–121c

California Political ReformAct of 1996 30

campaign 135gcampaign consultant 135gCampaign FinanceInformation Center 57,257

Campaign Finance Institute(CFI) 257

campaign finance reform135g–136g. See alsoBipartisan CampaignReform Act of 2002(BCRA)bibliography 187–214,197–203

Brown v. Socialist Workers’74 Campaign Committee82–84

Buckley v. Valeo 75–78Citizens Against RentControl v. City ofBerkeley 80–81

Day v. Holahan 87–89debate over 25–32Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1910 110c

First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti 78–80

introduction of first bill106c

Landell v. Sorrell100–101

legislation for statecampaigns 30

John McCain 128, 129

McConnell v. FEC101–103

NPLA 110cduring Progressive Era11–13

public attitudes toward 25

Theodore Roosevelt’sefforts 110c

Shrink MissouriGovernment PAC v.Maupin 90–91

Tillman Act of 1907 12,110c

campaign finance regulations58

candidate coendorsements92–94

candidatescampaign contributionsby 53

coendorsements of92–94

Carter, James Coolidge 11,125b–126b

Carter, James Earl (Jimmy)35, 126b

Carver v. Nixon 89Cato Institute 101, 258Catt, Carrie Clinton LaneChapman 16, 126b

caucus 136gCBS 29census 46Center for Public Integrity258

Center for ResponsivePolitics 26, 258

Center for Voting andDemocracy 258

CFI (Campaign FinanceInstitute) 257

chad 34, 136gchecks and balances 7Chicago 10CIO. See Congress ofIndustrial Organizations

Citizens Against Rent Controlv. City of Berkeley 80–81

citizenship requirementsunder FourteenthAmendment 49

for House ofRepresentatives 46

for Senate 47

city government reform125–126

civil rights 113c, 127Civil Rights Act of 1957 17Civil Rights Act of 1964 18,114c

Civil Rights Division (JusticeDepartment) 128

civil service 136gRichard Henry Dana III127

Hatch Act 111c–112cPendleton Act 51reform of system 10Theodore Roosevelt 132

Civil Service Reform Act. SeePendleton Act of 1883

Civil Service Reform Record127

Civil War. SeeReconstruction

Clark, Thomas 70Clay, Henry 105cClean Elections Act 120cClean Politics Act. See HatchAct of 1939

Cleveland, Groverelection of 1888 108cand the Electoral College37

Clinton, Billcontribution reportinglegislation 121c

electoral reformcommission proposal119c

fund-raising controversy120c

Lani Guinier 128closed primary 84–85, 136gCloward, Richard 131Cockran, William Burke 12

coendorsements ofcandidates 92–94

Colegrove v. Green 63–64,70, 112c, 114c

Coloradopublic funding 120cwomen’s suffrage 109cand women’s suffrage 16

Commission on CampaignCosts 20

Common Cause 24, 136g,258


300

Common Cause v. FederalElection Commission 24

Compromise of 1877 108cCongress. See also House ofRepresentatives; Senateand Alien and SeditionLaws 105c

and BCRA 31establishment of 104cfederal electionregulation by 47, 60,61

Publicity Actamendments 13

state districtingregulation by 70

term limits 112ccongressional campaigncommittee 136g

congressional districts. Seeapportionment (districting);gerrymander;reapportionment

Congress of IndustrialOrganizations (CIO) 15,112c

Congress Watch 130Connecticut

Tashjian v. Republican Partyof Connecticut 84–85

constituency 136gconstituent 136gConstitutional Convention 7Constitution of the UnitedStates 45–51adoption of 104camendments to 49–51.See also specificamendments

Article 1 of 45–47Article 2 of 48–49election of president andvice president 48–49

election to House ofRepresentatives 45–46

election to Senate 46–47right to vote in 49–51

contributionsaggregate limits on 54for ballot measures80–81

Buckley v. Valeo 75–78,117c

for campaigns in early1800s 9

by candidate orimmediate family 53

by candidates. See FederalElection Commission


by civil service employees51. See also PendletonAct of 1883

by corporations 24, 51,53, 109c

disclosure of 52expenditures vs. 77–78Federal ElectionCampaign Act (FECA)of 1971 116c

federal officeholdersolicitation of 56

and freedom of speech66–67, 76

Hatch Act 111c–112cby labor unions 53limits on 27, 88, 89, 119climits on individual 52,54, 56

by national banks 51Naval Appropriations Billof 1867 107c

Newberry v. United States111c

nonprofit advocacy groupregulations 123c

NPLA and 110creturn of unused 90Smith-Connally Act of1943 112c

Taft-Hartley Act of 1947112c

Westminster (Colorado)referendum 120c

when opponent spendslarge amounts ofpersonal funds 56

Controversies in MinorityVoting: The Voting Rights Actin Perspective 127

conventions 106c, 137gDemocratic Party of theUnited States v.Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette 81–82

public funding for 55“core political speech” 90,93, 102

corporate reform 130corporations

campaign contributionsby 12, 51, 110c

court cases 58First and FourteenthAmendment rights of78–79

First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti 78–80

freedom of speech forindividuals v. 81

freedom of speech rightsof 79–80

political contributions by53

corruption 137gAdams County, Ohio110c


election of 1832 106cand political machines 10and return of unusedcontributions 91

Tammany Hall 10Watergate 116c

counting of votes 58. See alsoalternative ballot systems;Bush v. Gore

court casesapportionment 57Arkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 94–96


Buckley v. Valeo 75–78Bush v. Gore 96–99California DemocraticParty v. Jones 99–100

campaign financeregulations 58


Colegrove v. Green 63–64corporations 58counting of votes 58Day v. Holahan 87–89Democratic Party of theUnited States v. Wisconsinex rel. La Follette 81–82

I n d e x

301

court cases (continued)equal protection of thelaw 58

federal authority toregulation elections 58

First Amendment 57, 58First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti 78–80

Fourteenth Amendment58

freedom of association57

freedom of speech 58Gomillion v. Lightfoot

67–68Guinn v. United States

59–60Harper v. Virginia Board ofElections 72–73

labor unions 58Landell v. Sorrell

100–101McConnell v. FEC

101–103McIntyre v. Ohio ElectionsCommission 89–90

minor parties andindependents 58

Newberry v. United States60–62

Nixon v. Herndon 61–62political parties 58poll taxes 58primary elections 58Reynolds v. Sims 68–70Shaw v. Reno 86–87Shrink MissouriGovernment PAC v.Maupin 90–91


term limits 58Timmons v. Twin CitiesArea New Party 92–94

by topic 57–58United Public Workers v.Mitchell 65–66

United States v. Classic62–63

United States v. Congress ofIndustrial Organizations66–67

U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v.Thornton 91–92

voting rights forminorities 58

Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71Williams v. Rhodes

73–75Wright v. Rockefeller

71–72Cousins v. Wigoda 82Cox Enterprises 29Crawford, William H. 105ccriminal records, of voters4–5. See also felons, votingrights and

Critical Mass Energy Project130

CSC v. Letter Carriers 66cumulative voting. Seepreference voting

DDana, Richard Henry, III11, 127b

Dartmouth College v.Woodward 79–80

Davidson, Chandler 19,127b

Davis, Gray 123cDawkins, Andy 93Day v. Holahan 87–89debates. See also Kennedy-Nixon debatesArkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 120c

for congressional districtcandidates 94

and definition of publicforum 94–96

presidential 96, 137gdecline to state voter 137gDemocratic Party137g–138g“assessments” 10Bush v. Gore 96–99election of 1828 8election of 1876 108celection of 1910 13election of 1976 117cGeorgia redistricting(2003) 123c

and Hatch Actrestrictions 66

and political machines 10Smith v. Allwright 112c

“Super Tuesday” 118cand voter registrationliberalization 35

and white primaries 17,61, 62

Democratic Party of the UnitedStates v. Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette 81–82

Democratic-RepublicanParty 7, 105c

Department of Commerce,U.S. Census Bureau 239

Department of Justice, CivilRights Division, VotingSection 239–240

designated public forum 95direct democracy 138gdirect election of president38, 115c, 117c

direct election of senators12, 110c. See alsoSeventeenth Amendment

disclosure 138g. See alsoFederal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1910; FederalCorrupt Practices Act of1925Perry Belmont and 125Brown v. Socialist Workers’74 Campaign Committee82–84

and campaign financereform 27

early laws 11FECA of 1971 and 21FECA requirements for54

FEC information and 22Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1925 13–14

for independentexpenditures 55


and NPLA 12NPLA advocacy of 13of political contributions52

Publicity Act of 1910 13discrimination


in voting 53. See alsovoting rights forminorities


302

disenfranchise 138gelection of 2000 33southern United States109c

districting. Seeapportionment;reapportionment

District of Columbiacontribution limits forlocal elections 119c

electors for 50Twenty-thirdAmendment 113c

districts, congressional. Seeapportionment (districting);gerrymander;reapportionment

Douglas, William O.and Harper v. VirginiaBoard of Elections 73

draft cards, burning of 77due process 138g. See alsoFourteenth Amendment

Durbin, Richard 122c

EEDS (Electronic DataSystems) 130

election day, federal 106celection debates. See debateselectioneering statements

and BCRA 32reporting of spending on56

election of 1796 104c–105celection of 1800 105celection of 1824 105c–106celection of 1828 8election of 1832 9, 106celection of 1876 9, 37, 108c

election of 1888 11, 37,108c

election of 1896 12election of 1900 12, 132election of 1904 12election of 1910 13election of 1912 132election of 1960 20, 37election of 1972 116c–117celection of 1976

Jimmy Carter and 126Democratic Party rulesreform 117c

election of 1992 119cand the Electoral College38

H. Ross Perot and 31election of 1996 120celection of 2000 3–5, 121c.See also Bush v. GoreJimmy Carter and 126Electoral College and 37Electoral Count Act 108cflaws in voting process33–35

Ralph Nader and 31total spending by majorparties 3

ElectionReform.org 259elections

bibliography 178–187challenges to 113cdisputed 49federal. See federalelections

federal regulation of. Seefederal authority toregulate elections

state regulation of 82elector 104c, 138gElectoral College 138g–139g

constitutional provisionfor 48

election of 1800 105celection of 1824 106celection of 2000 4establishment of 104corigins of 7and political parties104c–105c

reform debate 37–39replacement proposal115c

and technological change5

electoral commission 108cElectoral Count Act 108celectoral reform

bibliography 214–238Frances Fox Piven 131during Progressive Era11–13

proposed changes 5–6electoral votes 96–99electors

election of 2000 4Guinn v. United States

59–60

for House ofRepresentatives 45, 46

for Senate 47and Twelfth Amendment105c

Electronic Data Systems(EDS) 130

elites, early voting rights and7

enumeration (census) 46equal protection of the law139g. See also FourteenthAmendmentBush v. Gore 34, 96–99court cases 58election of 2000 4, 34Fourteenth Amendment9

Fourteenth Amendmentprovisions for 49, 50

Nixon v. Herndon 61–62Reynolds v. Sims 19Shaw v. Reno 86–87undiluted vote asrequirement of 69

equal representation forminorities 50

equal time provision 139gexecutive branch 48–49exit poll 139gexpenditures. See alsospending limitsBrown v. Socialist Workers’74 Campaign Committee82–84

contributions vs. 77–78

by corporations forinfluencing/affectingvote 78

Day v. Holahan 87–89

Ffaction 7, 139gfaithless electors 38false vote counts 62–63FBI (Federal Bureau ofInvestigation) 83

FEC. See Federal ElectionCommission

FECA. See Federal ElectionCampaign Act; FederalElection Campaign Act of1971

I n d e x

303

federal authority to regulateelectionscourt cases 58in jurisdictions withdiscrimination history53

Newberry v. United States60–62

United States v. Classic62–63

Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) 83

federal contractors,contributions by 112c

Federal Corrupt PracticesAct Amendments of 191113

Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1910 52, 115camendments 111cPerry Belmont and 125Newberry v. United States

60–62passage of 13

Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1925 13–14, 52Perry Belmont and 125campaign finance reform110c


Federal Election CampaignAct (FECA) Amendmentsof 1974 21, 54–55,116c–117c, 286–290

Federal Election CampaignAct (FECA) Amendmentsof 1979 22–23, 117c

Federal Election CampaignAct (FECA) of 197120–22, 53–54, 75–76, 116c,117c. See also FECAAmendments of 1974

Federal ElectionCommission (FEC) 117c,139g–140g, 240“About Elections andVoting” web page 158

and BCRA 31, 32BCRA soft-moneyprovisions 121c

Buckley v. Valeo 117cchange in disclosure rules24

and issue ads 28–29outside expenditureregulation 122c

powers of 55and soft money 23web site 57, 156

federal election day 106cfederal elections

congressional regulationof 47

constitutional provisionsfor 45–49

Electoral College 48and FECA Amendmentsof 1979 23

to House ofRepresentatives 45–46

of president and vicepresident 48–49

to Senate 46–47federal employees

“assessments” 10and Democratic Partycontributions 14

Hatch Act amendments119c

politicalmanagement/campaigninvolvement of 65–66

prohibition on politicalsolicitation of and by52, 106c. See also HatchAct of 1939

U.S. Civil ServiceCommission v. NationalAssociation of LetterCarriers 116c

federalism 37Federalist Party 7, 105cfederal political reformlegislation 51–57Bipartisan Campaign Re-form Act of 2002 55–57

Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1910 52

Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1925 52

Federal ElectionCampaign ActAmendments of 197454–55

Federal ElectionCampaign Act of 197153–54

Hatch Act of 1939 52

Long Act 53National VoterRegistration Act of1993 55

Pendleton Act 51Revenue Act of 1971 54Smith-Connally Act

52–53Taft-Hartley Act 53Tillman Act 51Voting Rights Act of1965 53

Federal Voting AssistanceProgram 113c, 115c, 240

Feingold, Russelland BCRA 31, 32John McCain 129Political CampaignBroadcast ActivityImprovements Act 122c

felons, voting rights andelection of 2000 33Richardson v. Ramirez 117c

female suffrage. See women’ssuffrage

Fifteenth Amendment 50,107cand African-Americanvoting rights 17

Susan B. Anthony 125election of 2000 5Gomillion v. Lightfoot

67–68, 113cGuinn v. United States

59–60Nixon v. Herndon 61–62ratification of 9, 107cUnited States v.Cruikshank 108c

United States v. Reese 108cVoting Rights Act of1965 114c

Wright v. Rockefeller71–72

Fifth AmendmentMcConnell v. FEC

101–103United Public Workers v.Mitchell 65–66

First Amendment 49, 140g.See also association, free-dom of; speech, freedom ofArkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 94–96


304

and BCRA 32BCRA legal challenges123c


Buckley v. Valeo 21–22,75–78, 117c

Bush v. Gore 96–99California DemocraticParty v. Jones 99–100


court cases 57, 58Day v. Holahan 87–89Democratic Party of theUnited States v.Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette 81–82

First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti78–80

and issue ads 29Landell v. Sorrell

100–101McIntyre v. Ohio ElectionsCommission 89–90

nonprofit advocacy groupcontribution regulations123c


Timmons v. Twin CitiesArea New Party92–94

United Public Workers v.Mitchell 65–66


First National Bank of Bostonv. Bellotti 78–80

“first past the post” 140g“527” groups 140g“floaters” 11Florida

Bush v. Gore 96–99election of 1876 9election of 2000 4,33–34, 121c


Florida primary (2002) 121c,122c

Florida Supreme Court 121cForbes, Ralph 94, 95Ford, Gerald 35, 126Ford, Henry 13Fourteenth Amendment

49–50, 140g. See also Equalprotection of the lawand African-Americanvoting rights 17

Susan B. Anthony 125Baker v. Carr and 114cBush v. Gore 34, 96–99Colegrove v. Green 63–64court cases 58Democratic Party of theUnited States v.Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette 81–82

election of 2000 4First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti 78–80

and former Confederatestates 107c


Gomillion v. Lightfoot and19

Guinn v. United States59–60

Nixon v. Herndon 17,61–62

ratification of 9Reynolds v. Sims 19,

68–70Shaw v. Reno 86–87, 119cVoting Rights Act of1965 114c

Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71Williams v. Rhodes 73–75and women’s suffrage 16Wright v. Rockefeller

71–72Frankfurter, Felix

and Colegrove v. Green 64and Gomillion v. Lightfoot68

freedom of speech and thepress 27, 140g. See alsoFirst Amendment

“freeholders” 8front loading 140gFundraising, Soft Money,1991–2001 266

Fundraising, Total Party,1991–2001 264

fusion 92–94, 140g

GGarfield, James A. 10general election 140gGeorgia

redistricting plan (2003)123c

Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71Williams v. Rhodes 73–75

Gerry, Elbridge 105cgerrymander 105c,140g–141g. See alsoapportionmentAllen v. State Board ofElections 115c

and apportionment86–87

Baker v. Carr 114cColegrove v. Green 112cGomillion v. Lightfoot

67–68, 113cracial 19, 86–87and reapportionment 18

“get out the vote” campaigns55, 56

Gilded Age 9–11Giles v. Harris 109cGiles v. Teasley 109cGingrich, Newt 119cGinsburg, Ruth Bader 87,98

Gomillion v. Lightfoot 67–68,72, 113creapportionment 18–19

Gompers, Samuel 110cGore, Al 96, 97. See also Bushv. Goreelection of 2000 4and the Electoral College37

fund-raising controversy120c

Ralph Nader 130GOTV (“get out the vote”)141g

Gould, Jay 12graft 141g“grandfather clauses” 141g

Guinn v. United States59–60, 110c–111c

literacy tests 109c

I n d e x

305

grassroots 141gGray v. Sanders 69Green Party 41, 42, 130Grovey v. Townsend 111cGuinier, Lani 127b–128bGuinn v. United States 17,

59–60, 110c–111c

HHaddock, Doris 31Hamilton, Alexander 7Hanna, Mark 12harassment 82–84hard money 56, 122c, 141gHarper v. Virginia Board ofElections 72–73, 114c–115c

Harris, Katherine 96, 97Harris, Thomas E. 23Harrison, Benjamin

election of 1888 108cand the Electoral College37

Hatch Act of 1939 52,111c–112c, 141gpassage of 14passage of amendments14–15, 119c



Hayes, Rutherford B.election of 1876 9, 108cand the Electoral College37

Hill, Stephen 41Hilliard, Earl 102Holmes, Oliver Wendell61–62

House of Representativesand campaigncontribution disclosure52

campaign spending limitsfor 52

candidate campaigncontributions for 53

constitutional electionprovisions for 45–46

direct election ofpresident proposal 115c

election day for members107c

election of 1824 106cand election of 1800 105cestablishment of 104cestablishment of fixednumber of members110c

limits on individualcampaign contributions56

John McCain 128–129presidential electiondecisions by 48–49

secret ballots 107cspending limits forcampaigns 54

term limit for 91–92,120c

Hughes, Charles Evans 110chuman rights 126

IIBM 130Idaho 16Illinois 63–64imbalances of power 131incumbent 141g

and campaign financereform 27

incumbent, retention ofcontributions by 90–91

independent expenditure28–29, 141g–142g

independents 36, 141gArkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 94–96

court cases 58and requirement of partymembership for votingin primaries 84–85


Williams v. Rhodes 73–75Indiana 11industry contributions 24initiatives 142g

contribution disclosurefor 122c

contribution limits for80–81

Progressive reforms 12in-kind contributions 142ginstant runoff system 123c.See also preference voting

Institute for Global Ethics259

interest group 142gInternet 30. See also web sitesissue ads 28–29, 31–32, 56,102, 122c, 142g

JJackson, Andrew

election of 1824 105c,106c

election of 1828 8election of 1832 9, 106c

Jefferson, Thomas 104cAlien and Sedition Laws105c

Democratic-RepublicanParty 7

election of 1800 105cJeness v. Fortson 75Jennings, W. Pat 115cJim Crow laws 142gJohnson v. Grandy 87Jordan, Vernon 39Joyce Foundation of Chicago24

jurisdiction 64Justice Department. See U.S.Department of Justice

KKeating, Charles 129“Keating Five” 129Kennedy, Anthony

and Arkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 95

and Shaw v. Reno 87Kennedy, John F. See alsoKennedy-Nixon debatesand campaign financecommission 114c

and Commission onCampaign Costs 20

and Electoral College37, 38

Kennedy-Nixon debates 20,113c

Kentuckyeasing of propertyrequirements 8

voting rights in 1790s104c

“Know-Nothing” Party 106c


306

LLabor ManagementRelations Act of 1947. SeeTaft-Hartley Act of 1947

labor unionscourt cases 58political contributions by53. See also Smith-Connally Act of 1943;Taft-Hartley Act of1947

regulation ofcontributions 14–15



voluntary political fundsrequirement for 79

Landell v. Sorrell 100–101language groups 18, 117cLassiter v. NorthamptonElection Board 73, 113c

law. See also specific lawsbibliography 211–214constitutional electionsprovisions 45–51

court cases 57–103electoral 49federal 51–57Federal ElectionCampaign Act (FECA)of 1971 116c

First Amendment attackson 49

state campaign financeregulations 57

League of Women Voters142gCarrie Chapman Cattand 126

establishment of 16, 111cLegal Defense and EducationFund (NAACP) 128

legal issues. See lawlegislation

bibliography 203–211federal 51–57state 57

legislative branch 45–47legislative summary of theBipartisan CampaignReform Act of 2002291–297

LexisNexis 173Libertarian Party 100line-item veto 129literacy tests (for voting) 46,109cand African-Americanvoting rights 17

Civil Rights Act of 196418, 114c

Guinn v. United States59–60

Harper v. Virginia Board ofElections 72–73

Lassiter v. NorthamptonElection Board 73, 113c

permanent ban on 18Voting Rights Actamendments 117c

Voting Rights Act of1965 18, 114c

Litigation under the VotingRights Act (LaughlinMcDonald) 129

lobbying 142gagainst free access tomedia 29

and term limits 35Locke, John 7Lodge-Gossett Amendment38

Long, Russell 20Long Act of 1966 20, 21, 53,115c

Louisianaelection of 1876 9United States v. Classic

62–63Lucas v. 44th General Assemblyof Colorado 70

Mmachine 10, 142g–143gmail-in voter registration 55

MaineClean Elections Act 30,120c

presidential electorchanges 116c

public funding 120cmajority-minority district143gand Voting Rights Act of1965 19

majority system 143gmajor parties 27. See alsoDemocratic Party;Republican Party

Makinson, Larry 26Marshall, John 79–80Marshall, Thurgood

and Brown v. SocialistWorkers ‘74 CampaignCommittee 83

and Munro v. SocialistWorkers Party 75

MassachusettsFirst National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti78–80

gerrymandering 105cMassachusetts Civil ServiceReform Act 127

matching funds 143gDay v. Holahan 87–89under FECA 55

McBride, Bill 122cMcCain, John Sidney 31, 32,122c, 128b–129b

McCain-Feingold Bill. SeeBipartisan CampaignReform Act of 2002

McConnell, Mitch 32,101–102

McConnell v. FEC 101–103McDonald, Laughlin 19,129b

McIntyre, Margaret 89McIntyre v. Ohio ElectionsCommission 89–90

McKinley, Williamand corporatecontributions 12

and Theodore Roosevelt132

media, free access to 29–30media, power of 29media coverage of elections29

media spendingfor broadcast ads 56Buckley v. Valeo 75–78limits on 53–54

Meehan, Martinand BCRA 31, 32John McCain 129

Meredith Corp. 29midterm election 143g

I n d e x

307

military personnel 113c,118c

Miller v. Johnson 87Minnesota

Day v. Holahan 87–89Timmons v. Twin CitiesArea New Party 92–94

minorities, voting rights for.See voting rights forminorities

minority 143gand congressionaldistricting 46

and the Electoral College39

Minority Vote Dilution(Chandler Davidson) 127

minor partiesArkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 94–96

California DemocraticParty v. Jones 99–100

and contribution limits27

court cases 58and fusion 92–94harassment vs. disclosurerequirements for82–84

public funding forconventions 55


Williams v. Rhodes 73–75and winner-take-allelection 5

Mississippi 109cMissouri

Carver v. Nixon 89Shrink MissouriGovernment PAC v.Maupin 90–91

state campaign financereform 119c

monopoliespolitical contributions by12

political influence 10Theodore Roosevelt 132

Montanastate campaign financereform 119c

women’s suffrage 109c

“Motor Voter Act” 143g. Seealso National VoterRegistration Act of 1993

Mott, Lucretia 16multiparty system 143g–144gmultistate campaigncommittees 52

multistate party committee 52Munro v. Socialist WorkersParty 75

NNAACP. See NationalAssociation for theAdvancement of ColoredPeople

NAACP v. Alabama 83–84NAB (National Associationof Broadcasters) 29

Nader, Ralph 129b–130belection of 2000 31and presidential debates96

The Nation 11National American WomanSuffrage Association(NAWSA) 16, 126

National Association for theAdvancement of ColoredPeople (NAACP) 128,144g

National Association ofBroadcasters (NAB) 29

National Association ofSecretaries of State 259

national banks, campaigncontributions by 51

National Civic League 259

National Civil ServiceReform League 127

National Commission onFederal Election Reform35, 126

national committee 144gnational conventions. Seeconventions

National Municipal LeagueJames Coolidge Carterand 126

and city governmentreform 11

National Municipal ReformLeague 109c

national party committeesdisclosure ofcontributions by 52

limits on contributions to52

limits on individualcontributions to 56

National Publicity LawAssociation (NPLA) 110cPerry Belmont and 125and campaign disclosureregulations 13

and election of 1904 12National Republican Party 8National Rifle Association(NRA) 32, 101

National Traffic and MotorVehicle Safety Act of 1966130

National Voter RegistrationAct of 1993 35, 55, 119c

National Voting RightsInstitute (NVRI) 101, 102,259

National Woman SuffrageAssociation (NWSA)Susan B. Anthony and125

establishment of 107cElizabeth Cady Stanton132

Naval Appropriations Bill of1867 107c

NAWSA. See NationalAmerican Woman SuffrageAssociation

negative advertising 144gnegative campaigning 144gNewberry, Truman H. 13,60–61

Newberry v. United States 13,52, 60–62

New Deal, labor unions and14, 15

New Hampshireeasing of propertyrequirements 8


New York Cityelection of 1832 106cand political machines 10Theodore Roosevelt 132Wright v. Rockefeller

71–72


308

New York Stateand city governmentreform 11

Theodore Roosevelt 132Nineteenth Amendment 16,50, 111c, 126

Ninth Amendment 65Nixon, Richard M. See alsoKennedy-Nixon debateselection of 1972116c–117c


Nixon v. Condon 62Nixon v. Herndon 17, 61–62Nixon v. Shrink MissouriGovernment PAC 89

nomination 144gnonbinding primary 144gnonfederal funds 23nonprofit advocacy groups123c

nonpublic forum 95North Carolina 86–87North Dakota 109cNPLA. See NationalPublicity Law Association

NRA. See National RifleAssociation

NRVI. See National VotingRights Institute

nuclear power industry 130

NWSA. See NationalWoman SuffrageAssociation

Nyhart, Nick 30

OO’Connor, Sandra Day 86,87

O’Daniel, W. Lee 112coff-year election 144gOhio


McIntyre v. Ohio ElectionsCommission 89–90

Williams v. Rhodes 73–75Ohio American IndependentParty 74

Ohio Campaign ExpenseReporting Law 83

Ohio Socialist Workers Party82–84

Oklahoma 59–60“one man, one vote” 144g


Lucas v. 44th GeneralAssembly of Colorado 70

Reynolds v. Sims 68–70Wesbury v. Sanders 70–71

open primary 144gDemocratic Party of theUnited States v.Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette 81–82



Oregon 119cOregon v. Mitchell 116cOrnstein, Norman 30outside expenditures 122coverseas ballots 97Overseas Citizens VotingRights Act 115c

overvote 144g

PPAC. See political actioncommittee

Parker, Alton B. 12parliamentary government144g–145g

partisan 145gparty-building

and FECA Amendmentsof 1979 22, 23

spending on 55party slates 105cpatronage 145gPeace and Freedom Party100

Pendleton Act of 1883 51Hatch Act and 14passage of 10, 108cTheodore Roosevelt 132

Perot, H. Ross 38, 96,130b–131b

petition 145gPetracca, Mark P. 35, 131bPipefitters v. United States67

Piven, Frances Fox 131bplatform 145gplurality 145gpolicy work 145gpolitical action committee(PAC) 51, 120c, 145gBuckley v. Valeo 117cestablishment of firstPAC 15, 112c

and independentexpenditures 28

Political Action Committees(PACs) Count 265

Political Campaign BroadcastActivity Improvements Act122c

political corruption. Seefederal political reformlegislation

political landscape, changesin 6–19

political parties 145g–146gCalifornia DemocraticParty v. Jones 99–100

combining ofindependentexpenditures andcandidate committeeexpenditures by 56

conventions, origin of 106c


and FECA Amendmentsof 1979 22–23

FECA’s effect on 22freedom of associationand restrictions on 49

freedom of association for84–85

freedom of association of81–82

and fusion 92–94public funding fornational conventions55


and Twelfth Amendment105c

polity 146g

I n d e x

309

polling place 96, 146gpoll tax 146g

and African-Americanvoting rights 17

Breedlove v. Suttles 111ccourt cases 58forbidding of 50Harper v. Virginia Board ofElections 72–73,114c–115c

Mississippi 109cTwenty-fourthAmendment 114c

poll watcher 146gpopulism 8–9, 146gPowell, Adam Clayton 71Powell, Lewis 79Powell v. McCormack 92preference voting 39–41,146g

presidentcandidate campaigncontributions for 53

Constitutional electionprovisions for 48–49

House of Representativesvote on 48–49

rules for succession of 51term limits for 50

presidential campaignsJohn McCain 129Ralph Nader 129–130Ross Perot 130–131public financing of53–55

spending limits for 54presidential succession 115cpresidential term limits 113cpress, freedom of 49primary elections 146g

blanket 99–100California DemocraticParty v. Jones 99–100

and campaigncontribution disclosure52


congressional regulationof 52


equal vote in 69freedom of associationand restrictions on 49

Newberry v. United States13, 60–62, 111c

Nixon v. Herndon 61–62reform efforts 36requirement of partymembership for votingin 84–85


United States v. Classic62–63, 112c

white primaries 61–62print advertising, broadcastvs. 102

privileges and immunities ofcitizensin FourteenthAmendment 49

Supreme Courtinterpretation of 50

Progressive Era reformefforts 11–13

Progressive Party 146gProject Vote Smart 260property ownership 7, 8property rights

of corporations, “liberty”rights v. 79


proportional delegateselectionelection of 1976 117cand the Electoral College38

proportional representation41–42, 146gDouglas J. Amy 124legislation requiring 115c

Proportion of Party FundsRaised from Soft Money,1991-2001 267

Proposition 208. SeeCalifornia Political ReformAct of 1996

Public Campaign 30, 260public campaign financing(funding) 147g. See alsoLong Act of 1966; RevenueAct of 1971Clean Elections Act 120c

Commission onCampaign Costs and20

Day v. Holahan 87–89FECA Amendments of1974 and 21

for presidentialcampaigns 54

of presidential campaigns55

of presidential candidates53

Progressive Era proposals12

Tucson, Arizona 118cVote Choice, Inc. v. DiStefano 89

Washington state 119cPublic Citizen 130public forum, access to |94

public interest, mediacoverage of elections and29

Publicity Act of 1910. SeeFederal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1910

punch-card voting machines33

“pure speech” 90purging, of voter rolls 33push poll 147g

Qqualifications of candidates91–92

Quiet Revolution in the South:The Impact of the VotingRights Act, 1965-1990 127

“quota politics” 128

Rracial gerrymandering 19racial minorities

and apportionment67–68, 71–72

and gerrymandering86–87

and literacy tests 59–60voting rights for 50and white primaries61–62

radio advertising, spendingon 54


310

Reagan, Ronald 126Real Choices, New VoicesL TheCase for ProportionalRepresentation Elections inthe United States (Douglas J.Amy) 124

reapportionment(redistricting) 18–19,147g. See alsoapportionment (districting)bibliography 214–223Georgia (2003) 123cHouse of Representatives110c

Reynolds v. Sims 114cShaw v. Reno 119cThornburg v. Gingles 118cVoting Rights Act of1965 114c

Wesbury v. Sanders 114crecall 123c, 147gReconstruction

election of 1876 108cend of, and African-American voting rights17

minority voting rights 107c

and voting rights forAfrican Americans 9

recount 147gBush v. Gore 96–99election of 2000 4, 34

redistricting. Seeapportionment (districting);reapportionment

redress of grievances 49referendum 12, 147g. See alsoinitiatives

Reform Party 130, 131,147g–148g

registration. See voterregistration

Regulating the Poor (FrancesPiven and RichardCloward) 131

Rehnquist, Williamand First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti 79

and Shaw v. Reno 87and Timmons v. TwinCities Area New Party93

religion, freedom of 49Reno, Janet 121c, 122c

reporting. See also disclosureBrown v. Socialist Workers’74 Campaign Committee82–84

of campaigncontributions 52

of electioneeringstatement spending 56

under 1976 FECAamendments 55

by multistate campaigncommittees 52

by national partycommittees 52

representative 148grepresentative democracy148g

republic 148gRepublican NationalCommittee 11

Republican Party 148g“assessments” 10corporate contributionsin 1904 election 12

election of 1876 108cand Hatch Actrestrictions 66

and political influence ofmonopolies 10

Publicity Act of 1910 13Theodore Roosevelt 132and voter registrationliberalization 35

research resources forcampaign and electoralreform 155–173bibliographies, indexes,and databases 168

bookstore catalogs167–168

campaign finance reformwebsites 156–160

court decisions, finding172–173

elections/electoral systemwebsites 156–158

findingorganizations/people onthe web 165–166

government web sites156

laws, finding 170–171legal research 169–173legislative developments,tracking of 171–172

LexisNexis and Westlaw173

library catalogs 166–167media web sites 162online resources 156–166periodical indexes 169print sources 166–169related topics, websitesfor 160–162

search engines 163–165web portals 163web searches andresearch 162–166

reserved state powers 92residency requirements 116cThe Return to Secret PartyFunds (Perry Belmont) 125

Revenue Act of 1971 21, 54,116c

Reynolds v. Sims 68–70, 114cColegrove v. Green 64“one man, one vote”principle 71

redistricting 19Richardson v. Ramirez 117cright of assembly 148g–149gThe Rights of Racial Minorities(Laughlin McDonald) 129

right to vote. See votingrights

“robust speech” 102Rock the Vote 149gRodham, Hillary 128Roosevelt, Franklin 14, 52Roosevelt, Theodore131b–132bcampaign finance reform110c

corporate contributions109c

and election of 1904 12and public financingproposals 12

run-off 149gRutledge, Wiley Blount 67

S“safe harbor” 98sample ballot 149gSan Francisco 123cSanta Clara County(California) 122c

I n d e x

311

Scalia, Antoninand California DemocraticParty v. Jones 99

and Shaw v. Reno 87and Tashjian v. RepublicanParty of Connecticut 85

Schier, Steven 27–28Seattle (Washington) 116csecret ballot 93, 149g

Richard Henry Dana III127

and House ofRepresentatives 107c

sectionalism 149gSeminole County (Florida)33

Senateand campaigncontribution disclosure52


candidate campaigncontributions for 53


contribution limits whenopponent spends largeamounts of personalfunds 56

direct election ofpresident proposal 115c

limits on individualcampaign contributions56

John McCain 129spending limits forcampaigns 54

term limit for 91–92Senators, direct election of50

Seneca Falls Convention 16,106c, 132

separation of powers 64Seventeenth Amendment 12,47, 50, 110cdirect elections 12ratification of 110c

Shaw v. Hunt 87Shaw v. Reno 19, 86–87,119c

Shays, Christopherand BCRA 31, 32John McCain 129

Shays-Meehan bill 120c

Shrink Missouri GovernmentPAC v. Maupin 90–91

single-member district 149g

slate 149gslavery 9Smith, Bradley A. 27Smith-Connally Act of 194315, 52–53, 112c

Smith v. Allwright 62, 112csmoke-filled room 149gSocialist Labor Party 74soft money 22–24, 51, 149gBCRA 121cand BCRA 31, 32BCRA legal challenges123c

BCRA provisions for 56,57

election of 1992 119celection of 2000 3and FECA amendments55

Federal ElectionCampaign ActAmendments of 1979117c

fundraising (1991–2001)266

John McCain and 129McConnell v. FEC

101–103outside expenditureregulation 122c

proportion of party fundsraised from (1991-2001)267

sound bite 149g–150gSouter, David

and Bush v. Gore 98and Shaw v. Reno 87

South Africa 129South Carolina

election of 1876 9literacy tests 109c

South Carolina v. Katzenback60

South Dakota 109cspecial interest group 142gspeech, freedom of 49. Seealso First AmendmentArkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 94–96

Buckley v. Valeo 75–78Citizens Against RentControl v. City ofBerkeley 80–81

court cases 58Day v. Holahan 87–89First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti 78–80

and freedom ofassociation 81


McIntyre v. Ohio ElectionsCommission 89–90

and media spending76–78


and spend-downprovision 90, 91

“spend down” provision 90,91

spending limitsBuckley v. Valeo 21–22,55, 75–78

Day v. Holahan 87–89debate over 26–28FECA Amendments of1974 and 21

Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1925 13, 14

Hatch Act and 14–15Landell v. Sorrell

100–101loopholes in 55for media 53–54Newberry v. United States

60–62and NPLA 12overall 54on political campaigns52

Publicity Actamendments 13

Vote Choice, Inc. v. DiStefano 89

spin doctor 150gspoiler 150gSproule v. Fredericks

African-American votingrights 17

black disenfranchisement109c

stand 150g


312

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady132b–133b

Susan B. Anthony 125and NWSA 107cand women’s suffrage 16

State Apportionment Act of1901 64


state campaign financeregulations 57

state electionsand FECA Amendmentsof 1979 23

noncitizen voting rightsin 106c

poll taxes in 73and women’s suffrage 16

state electoral systemsfederal approval ofadditions to 46

and House ofRepresentativeselections 46

state legislation 49–50, 91state legislatures

and Electoral College 7federal electionregulation by 47

Senators originallychosen by 47

state residency requirementfor Representatives 46for Senate 47

statesapplication of “one man,one vote” to 69

apportioning House seatsamong 46

disclosure requirementsfor minor parties 82–84

electors appointed by 48legislative models of 69power over votingqualifications by 73

racial gerrymandering by86–87

regulation of electoralprocess by 82, 84–85,92–93

reserved powers of 92summary information on57

voter registrationassistance by 55

statistical dead heat 150gStenholm, Charles W. 26Stevens, John Paul

and Arkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 95

and Bush v. Gore 98and McIntyre v. OhioElections Commission90

and Shaw v. Reno 87and U.S. Term Limits,Inc., v. Thornton 92

Stewart, Potterand Democratic Party ofthe United States v.Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette 82

and Lucas v. 44th GeneralAssembly of Colorado70

Stone, Lucy 107cstraw poll 150gstuffing, ballot 150gsuffrage 150gsuffragists 150gSunstein, Cass R. 26Super Tuesday 118c, 150gSupreme Court

and BCRA 32Chandler Davidson 127election of 2000 5, 34,121c


Laughlin McDonald 129

nonprofit advocacy groupcontribution regulations123c

Mark P. Petracca 131and primary electionreform 36

Supreme Court casesAllen v. State Board ofElections 115c

Arkansas EducationalTelevision Commission v.Forbes 94–96, 120c

Baker v. Carr 64, 70,114c

Breedlove v. Suttles 72,111c

Buckley v. Valeo 21–22,75–78, 117c, 268–285

Bush v. Gore 34, 96–99,121c

California DemocraticParty v. Jones 36,99–100, 120c–121c

Colegrove v. Green 63–64,70, 112c, 114c

Common Cause v. FederalElection Commission 24

Giles v. Harris 109cGiles v. Teasley 109cGomillion v. Lightfoot18–19, 67–68, 72, 113c

Grovey v. Townsend 111cGuinn v. United States17, 59–60, 110c–111c

Harper v. Virginia Board ofElections 72–73,114c–115c

Lassiter v. NorthamptonElection Board 73, 113c

Newberry v. United States13, 52, 60–62, 111c

Oregon v. Mitchell 116cReynolds v. Sims 19, 64,

68–70, 71, 114cRichardson v. Ramirez117c

Shaw v. Reno 19, 86–87,119c

Smith v. Allwright 62,112c

Sproule v. Fredericks 109cThornburg v. Gingles 19,118c, 119c, 127

United States v. Classic 61,62–63, 112c


U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v.Thornton 36, 91–92,120c

Wesbury v. Sanders 68,70–71, 114c

Supreme Court (Florida)121c

The Survival of the DemocraticPrinciple (Perry Belmont)125

swing vote 39, 150gSWP. See Ohio SocialistWorkers Party

I n d e x

313

TTaft-Hartley Act of 1947 53,112cpassage of 15United States v. Congress ofIndustrial Organizations66–67

Talley v. California 90Tammany Hall 150g

James Coolidge Carterand 125

and electoral corruption10

Theodore Roosevelt 132Tashjian v. Republican Party ofConnecticut 84–85

taxes, as issue for corporatecontributions 78

tax-exempt political groups121c

Teapot Dome scandal 13technology

and effects of womansuffrage 17

of voting machines 4, 34television

and election of 1960 20Kennedy-Nixon debates113c

spending on 20, 54Tenth Amendment

and reserved powers ofstates 92


term limits 35–36,150g–151gbibliography 223–226court cases 58first proposal formembers of Congress112c

Mark P. Petracca 131presidential 113crejection ofCongressionalamendment 120c

rejection ofCongressionalamendment proposal120c

Twenty-secondAmendment 113c

U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v.Thornton 91–92, 120c

term of officefor President and VicePresident 48

for Representatives 45for Senators 47

Terry v. Adams 62Texas 61–62third parties. See minorparties

Thirteenth Amendment 9Thomas, Clarence 87Thompson, Bennie 102Thornburg v. Gingles 118c

Chandler Davidson 127redistricting 19Shaw v. Reno and 119c

ticket 151gTilden, Samuel

James Coolidge Carterand 126

and city governmentreform 11

election of 1876 9, 108cand the Electoral College37

Tillman, Benjamin 12Tillman Act of 1907 12, 51

campaign finance reform110c

Theodore Roosevelt 132Timmons v. Twin Cities AreaNew Party 92–94

Tinsdale, Elkanah 105cTotal Party Fundraising,1991–2001 264

touch-screen votingmachines 122c

town meeting 151gtracking poll 151gtraditional public forum 95

transparency 151gtriangulation 151gTribe, Laurence 34truth squad 151gTucson (Arizona) 118cturnout 151gTuskeegee (Alabama) 18–19Tweed, William Marcy 10,125

Twelfth Amendmentand electoral vote 48ratification of 105c

Twenty-fifth Amendment51, 115c

Twenty-fourth Amendment50, 114cpoll taxes banned by 73ratification of 114c

Twenty-second Amendment50, 113c

Twenty-sixth Amendment51, 116c, 151g

Twenty-third Amendment50, 113c

two-party system 38, 151gtyranny of the majority 151gThe Tyranny of the Majority(Lani Guinier) 128

Uundervote 151gundiluted vote 69Uniformed and OverseasCitizens Absentee VotingAct 118c

unions. See labor unionsUnited Jewish Organizations v.Carey 86


United States v. Auto Workers67

United States v. Classic 61,62–63, 112c


United States v. Cruikshank108c

United States v. O’Brien 77United States v. Reese 108cUnited We Stand 130Unsafe at Any Speed (RalphNader) 130

urban voters 39U.S. Census Bureau 239U.S. Civil Service Commissionv. National Association ofLetter Carriers 116c

U.S. Department of Justiceand BCRA 32Chandler Davidson 127Federal Corrupt PracticesAct of 1910 115c

Lani Guinier 128Voting Rights Act of1965 18, 114c

and Voting Rights Act of1965 19


314

U.S. Term Limits 260U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v.Thornton 36, 91–92, 120c

“usability testing” 33Utah 16

VVan Buren, Martin 8Vermont

easing of propertyrequirements 8

Landell v. Sorrell100–101


vice-presidentcandidate campaigncontributions for 53


Twenty-fifth Amendment115c

Vietnam WarJohn McCain 128Ross Perot 130

Virginia 72–73Vote Choice, Inc. v. Di Stefano89

vote dilutionAllen v. State Board ofElections 115c


Thornburg v. Gingles19

“vote early and often” 151gvoter registration 148g. Seealso National VoterRegistration Act of 1993mail-in 55National VoterRegistration Act of1993 119c

soft money restrictionsfor 56

state agency assistancewith 55

voter registration drivesand African-Americanvoting rights 18

and FECA Amendmentsof 1979 23

voter rights, term limits and35

votes, counting ofBush v. Gore 96–99. Seealso election of 2000

court cases 58vote-selling

Adams County, Ohio110c

Indiana 11Voting Accessibility for theElderly and HandicappedAct 118c

voting ageamendments for age 18vote 116c

minimum 51Twenty-sixth Amendment116c

voting machineselection of 2000 4Santa Clara County(California) 122c

Voting Modernization Act of2002 34

voting process 33–35,226–232

voting rightsBush v. Gore 96–99ConstitutionalAmendment provisionsfor 49–51

easing of propertyrequirements 8

expansion of 15–19Fifteenth Amendmentprovisions for 50

First Amendmentprovisions for 459

Fourteenth Amendmentprovisions for 49–50

for noncitizens 106cin 1790s 104cweb sites about 156women’s suffrage 106c

Voting Rights Act of 196553and African-Americanvoting rights 18

amendments for age 18vote 116c

effects of 115cLani Guinier 128literacy tests banned by73

Laughlin McDonald 1291975 amendments 117c

1982 amendments 118cpassage of 114cand racial discriminationthrough literacy tests60

and racialgerrymandering 86, 87

voting rights for minorities.See also Voting Rights Actof 1965Allen v. State Board ofElections 115c

Susan B. Anthony 125and ban ondiscrimination 53

bibliography 214–223Compromise of 1877108c

court cases 58Chandler Davidson 127election of 2000 33Fifteenth Amendment107c

under FifteenthAmendment 50

Fourteenth Amendmentprotection for 50, 107c

Gomillion v. Lightfoot67–68, 113c

Lani Guinier 128Guinn v. United States

59–60Harper v. Virginia Board ofElections 72–73

Laughlin McDonald 129

Mississippi 109cNixon v. Herndon 61–62Shaw v. Reno 86–87Thornburg v. Gingles 118cVoting Rights Act, 1982amendments 118c

Voting Rights Act of1965 114c

voting rights for women. Seewomen’s suffrage

voting rights reform 131voting standards 97–98, 104c

Wwalking-around money 151gWallace, George 74Wanamaker, John 12ward 152g

I n d e x

315

War Labor Disputes Act of1943. See Smith-ConnallyAct of 1943

Warren, Earl 69Washington, George 104cWashington state

Munro v. Socialist WorkersParty 75

public financingprohibition 119c

women’s suffrage 109cWatergate 21, 116cweb sites

Campaign FinanceInformation Center 57

for campaign finance re-form research 156–160

for elections/electoralsystem research156–158

FEC 57for finding organizations/people 165–166

for government agencies156

for media organizations162

for research on campaignand electoral reform156–166

Wesbury v. Sanders 68,70–71Colegrove v. Green 70

Westlaw 173Westminster (Colorado)120c

Whig Party 106c, 152gWhite, Byron

and First National Bank ofBoston v. Bellotti 79

and Shaw v. Reno 87and United JewishOrganizations v. Carey86

White, Edward Douglass 59white males, voting rights of7, 104c

white primary 152gand Democratic Party17

Grovey v. Townsend 111cNixon v. Herndon 61–62Smith v. Allwright 112c

Why Americans Don’t Vote(Frances Piven and RichardCloward) 131

Williams v. Rhodes 73–75Wilson, Woodrow 126winner-take-all primary152g

winner-take-all system 152gelection of 2000 4and the Electoral College38

Maine alternative 116cand proportionalrepresentation 41

and third parties 5Wisconsin 81–82women’s suffrage 15–17, 50,152gSusan B. Anthony124b–125b

and AWSA/NWSA 107c

Carrie Chapman Cattand 126

in late 1800s 108c–109cNineteenth Amendment111c

Seneca Falls Convention106c

Elizabeth Cady Stanton132–133

World War I 16Wright v. Rockefeller 71–72write-in candidate 152gWyoming 16, 109c


316