Chapter 9Chapter 9

Campaigns & Campaigns & ElectionsElections

How We Nominate How We Nominate CandidatesCandidates

The Party Nominating ConventionThe Party Nominating Convention– Select candidates and delegates Select candidates and delegates

Party Control over NominationsParty Control over Nominations CaucusesCaucuses The Direct PrimaryThe Direct Primary

– Closed PrimariesClosed Primaries– Open PrimariesOpen Primaries– Blanket and Nonpartisan PrimariesBlanket and Nonpartisan Primaries

Nominating Presidential Nominating Presidential CandidatesCandidates

Presidential Primaries and Presidential Primaries and CaucusesCaucuses– State presidential primariesState presidential primaries– Primaries - The Rush to be First (Front Primaries - The Rush to be First (Front

loading)loading)– Revival of the “White Primary” Revival of the “White Primary”

DebateDebate National Party ConventionsNational Party Conventions

State PrimariesState Primaries

© 2004 Wadsworth Publishing / Thomson Learning™

The Modern Political The Modern Political CampaignCampaign

The Professional Campaign The Professional Campaign OrganizationOrganization– Political consultantsPolitical consultants– Campaign StrategyCampaign Strategy

Campaign Finance ProblemsCampaign Finance Problems The high cost of campaignsThe high cost of campaigns

– Media marketsMedia markets– Political consultantsPolitical consultants– Get out the vote effortsGet out the vote efforts– Party building effortsParty building efforts– Wealthy or well-financed candidates create a spending raceWealthy or well-financed candidates create a spending race

Soft MoneySoft Money– Funds raised and spent by political parties and Funds raised and spent by political parties and

organizations created, financed, or controlled by parties or organizations created, financed, or controlled by parties or candidates outside the limits and oversight of the Federal candidates outside the limits and oversight of the Federal Election CommissionElection Commission

Independent ExpendituresIndependent Expenditures– Funds raised and spent by individuals and third parties Funds raised and spent by individuals and third parties

independent of political campaignsindependent of political campaigns– Corporate and interest group influence on electionsCorporate and interest group influence on elections– Corporate and Union powers to extract contributions from Corporate and Union powers to extract contributions from

employeesemployees

Approaches to Decoupling Approaches to Decoupling Money from PoliticsMoney from Politics

Demand-side management:Demand-side management:– Control costs of electionsControl costs of elections– Address media costsAddress media costs– Control spending by candidatesControl spending by candidates– Control influence of interest groups, Control influence of interest groups,

corporations or individualscorporations or individuals– Reduce party influenceReduce party influence– Shorten campaignsShorten campaigns– Sunshine Laws and Watchdog groupsSunshine Laws and Watchdog groups

Supply-side management:Supply-side management:– Curb contributionsCurb contributions– Limit contribution windows or spending Limit contribution windows or spending

flexibilityflexibility– Curb union and corporate fundraising Curb union and corporate fundraising

practicespractices– Curb fundraising activities by third party Curb fundraising activities by third party

groupsgroups

Campaign Finance ReformsCampaign Finance Reforms The Federal Election Campaign Act The Federal Election Campaign Act

(FECA) 1971(FECA) 1971 (Amendments in 1974)(Amendments in 1974)

– Buckley v. ValeoBuckley v. Valeo (1976) (1976) The Rise of PACs (Political Action The Rise of PACs (Political Action

Committees)Committees) The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act (2002)Campaign Reform Act (2002) See: See: www.fec.govwww.fec.gov and and

www.opensecrets.orgwww.opensecrets.org

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)Act (BCRA)

Closed “soft money” loophole in Closed “soft money” loophole in Federal Election Campaign Act by Federal Election Campaign Act by prohibiting national parties from prohibiting national parties from raising and spending money outside raising and spending money outside the limits and prohibitions of FECA.the limits and prohibitions of FECA.

Limits state and local party use of Limits state and local party use of soft money to influence federal soft money to influence federal elections, including using these funds elections, including using these funds to pay wages for officials who spend to pay wages for officials who spend more than 25% of their time on more than 25% of their time on activities connected to a federal activities connected to a federal election.election.

Bans the use of soft money (non-Bans the use of soft money (non-federal funds) for voter registration federal funds) for voter registration and GOTV efforts by state and local and GOTV efforts by state and local party officials w/in 120 days of party officials w/in 120 days of election when a federal candidate election when a federal candidate appears on the ballot.appears on the ballot.

Limits party fundraising. Prohibits Limits party fundraising. Prohibits parties from soliciting funds for 501(c) parties from soliciting funds for 501(c) tax-exempt organizations that spend tax-exempt organizations that spend funds on federal elections and 527 funds on federal elections and 527 groups (not affiliated with parties).groups (not affiliated with parties).

Bans federal candidates from Bans federal candidates from soliciting, receiving, directing, soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending “soft transferring, or spending “soft money” on federal elections; limits money” on federal elections; limits their ability to use these funds for their ability to use these funds for state elections.state elections.

Bans state and local candidates (and Bans state and local candidates (and officers) from using “soft money” on officers) from using “soft money” on public communications that support, public communications that support, attack, promote, or oppose federal attack, promote, or oppose federal candidates.candidates.

Defines and regulates “electioneering Defines and regulates “electioneering communications.”communications.”

Doubles “hard money” contribution Doubles “hard money” contribution limits.limits.

““Party choice” provision.Party choice” provision. ““Millionaire’s Amendment” increases Millionaire’s Amendment” increases

spending limits when candidate faces a spending limits when candidate faces a deep-pocket opponent.deep-pocket opponent.

Bans minors from making contributions Bans minors from making contributions to parties or federal candidates.to parties or federal candidates.

Signed into law on March 27, 2002.Signed into law on March 27, 2002. Effective November 6, 2002.Effective November 6, 2002. Immediately challenged in federal district Immediately challenged in federal district

courts.courts.

Court Challenges to BCRACourt Challenges to BCRA

McConnell v. FEC (U.S. District Court, McConnell v. FEC (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia) combined District of Columbia) combined several related challenges to the several related challenges to the BCRA into one case.BCRA into one case.

The cases involved more than 80 The cases involved more than 80 plaintiffs, including the NRA, the plaintiffs, including the NRA, the ACLU, big campaign donors, labor ACLU, big campaign donors, labor unions, and an array of special unions, and an array of special interest groups. interest groups.

May 2, 2003: Court ruled that the May 2, 2003: Court ruled that the main provisions were constitutional, main provisions were constitutional, but other provisions were but other provisions were problematic or nonjusticiable. Ruling problematic or nonjusticiable. Ruling was stayed until expedited Supreme was stayed until expedited Supreme Court appeal. Court appeal.

Read more at: Read more at: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2004/jhttp://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2004/jan04.pdfan04.pdf

Court challenges to BCRACourt challenges to BCRA

McConnell v. FEC (12/10/2003)McConnell v. FEC (12/10/2003)– U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the

BCRA’s ban on soft money and regulation of BCRA’s ban on soft money and regulation of electioneering communications.electioneering communications.

– Struck down provisions banning contributions Struck down provisions banning contributions from minors and the “choice provision” which from minors and the “choice provision” which forced party committees to choose between forced party committees to choose between coordinated and independent expenditures coordinated and independent expenditures after the nomination.after the nomination.

– Ruled “Millionaire’s Amendment” Ruled “Millionaire’s Amendment” nonjusticiable.nonjusticiable.

Opinion of the CourtOpinion of the Court

Contribution limits and free speech:Contribution limits and free speech:– Government interest in “preventing the actual Government interest in “preventing the actual

or apparent corruption of federal candidates or apparent corruption of federal candidates and officeholders” is sufficient to justify limits and officeholders” is sufficient to justify limits on contributions.on contributions.

Limits to freedom of assembly Limits to freedom of assembly – Court rejected arguments that BCRA violated Court rejected arguments that BCRA violated

freedom of assembly between national, state, freedom of assembly between national, state, and local party committees.and local party committees.

Limits on state and local party activitiesLimits on state and local party activities– Upheld on the grounds of important Upheld on the grounds of important

government interestgovernment interest

The Growth in Soft Money The Growth in Soft Money ContributionsContributions

See: See: http://http://www.FECInfo.comwww.FECInfo.com Political parties and special interest groups spent Political parties and special interest groups spent

an estimated $900 million on issue ads during the an estimated $900 million on issue ads during the 2002 elections. 2002 elections.

The NRA alone spent $25 million to defeat Al Gore in The NRA alone spent $25 million to defeat Al Gore in 2000. The NRA also gave $1.5 million in soft money 2000. The NRA also gave $1.5 million in soft money during the 2000 elections, and roughly $600,000 in during the 2000 elections, and roughly $600,000 in soft money during the 2002 congressional elections, soft money during the 2002 congressional elections, all of it to Republicans. all of it to Republicans.

The AFL-CIO gives 95% of its campaign The AFL-CIO gives 95% of its campaign contributions to Democrats, mostly in hard money. contributions to Democrats, mostly in hard money. In the 2002 election cycle, they only gave $130,000 In the 2002 election cycle, they only gave $130,000 in soft money, but were famous for independent in soft money, but were famous for independent expenditures in the form of issue ads aimed at expenditures in the form of issue ads aimed at influencing voters directly.influencing voters directly.

The ACLU argued that restrictions on broadcast ads The ACLU argued that restrictions on broadcast ads were unconstitutional. They had been involved were unconstitutional. They had been involved earlier (1976) in Buckley v. Valeo, where restrictions earlier (1976) in Buckley v. Valeo, where restrictions on contributions were ruled unconstitutional.on contributions were ruled unconstitutional.

Republican National Committee: Republican National Committee: – In 2002, the RNC raised $250 million for In 2002, the RNC raised $250 million for

congressional races, including more than $100 congressional races, including more than $100 million in soft money. million in soft money.

– During the 2000 election, the committee raised During the 2000 election, the committee raised more than $166 million in soft money.more than $166 million in soft money.

– Prior to the reforms, soft money averaged about Prior to the reforms, soft money averaged about 40-45 percent of the group's total amount raised. 40-45 percent of the group's total amount raised.

Democratic National Committee: The Democratic National Committee: The DNC raised almost $76 million in soft DNC raised almost $76 million in soft money during the 2002 election cycle.money during the 2002 election cycle.

State parties stand to lose the State parties stand to lose the most.most.

California Democratic Party and California Democratic Party and California Republican PartyCalifornia Republican Party– Argued that the BCRA is an illegal extension of Argued that the BCRA is an illegal extension of

federal powers and pre-emption of state authority.federal powers and pre-emption of state authority.– These state parties were given $900,000 and 1.5 These state parties were given $900,000 and 1.5

million, respectively, by the national party million, respectively, by the national party organizations.organizations.

Source: Vikki Kratz, Capital Eye, Center for Responsive Politics Source: Vikki Kratz, Capital Eye, Center for Responsive Politics at at http://http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?IDwww.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=54=54 November 25, November 25, 2002.2002.

Top Contributors in 2000 Election Top Contributors in 2000 Election CycleCycle

© 2004 Wadsworth Publishing / Thomson Learning™

Top Contributors in 2000 Election Top Contributors in 2000 Election Cycle, Cycle, (cont.)(cont.)

•Go to: http://www.opensecrets.org© 2004 Wadsworth Publishing / Thomson Learning™

How We Elect CandidatesHow We Elect Candidates

Types of ElectionsTypes of Elections– General ElectionGeneral Election

Types of BallotsTypes of Ballots– Australian BallotAustralian Ballot

Conducting Elections and Counting the Conducting Elections and Counting the VotesVotes

Presidential Elections and the Electoral Presidential Elections and the Electoral CollegeCollege– Electors and the Electoral CollegeElectors and the Electoral College– Go to: Go to: http://http://www.fec.govwww.fec.gov– Go to: Go to: http://http://

gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/elecollg.htmlgi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/elecollg.html

Americans at Odds over Americans at Odds over Campaigns and ElectionsCampaigns and Elections

Should We Eliminate the Electoral Should We Eliminate the Electoral College?College?

Do National Conventions Serve Any Do National Conventions Serve Any Purpose Today?Purpose Today?

Does Money Buy Votes?Does Money Buy Votes?

Primaries across the U.S.Primaries across the U.S.