United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013)

2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of the American Presidential and Congressional Electoral Systems

Electoral Fairness Audit Completed October 14, 2012

Executive Summary

The American federal electoral system borders a failed state as determined by the overall unsatisfactory audit score of 54.5 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured

1) two failing scores for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (48.25 percent) and media election coverage (42.5 percent);

2) one unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (57 percent);

3) one satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (70.25 percent).

The FDA auditors factored in 52 independent variables and used matrices and financial analysis in its calculations and determinations. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that the American federal election outcomes may not reflect the voice of Americans from electoral districts. The significant legislated unfair competition between American candidates and parties coupled with electoral finance legislation favoring wealthy money interests and media legislation favoring large corporate media and imbalanced election coverage creates a system tilted heavily to special and minority interests, rather than the American people. The FDA believes that reforms are necessary in electoral finance and election coverage in order to help realign the American federal electoral process with Americans as a whole. The FDA recommends, for examples, expenditure limits on congressional candidates and privately funded presidential candidates, caps on independent third-party expenditure, caps on media ownership concentration, and a voluntary media code of conduct during the 60-day campaign period which supports broad and balanced campaign coverage.

The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing.

“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.” - Aristotle

Revised April 11, 2013Prepared By

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Executive Director Foundation for Democratic Advancement, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Peer Review By

Mr. Steve Finley, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Purdue University, Master of Business Administration, Indiana University, and Juris Doctor, Valparaiso University;

Ms. Anne Rupcich, Bachelor of Arts in Law and Society and English, University of Calgary;Ms. Lindsay Tetlock, Bachelor of Arts in International Relations and Master of Arts in Historical Studies, University of Calgary;

Purpose of the American Electoral Fairness Audit

The purpose of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)’s electoral fairness audit (the “Audit”) is to determine a comprehensive grade for electoral fairness in the United States at the executive and congressional levels of government. This Audit is an extension of the FDA’s global audit of electoral fairness involving all countries that hold political elections. The purpose of the global audit is to quantify electoral fairness, establish benchmarks for electoral fairness, identify areas of democratic advancement and progression, and encourage democracy reform where needed.

The goal of the FDA's United States report is to give the people of America and other stakeholders an informed, objective perspective of the American presidential and congressional electoral systems and provide recommendations for reform.

The views in this electoral fairness audit are the views of the FDA only. The FDA’s members and volunteers are in no way affiliated with the Federal Election Commission or any of the American registered/non-registered political parties. The Audit is an independent assessment based on objectivity, transparency, and non-partisanship. The FDA assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors in the measurement and calculation of its audit results or inaccuracies in its research of relevant American legislation.

About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDA’s mission is

to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society.

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of the U.S.A. Revised April 11, 2013 R1 Page 2 of 82

Overall, the FDA works

1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;

2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)

To ensure its objectivity and independence, the FDA does not conduct privately paid research. However, if you or your organization has an important research idea or are aware of an important issue on government processes, the FDA is available to listen to your idea or issue and possibly help raise public awareness by initiating and leading change through report research and analysis. Please contact the FDA at (403) 669-8132 or email us at [email protected] for more information.

An online version of this report can be found at: www.democracychange.orgFor further information and/or comments on this report please contact Mr. Stephen Garvey at [email protected]


Table of Contents

Introduction 4

How to Read the Report 5

Chapter 1: Electoral Finance Audit Results 9Analysis 21

Chapter 2: Media Election Coverage Audit Results 22Analysis 29

Chapter 3: Candidates and Parties Audit Results 31Analysis 48

Chapter 4: Voters Audit Results 49Analysis 58

Chapter 5: Overall Audit Results 60

Chapter 6: Analysis 61

Chapter 7: Conclusion & Recommendations 65

References 71

Appendix: Research and Audit Methodology 77

FDA Research and Audit Teams and Observers 82

Introduction

The FDA based its audit of America’s federal electoral legislation on non-partisanship and objectivity.

The audit process entails three major components:

1) Research of America's federal electoral legislation and any related legislation and documents.2) Audit of the legislation and research findings based on audit team consensus, and the FDA’s

matrices, financial spreadsheets, and scoring scales. 3) Analysis of findings.

The FDA based the matrix scoring scales on the fundamental democratic principles of legislative neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness. In addition, it based the scales on the comparative impact of variables on democracy. For example, if there is no electoral finance transparency then this result will affect other variables such as legislative process. Without financial transparency, it is near impossible to enforce electoral finance laws, which prevent and uncover electoral finance wrongdoing. Consequently, according to the FDA’s matrices, zero financial transparency will result in a zero score for legislative process as well.

The FDA’s research component is objective as it is simply a compilation of the legislative information and financial data for the American system and any related findings based in fact and sound empirical research.

The FDA’s audit component is both objective and subjective. It is objective when determining yes and no facts, such as does country “A” have caps on electoral contributions—yes or no? It is subjective because of the predetermined scores for each audit section, and the scores determined for each section. The FDA acknowledges that there is no absolute scoring system or determination of scores.

The FDA minimizes subjectivity through non-partisanship and basing each score on facts, research findings, financial calculations, and team audit consensus. It bases the scoring scales for each section of the audit on consensus of the FDA auditors and survey results of relevant persons. In addition, the application of core democratic concepts such as electoral legislative neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness, and the comparative impact of variables on democracy inform the scoring scales. Finally, the FDA requires a minimum quorum of five experienced auditors during audit sessions. For further discussion of the FDA methodology, please see the Appendix on page 77.

The FDA is a registered non-profit corporation, and therefore it cannot issue tax-deductible receipts. In addition, the FDA is the sole funder of this report. As a policy to maintain its independence and objectivity, the FDA does not conduct privately funded research projects. The FDA relies on donations. If you value this report, please consider donating to the Foundation for Democratic Advancement to help cover the costs of producing this report and communicating its content to the stakeholders, and to continue its work in the United States.

“Democracy is not a spectator sport.” - Marian Edelman


How to Read the Report

Chapters 1 to 4 focus on the four sections of the FDA’s audit of the American federal electoral system. These chapters are formatted in the following manner

1) Chapter summary and table of audit results for the section.2) Audit questions, legislative research and audit findings on each audit subsection.3) Analysis of audit measurements and findings for the section.

Chapter 6, ‘Overall Analysis’, pertains to the measurements and findings from all four audit sections.

Definition of Key Terms

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement characterized the following definitions

Candidates and parties (audit section three)

The opportunity and ability of candidates and parties to campaign in the public domain for elected positions. This opportunity and ability occur before, during, and after an election period. Candidates and parties may involve election content of media, electoral finance, and voters (as defined below). In the terms of the FDA electoral fairness audit, which focuses on electoral process, candidates and parties includes:

1) Registrations requirements for candidates and parties.2) Laws on candidates’ and parties’ access to media and reasonable opportunity to take

advantage of the access.3) Regulations on access to major debates.4) Electoral complaints process for candidates and parties

In the FDA electoral fairness audit, candidates and parties only encompasses laws, regulations, procedures etc. that affect the influence of candidates and parties. For example, candidates and parties does not encompass laws on electoral complaints by voters nor does it encompass laws on voter assistance at polling booths.

Electoral fairness

The impartiality and equality of election law before, during, and after an election period. In the context of the audit, electoral fairness involves concepts relating to election content in the media, candidates and parties, electoral finance, and voters. In particular, this includes evaluating impartiality and balance of political content in the media, equitable opportunity and ability for registered candidates and parties to influence voters and government, equitable electoral finance laws, and equitable opportunity and ability for voters to voice political views and/or influence the outcome of an election.

Electoral fairness does not allow bias through, for example, legislation that gives a distinct electoral advantage to one registered party over another, or laws that allow equitable access to media without facilitating equal opportunity to take advantage of this access. In contrast,


electoral fairness would include a broad, balanced diffusion of electoral propaganda by registered political parties during the campaign period, equal campaign finances (beyond equal expenditure limits) for all registered parties according to the number of candidates endorsed, and the registration of parties based on reasonable popular support (rather than financial deposit or unreasonable popular support).

Electoral fairness in any democratic process must include an equal playing field for registered parties and candidates, distinguishable by voters according to a clear political platform, and a broad and balanced political discourse in where information about electoral choices are clear and available to the voting public.

Electoral finance (audit section one)

Electoral finance laws applied to registered candidates and parties before, during, and after an election period. Electoral finance also encompasses campaign finance which is restricted to the campaign period.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, electoral finance includes:

1) Caps on electoral contributions (or the lack of).2) Caps on candidate and party electoral expenditures (or the lack of).3) Procedures for financial disclosure and reporting of candidate and party electoral finance.4) Procedures for the handling of electoral contributions by registered candidates and parties.

Electoral finance does not include non-financial laws, regulations, procedures etc. such as those relating to candidate and party access to media, civil rights laws such as freedom of speech and assembly, rules on right of reply in the media, laws on the election content of media, and laws on voter assistance.

Special interest-based democracy

A system in where either individual or corporate interests dictate government action and factions with the most economic and political power in society influence policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up to allow special and minority interests to impact election outcomes primarily through electoral finance and media access and exposure.

People-based democracy

A system where power is invested in the people and the population as a whole influence government policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up in a fair and equitable manner so that all citizens, within reason, have an opportunity to influence the election outcome to the same degree.

Media election coverage (audit section two)

The political content of radio and television broadcasters, the printed press, and online news media such as news sites before, during, and after an election period. This content may include news stories, editorials, articles, programs, and group analysis and discussion. It does not include electoral advertisements by candidates, parties, and third parties. Electoral advertisements by


candidates and parties are included in candidates and parties, and electoral advertisements by third parties are included in voters and electoral finance.

In the context of FDA electoral fairness audit, election content of media includes:

1) Registration requirements for television and radio broadcast companies and press companies.2) Laws on the ownership concentration of media (or the lack of).3) Laws on the election content of media before, during, and after a campaign period. 4) Laws on freedom of the press and broadcasters.

The FDA defines “balance” in the media as having equal political content of all registered political parties presented during the election period. Voters should receive balanced information on all registered candidates and parties in order for election outcomes to reflect the will of the majority. The FDA does not support the idea that incumbent or previously successful parties should be favoured in media coverage in a current election as this could create bias based merely on past results, and potentially weaken the process of capturing the will of the people in the present. In addition, the FDA does not support unlimited freedom of broadcast and press media and believes there is a misleading connection between this and democracy. The purpose of democratic elections is to capture as accurately as possible the will of the people from districts. Broad and balanced electoral discourse creates an informed electorate and supports the will of the people. The FDA concedes that media ownership concentration laws aimed to produce pluralistic ownership could cancel out any imbalance in political content and provide equitable coverage of all registered political parties.

Voters (audit section four)

The citizens who are eligible to vote and their opportunity to express that vote and a political voice through articles, letters to editors, blogs, advertisements, spoken word etc. in the public domain. Voter influence applies to the period before, during, and after an election.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, which focuses on electoral process, voters include:

1) Laws and regulations on freedom of speech and assembly.2) Laws on the registration requirements for voters. 3) Laws on voter assistance at the polling booth. 4) Laws on the inclusion of minorities in the electoral process.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, voters may be impacted by the election content of media, and candidates and parties and electoral finance law. For example, no cap on contributions to candidates and parties will affect voters because no cap favors voters with more financial wealth, and thereby the lack of cap creates electoral inequity and imbalance among voters.


Chapter One: Electoral Finance

This chapter focuses on American electoral finance laws and the FDA's audit of them in terms of electoral fairness. Based on the political concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA team audits electoral finance laws according to their equity for registered candidates, parties, and voters (see Appendix on page 76 for further explanation). The FDA team audits from the standpoint of a people's representative democracy. Table 1 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 1

Electoral Finance Section Variables

% Subsection Audit Weight

Numerical Subsection Audit

Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Electoral Finance Transparency

20% 2.0 2.0 100%

Contributions to Candidates & Parties

15% 1.5 1.5 100%

Caps on Contributions to Candidates & Parties

20% 2.0 0.3 15%

Campaign Expenditure Limits

22.5% 2.25 0.0016 0.071%

Caps on Third-party Expenditures

12.5% 1.25 0.01 0.8%

Legislative Process 10% 1.0 1.0 100%Variables from Other Sections

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 100% 10 4.825 48.25%

The FDA chose these subsections because they represent core areas of electoral finance. The audit of electoral finance includes examination of American electoral finance legislation and the application of legislative research to the FDA matrices. Matrix scoring is based on an overall score of 0 to 10 out of 10.

What follows are the audit questions, legislative research, and audit findings:

Electoral Finance Transparency Audit Questions

1) Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?2) Are candidate and party finances transparent to candidates and parties only?3) Are candidate and party finances transparent to the government only?


Legislative Research

In an election year, presidential candidates are required to report monthly when contributions aggregate $100,000 or expenditures aggregate $100,000 or anticipate the aggregations during the calendar year. In addition, the presidential candidates generally are required to submit pre-election reports, post-election reports, and year end reports. The reports must contain designations, record of contributors and disbursements, and statements (Federal Election Campaign Act, Articles 434 2(A), 3 (A)).

In an election year, presidential candidates are required to disclose intent on using personal funds, and expenditures from personal funds over $10,000 (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 434 (B)3).

In non-election years, political committees are required to submit quarterly financial reports. These reports must contain all designations, statements, record of disbursements, and reports, including the name and address of contributors donating in excess of $50 and identification of any person who contributes in excess of $200 (Federal Election Campaign Act, Articles 432, 434 2(B)).

Campaign committees must disclose name banking institutions, safety deposit boxes and any other depositories (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 433).

Disbursements other than petty cash disbursements must be made using cheques from designated depositories (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 432 (h)(1)).

Campaign finance reports filed by registered political committees such as candidates' campaigns, party committees, and PACs are available for public inspection and copying in the Federal Election Commission's Public Records Office. Reports are made public within 48 hours of submission (Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013).

The public may access the Federal Election Commission's database which contains indexes and types of campaign activities such as large contributions and PAC contributions. The database is also accessible from the Secretary of State's office in many state capitals (Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013).

In addition, the Federal Election Commission makes available to the public statistical summaries of reported campaign activities, FEC advisory opinions, personal financial statements filed by Presidential candidates, audit reports etc. (Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013).

Copies of records and documents are available during normal business hours at the Public Records Office. FEC library staff members are present to assist visitors in finding documents and using computers. Document requests can be made by telephone and email, and some documents are available via the FEC's automated Faxline system (Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013).

Reports and statements pertaining to Presidential candidates shall be kept by the Federal Election Commission for 10 years (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 438 (5)).


The Federal Election Commission shall maintain a website containing election related reports and information which is accessible by the public (Federal Election Commission Act, Article 438a).

The Federal Election Commission has the authority to conduct audits and field investigations of political committee required to file a report (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 438 9(b)).

Audit Findings

The finances of candidates and parties are transparent to the public.

Contributions to Candidates and Parties Audit Questions

1) Are contributions restricted to citizens?2) Are contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities? 3) Are anonymous contributions set at a reasonable level? Research Finding

In 2013 the United States has an estimated $33,050 per capita disposable income (IBISWorld Business Environment Report, 2013).


The state disallows contributions from national banks, corporations, and labor organizations (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441b(a)).

The state disallows contributions from registered holding companies and subsidiary companies (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article, 441b(h)).

The state disallows contributions from any person who enters into contract with the U.S. government, including any department or agency (Federal Election Campaign Act, 441c).

The state disallows contributions from foreign nationals (which include foreign governments, foreign political parties, and any citizen who is not a U.S. citizen, national, and legally admitted into the country (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441e).

The state disallows contributions from U.S. citizens in the name of another person (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441f).

The state disallows contributions from individuals who are 17 years of age or younger (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441k).

The state disallows contributions from incorporated charities and public institutions (federally chartered corporations) (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441b(a) and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 11 – Federal Elections, Article 114.2).


Corporations, trade unions, and other organizations may create PACs which are allowed to contribute to candidates. However, only individuals may contribute funds voluntarily to PACs (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441c(2)(b)); Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).

Cash contributions must not exceed $100 (Federal Election Campaign Law, Article 441g).

Anonymous contributions cannot exceed $50 (Federal Election Campaign Act, 110.4(c)(3)).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors deem full marks for the three sections: contributions are restricted to citizens; foreigners, public institutions and corporations are disallowed from making contributions; maximum anonymous contribution is $50.00 which is well within 10 percent of U.S. per capita disposable income level of $3,050.00 (the FDA’s maximum reasonable amount of contributions) (FDA Talking Points Series: 10 Percent Rule, 2013), and set low enough as to minimize the effect of electoral finance wrongdoing.

Caps on Contributions to Candidates and Parties Audit Questions

1) Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of per capita disposable income level?

2) Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of per capita disposable income level?


In Table 2 are the contribution limits per legal contributors:


Table 2

Contribution Limits 2011-12

To each candidate or

candidate committee

per election

To national party

committee per

calendar year

To state, district & local party committee

per calendar year

To any other

political committee

per calendar

year1

Special Limits

Individual may give

$2,500* $30,800* $10,000

(combined limit)

$5,000

$117,000* overall biennial limit: $46,200* to

all candidates $70,800* to

all PACs and parties2

National Party Committee may give

$5,000 No limit No limit $5,000 $43,100* to Senate

candidate per campaign3

State, District & Local Party Committee may give

$5,000 (combined

limit) No limit No limit $5,000 No limit

PAC (multicandidate)4 may give

$5,000 $15,000 $5,000

(combined limit)

$5,000 No limit

PAC (not multicandidate) may give

$2,500* $30,800* $10,000

(combined limit)

$5,000 No limit

Authorized Campaign Committee may give

$2,0005 No limit No limit $5,000 No limit

* These contribution limits are indexed for inflation. 1. A contribution earmarked for a candidate through a political committee counts against the original contributor's limit for that candidate. In certain circumstances, the contribution may also count against the contributor's limit to the PAC. 11 CFR 110.6. See also 11 CFR 110.1(h). 2. No more than $46,200 of this amount may be contributed to state and local party committees and PACs. 3. This limit is shared by the national committee and the national Senate campaign committee. 4. A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributors which has been registered for at least 6 months and, with the exception of state party committees, has made contributions to 5 or more candidates for federal office. 11 CFR 100.5(e)(3).


5. A federal candidate's authorized committee(s) may contribute no more than $2,000 per election to another federal candidate's authorized committee(s). 11 CFR 102.12(c)(2). (Contribution Limits, 2012).

Publicly funded presidential candidates cannot exceed $50,000 in contributions from personal funds which includes funds from immediate family (Public Funding of Presidential Election Brochure, 2012).

Privately funded presidential candidates have no limit on contributions from personal funds. Contributions from personal funds must be reported as per the Federal Election Campaign Act (Federal Election Commission, Contribution Limits, 2012). [In an election year, presidential candidates are required to disclose intent on using personal funds, and expenditures from personal funds over $10,000 (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 434 (B)3).]

Congressional candidates’ contributions from personal funds, including loans and advances to their own campaigns, are not subject to any limit (Federal Election Campaign Act, 110.10(a)).

Audit Findings

There caps on candidates’ and parties’ contributions; these caps, including a maximum individual contribution of $46,200, are unreflective of U.S. per capita disposable income level; there are caps on contributions by candidates to their own campaign; publicly funded presidential candidates are the only federal candidates subject to a cap of $50,000 on their personal contributions; the FDA auditors determine that the $50,000 is unreflective of 10 percent of U.S. per capita disposable income, and the total number of publicly funded presidential candidates is very small in comparison to privately funded presidential candidates and congressional candidates.

Through FDA consensus and Desjardins’ household budget calculator, the FDA determined that 10 percent of per capita disposable income is a reasonable maximum contribution amount (Determine How Much to Allocate to Each Expense, 2013; FDA Talking Points Series: 10 Percent Rule, 2013). The 10 percent contribution amount takes into consideration other expenditures such as housing, food, services like electricity and heat, clothing, and health.

The FDA deems that 0.2 percent of all federal candidates have caps on their personal contributions. For example, in 2008 there were nine publicly funded presidential candidates, and the FDA believes that there are about 4,280 congressional candidates in each full election cycle. (4,280 is based on an average of eight candidates running in the 535 congressional member elections.)

Table 3


Total Score Out Of: 0.5

Per Capita Disposable

Income (in $)

10% of Per Capita

Disposable Income

Population with Income

$33,050 $3,305 238,150,00010% of Per Capita

Income $3,359Caps on Donations (in

$) $50,000Score Based on Data 0.0661 (Maximum score available is 1.0)

Based on 0.2% of Candidates Having

Caps 0.0001 (Maximum score available is 0.5)

Score 0.0001

Campaign Expenditure Limits

Audit Questions

1) If there are campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties, are they set high enough and still reasonably attainable by all registered candidates and parties?

2) If there are public subsidies or other financial instruments, do they create an equal level of campaign finances for candidates and parties?


Public subsidies of parties are based on the percentage of total votes received in previous election (Public Funding of Presidential Election Brochure, 2012).

Publicly funded Presidential candidates are subject to campaign expenditure limits. Privately funded Presidential candidates are not subject to expenditure limits (Federal Election Commission, Public Funding of Presidential Election Brochure, 2012).

U.S. taxpayers have the option to decide whether or not to direct $3 of their tax to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund on their tax returns (Presidential Election Fund, 2012).

Funds in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund are divided up in three ways:

1) Primary matching payments are based on the government matching individual contributions to a candidate, and only the first $250 of a contribution is matchable. To be eligible for matching, a candidate needs to raise more than $5,000 in each of 20 different states.

2) General election grants are for Republican and Democratic candidates who win their parties' nomination. The candidates are eligible to receive $20 million, adjusted for cost-living-adjustment to cover campaign expenses. In 2008, candidates could receive $84.1 million. Third party candidates are eligible to receive a percentage of this grant if the candidates receive at least 5 percent of the popular vote. (The 2008 expenditure limit in 2008 was $88.45 million.)


3) Party convention grants are for major political parties for their national Presidential nominating convention. The parties are eligible to receive $4 million, adjusted for inflation. In 2008, the major parties received $16.82 million. Third parties are eligible for the grant if they received at least 5 percent of vote in the previous Presidential election. The Federal Election Commission defines a majority party as 25% or more of the total popular votes in the previous election; minority party as between 5% or more and less than 25% of the total popular vote in the previous election; new party as a party which did not participate in the previous election (Presidential Election Fund, 2012).

The 2012 general campaign limit for publicly funded candidates is $91.2 million. The 2012 primary limit for publicly funded candidates is $45.6 million (Presidential Spending Limits for 2012).

Publicly funded candidates have a campaign national expenditure limit of $20,000,000 (subject to cost of living adjustment) and a primary expenditure limit of $10,000,000 and in anyone State shall not exceed either 16 cents times the number of voters in the State or $200,000, whichever is greater (Presidential Election Fund, 2012).

The national committee of a political party shall not make any expenditure in connection with the general election campaign of any Presidential candidate affiliated with the party in excess of 2 cents times the the total number of US voters (Any expenditures made on behalf on Vice President candidates are deemed the same as expenditures for Presidential candidates) (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 441a).

The Federal Election Campaign identifies three types of political parties: major, minor, and new. Major parties have 25% or more of popular vote in the previous election; major parties are entitled to equal payments of public monies.

Minor parties have between 5% and 25% of the popular vote; minor parties receive public funds based on popular vote in previous election in comparison to the popular vote major parties received.

New parties receive public funds based on popular vote in comparison to the popular vote for major parties.

New parties are neither major nor minor parties (Public Funding of Presidential Election Brochure, 2012).

In the general election campaign, 20% of fund raising revenue for presidential candidates of minor and new parties are exempt from the national primary and general election limit (Public Funding of Presidential Election Brochure, 2012).

There are no expenditure limits on congressional candidates and committees (FEC Campaign Guide: Congressional Candidates and Committees, 2011).

There are no public subsidies for congressional candidates and committees (FEC Campaign Guide: Congressional Candidates and Committees, 2011).


Audit Findings

There are no campaign expenditure limits for candidates and parties with the exception of publicly funded presidential candidates. Since publicly funded presidential candidates comprise about 0.2 percent of federal candidates, the FDA auditors determine a score of 0.001.

The FDA auditors determine that the maximum expenditure limit of $91,200, 000 is unreflective of per capita disposable income:

Table 4

Total Score Out Of: 1.0

Maximum Expenditure per Elector

Population with

Income

$0.383 238,150,000Maximum Campaign Expenditure Limit

(in $) $ 91,200,000 Per Capita Disposable Income (in $) $ 33,050 Percentage of Expenditure Limit per

Citizen 271550%

Score 0.0004 (Maximum score available is 1.0)

Public subsidies only apply to approximately 0.2 percent of federal candidates.

The FDA auditors use professional judgment on the score regarding public subsidies to parties and whether these are equitable for all parties. The FDA has deemed that only 0.2 percent of all candidates may receive subsidies of some sort and, thus, the FDA has obtained a score of 0.0005 based on 0.2 percent of candidates having the ability to receive subsidies of some sort. Therefore, based on these results, the FDA has obtained a score of 0.001 times 0.0004 equals 0.0 for the equality level for candidates and parties, as established through score two above.

Caps on Third-party Spending

Audit Questions


1) If there is third party spending, is it restricted to citizens only?2) If there are caps on third party spending, are they high enough and reasonably attainable by

all adult citizens? 3) Are there public subsidies, or other financial instruments, that create an equitable level of

third party spending?


Individuals, corporations, and trade unions are allowed to spend electorally as third parties (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). There is no limit on expenditures by third parties (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).

Separate segregated funding (from political committees) by a corporation, labor organization, or individual for political purposes are not considered contributions to political committees. There is a $5,000 contribution limit for PACs (Quick Answers to General Questions, 2012).

A nonconnected committee becomes a political committee when its contributions or expenditures are in excess of $1,000 in a calendar year (Federal Election Campaign Law, Article 100.5(a); Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees, 2012).

The FDA found no financial mechanisms, or otherwise, which help create an equal level of third party spending.

Sources of contributions for Corporation PACs are limited to executives, shareholders and their families; labor PACs are limited to labor members; nonconnected PACs may receive contributions from the general public; the State bans corporations and labor organizations from contributing from their treasuries to PACs; corporations and labor organization may cover the administrative costs of their affiliated PACs; nonconnected PACs must cover administration costs from the funds they raise (SSFs and Nonconnected PACs, 2012).

Super PACs, which do not contribute to candidates, political parties, or other PACs, can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and labor organizations. Super PACs are permitted to participate in political activity independent of candidates' and parties' campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).

Audit Findings

There are no caps on independent, non-connected third-party spending; there is no ban on corporations and labor unions from third-party spending; there are no public subsidies or other financial instruments to create a level playing field of third-party spending.

Legislative Process

Audit Question


1) Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws?


The United States has a legislative process to enforce electoral finances laws. The legislative process is comprised of transparency of candidate, party, and PAC contributions as well as expenditures, and criminal penalties for illegal electoral finance acts (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9012; Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013; Federal Election Campaign Act, Articles 432, 433, 434, 438).

Any person, including any authorized committee or officer or member of such committee, who violates the Presidential and Vice Presidential campaign expenses and nominating convention in excess will be fined no more than $5,000 or imprisoned no more than 1 year, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9012(1) and 9012 (2)).

Any person, including any officer or member of a political committee, who violates the campaign expenditure limits for publicly funded candidates shall be fined no more than $25,000 or imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Articles 9035 and 9042).

Any person who uses contributions other than to defray qualified campaign expenses, repay loans or restore funds used for campaign expenses will be fined no more than $10,000 or imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9042 (2)).

Any person who makes false, fictitious, or fraudulent financial evidence, books, or information to the Federal Election Commission shall be fined no more than $10,000, or imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9042 (C) False statements).

Any person who receives kickbacks and illegal payments for contributions shall be fined no more than $10,000, or imprisoned for no more than 5 years, or both. In addition, any person who receives a kickback or illegal payment in connection with any qualified election expense of a candidate or his authorized committee shall pay to the Secretary of the Federal Election Commission an amount equal to 125% of the kickback and payment received (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9042, (D) Kickbacks and illegal payments).

The Federal Election Commission imposes fines for late financial reports. The fines are determined under the Administrative Fine Program. Fines are calculated based on election sensitivity, late file or not filed, level of financial activity on the relevant report, and number previous violations. Each previous violation will increase the fine by 25%. Based on examples provided, fines may range from $100 to $3,500 (How the Administrative Fine Program Works, 2012).

The Federal Election Commission has jurisdiction to impose civil fines for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The fines are determined through a conciliation process. Some violations may result in imprisonment, and the Federal Election Commission may refer criminal violations to the US Department of Justice. The US Sentencing Commission determines the sentencing of civil fines. Civil fines vary based on the severity of the violation, including the amount of excessive funds involved (Quick Answers to Compliance Questions, 2012). For


example, in the Treffinger case, Treffinger, his 2000 New Jersey U.S. Senatorial campaign committee, and his treasurer Robert A. Mathers, agreed to pay a fine of $171,000 for excessive contributions. In the Hynes case, the committee for Daniel Hynes’ 2004 Illinois Democratic Senate primary campaign, and its treasurer, Jeffrey C. Wagner, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $76,500 for excessive contributions. In the Turnham case, Joe Turnham for Congress Committee, and Pete Turnham (the candidate’s father) have agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty for excessive contributions (Hynes Campaign Pays $76,500 Penalty for Excessive Contributions, 2006; Treffinger and Others to Pay $171,000 Civil Penalty for Excessive Contributions, 2006).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors use professional judgment on the score regarding reasonable legislative processes to enforce electoral finance laws. The FDA auditors found comprehensive legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws, including fines reflective of the severity of the offense and prison time up to five years. Generally, the more money involved in an electoral finance wrongdoing, the higher the fine will be.

Total score for the electoral fairness on electoral finance: 48.25 percent out of 100 percent.

Analysis


The FDA auditors measured a failing score of 48.25 percent for the American federal electoral finance legislation. The FDA auditors identified a strong process for electoral finance transparency and enforcement, and citizen only contributions to candidates and parties. However, these aspects are offset by caps on contributions (to candidates and parties), which are unreflective of per capita disposable income, create no expenditure limit on congressional and privately funded presidential candidates, do not cap independent third-party expenditure, and contain no cap on contributions to independent third-parties.

The FDA summaries its main findings on the American federal electoral finance laws

1) Electoral financial transparency is canceled out by laws favoring wealthy interests. Transparency is a neutral element.

2) Citizen only contributions to candidates and parties is cancelled out by caps on contributions, which are unreflective of per capita disposable income, do not create campaign expenditure limits for congressional and privately funded presidential candidates, and do not cap contributions by citizens and corporations to independent third-parties.

3) A sound legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws, like transparency, is meaningless if the laws to be enforced favor minority and special interests over the interests of the people.

Legislative process is only as effective as the laws it is enforcing.

There are significant gaps in the U.S. electoral finance legislation which favor special and minority interests

1) No expenditure limit on congressional candidates and privately funded presidential candidates: this provision favors candidates who are better fund raisers and encourages influence by wealthy special and minority interests.

2) Contributions are unreflective of per capita disposable income: this provision favors wealthy citizens who can afford, for example, the $46,200 limit on contributions to multiple candidates.

3) No cap on contributions to independent third-parties: this provision favors wealthy individuals, corporations, and labor unions, and provides a means for special and minority interests to influence election discourse, and thus, election outcomes.

4) No cap on personal contributions by congressional candidates and privately funded presidential candidates: this provision favors wealthy candidates.

5) Expenditure limit on publicly funded presidential candidates and cap on personal contributions by publicly funded presidential candidates are unreflective of per capita disposable income: this provision favors wealthy, publicly funded presidential candidates and candidates who are better able to fund raise, and thereby, potentially allows for influence by special and minority interests on these candidates.

Chapter Two: Media Election Coverage


This chapter focuses on American’s media laws and the FDA's audit of them. Based on the concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA audit team examined media laws according to the standard of broad and balanced political coverage before, during and after a campaign period (see Appendix for further explanation). Table 5 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 5

Media Election Coverage Section

Variables



Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Broad and Balanced Media Election Coverage

30% 3.0 0.0 0.0%

Media Ownership 15% 1.5 0.0 0.0%Survey/Polls 5% 0.5 0.25 50%Freedom of Media 40% 4.0 4.0 100%Press Code of Practice/Conduct

10% 1.0 0.0 0.0%

Variables from Other Sections

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 100% 10 4.25 42.50%

Broad and Balanced Media Election Coverage

Audit Questions

1) During the campaign period, is the media (private and public) required legally to publish/broadcast broad/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?

2) Outside of the campaign period, is the media legally required to publish/broadcast pluralistic/balanced coverage of registered parties?

3) If the media is legally required to publish/disseminate broad and balanced political coverage, are there reasonable monitoring and penalty mechanisms in place?


Any cost incurred in a news story, commentary, or editorial by media (broadcaster, press, web site, magazine, or other periodical) is not a political contribution if the media organization is not owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidates (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).

There is no legal requirement for equal opportunity for a newscast, interview, documentary (if the appearance of a candidate is incidental to the documentary's subject matter), or news event, including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities. Media has an obligation to present news in the “public interest” and “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance” (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).

Communications by state or local candidates that do support or oppose a candidate are not considered to be electioneering communications (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).


Electioneering communications are limited to paid programming and only apply to the 60 day period prior to a general election or the 30 day period before a primary election for federal office, including elections in which a candidate is unopposed (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).

Noncommercial educational broadcasting stations may support or oppose any candidate for office. This broadcast restriction does not apply to editorializing in the public interest (U.S. Code, Title 47: Telegraphs, Telephones, and Telegraphs, Section 399).

Media entities' online news content is not considered contributions or expenditures. The media exemptions apply to all bloggers and others who communicate on the internet unless the facility including website is owned or controlled by a political party, candidate or a political committee (Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).

Any corporation or labor organization may donate funds to support a debate conducted by a nonprofit organization. The debate must not support or oppose any candidate or party, be sponsored by a broadcaster, newspaper, magazine, other circulation periodical publication, and include at least two candidates who meet face to face, does not promote one candidate over the other. In a primary election, organizations staging a debate may restrict candidates to those seeking nomination of one party, and in a general election may not use nomination of a particular party as the sole criterion for debate participants. Staging organizations must use preestablished objective criteria to determine participants (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 114.4(f)).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found no legislation requiring the media to provide broad and balanced political coverage during the 60 day campaign period or outside of the campaign period.

Media Ownership Concentration Laws Audit Questions

1) If there are media concentration laws, are they effective in causing a plurality of political discourse?

2) If there is no legal requirement of media plurality, impartiality, and balanced content or media ownership concentration laws, are there any other laws that are effective in causing a plurality of political discourse before and during an election period?



There are no U.S. media ownership concentration laws. The U.S. media concentration is regulated by U.S. general antitrust laws. U.S. antitrust laws are rooted in the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), which provides remedy against monopoly or attempt to monopolize. The Act does not necessarily ban monopolies; it bans monopolies, which stem from anti-competitive conduct such as price fixing, bid rigging, or agreed market allocation by competitors (Statutory Provisions and Guidelines of the Antitrust Division, 2012; Sherman Antitrust Act, 2012).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found no legislation limiting media ownership concentration. The U.S. Antitrust Laws, which provide a remedy against monopoly and/or attempts to monopolize, have no impact on media ownership concentration unless the concentration derives from anti-competitive conduct.

Surveys/Polls Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable public disclosure requirements on surveys and polls in terms of their methodology, data, and funder?


The FDA researches could find no legislation on the public discloser of the methodology and data sources of survey and polls. However, associations such as the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP) and American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) advocate public disclosure requirements for their members.

The NCPP is an association of polling organizations that sets professional standards for public opinion pollsters. The association recommends three levels of disclosure. The first level calls for one of its member associations to publicly release information, such as sponsorship, sampling method used, population and size of sample, and survey methods. The second level of disclosure pertains to specific written requests regarding any survey findings publicly released by NCCP members. These requests can include the exact wording of an introduction, details of any incentives given to survey participants, and any description of weighting procedures to generalize data. Finally, the third level of disclosure encourages its members to release raw datasets, and post complete survey questions used in their surveys (Principles of Disclosure, 2012).

The Standards of Disclosure in the AAPOR’s Code of Professional Ethics & Practices states that the final reports of members will include the sponsors, conductors, and all original funding resources. The Code also requires the disclosure of exact wording of questions, descriptions of sample sizes and design, as well as the method and dates of data collection. In the event further information is requested concerning any given report, the members will have 30 days to provide greater details concerning sample design, summaries of dispositions, any relevant stimuli, and the procedures undertaken to verify data (Code of Professional Ethics & Practices, 2010).


Electioneering communications are limited to paid programming and only apply to the 60 period prior to a general election or the 30 day period before a primary election for federal office, including elections in which a candidate is unopposed (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).

Broadcast political advertisements must display photographic or similar images of the candidate, a statement identifying the candidate, the candidate's approval for the advertisement, and the candidate's authorized committee, which paid for the broadcast (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Stations, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 315).

Radio political advertisements must include a personal statement from the candidate, which identifies the candidate as well as the office the candidate is seeking, and indicates that the candidate approved of the broadcast (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Stations, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 315).

Paid political statements made through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising must clearly declare the authorized political committee or other persons who paid for communication as well as who authorized the other persons, such as a candidate or authorized political committee. If transmitted by television, the statements must include either an unobscured, full-screen views of the candidate or agent of the candidate making the statement, a voice-over, or both, and shall also appear in a readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the printed statement for a period of at least 4 seconds. If the political statement is not authorized by a candidate or political committee, the communication must state the name and permanent street address, telephone number or World Wide Web address, of the person who paid for the message and must also state that it is not authorized by a candidate or political committee (Code Federal Regulations, Section 441d).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found no legislation which required disclosure standards for survey and polling organizations. Although there are private organizations which establish survey and poll disclosure standards, these standards are voluntary and contingent upon membership in the organizations. The score of 0.25 reflects the fact that disclosure standards exist and that some polling and survey organizations likely adhere to them.

Freedom of the Media


Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of the media (including journalists)?


Any corporation or labor organization may donate funds to support a debate conducted by a nonprofit organization. The debate must not support or oppose any candidate or party, must be sponsored by a broadcaster, newspaper, magazine, and/or other circulation periodical publication, must include at least two candidates who meet face to face, and does not promote one candidate over the other. In a primary election, organization staging debate may restrict candidates to those seeking nomination of one party, and in a general election may not use nomination of particular party as the sole basis for criterion for debate participants. Staging organization must use pre-established objective criteria to determine participants (Code of Federal Regulations, Article 114.4(f)).

Broadcast stations must provide reasonable access to federal candidates, during all stations' normal broadcast schedule, including television prime time and radio drive time. The only exception to equal access is during bona fide news programming (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Stations, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Article 315).

Broadcast stations must provide equal airtime and equal opportunities to all registered federal candidates. The only exception to equal airtime and equal opportunities is during bona fide news programming, such as the appearance of a candidate on bona fide newscast, interview, documentary, or on the spot news event (including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities) (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Stations, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Article 315).

Any cost incurred in a news story, commentary, or editorial by media (broadcaster, press, web site, magazine, or other periodical) is not a political contribution if the media organization is not owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidates (Code of Federal Regulations, Article 100.29).

There is no legal requirement for equal opportunity for a newscast, interview, documentary (if the appearance of a candidate is incidental to the documentary's subject matter), or news event including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities. Media has an obligation to present news in the “public interest” and “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance” (Code of Federal Regulations, Article 100.29).Noncommercial educational broadcasting stations may support or oppose any candidate for office. This broadcast restriction does not apply to editorializing in the public interest (U.S. Code, Title 47: Telegraphs, Telephones, and Telegraphs, Section 399).

Media entities' online news content is not considered contributions or expenditures. The media exemptions apply to all bloggers and others who communicate on the internet unless the facility including website is owned or controlled by a political party, candidate or a political committee (Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).


The U.S. Congress has legislative power (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 1), and the U.S. Congress must not make laws which prohibit or abridge freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (U.S. Constitution, 2012, First Amendment).

Citizens of the United States cannot be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and equal protection of the laws (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1).

All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found nothing in the U.S. Constitution and legislation that would unreasonably limit the freedom of the press.

Press Code of Practice/Conduct

Audit Questions

1) Does a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guide the press?

2) If a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guides the press, is the Code of Practice/Conduct enforceable?


The American Press Association has a code of conduct for journalists and photographers. The APA Code of Conduct does not cover elections, nor does it include impartial and balanced election coverage. Members of the APA are expected to abide by the APA Code of Conduct (Code of Conduct Journalists and Photographers, 2012).

The American Society of Newspaper Editors has a statement of principles. The Statement of Principles includes impartiality in terms of distinguishing between fact and opinion. There are principles that pertain to elections or require balanced coverage. Each newspaper within the ASNE has its own code of ethics. The FDA counted 34 different codes of ethics. The New York Times is committed to be as impartial as possible “with fear or favor”, but there is no requirement that the newspaper have balanced election coverage. The FDA found no ethical requirement on any of the newspapers in the ASNE to have broad and balance electoral coverage (Code of Conduct, 2012).

The U.S. Congress has legislative power (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 1), and the U.S. Congress must not make law which prohibits or abridges freedom of speech, or the press, or right of the people peaceably to assemble (U.S. Constitution, 2012, First Amendment).


The freedom of the media cannot be regulated within extremes. A legislated press code of conduct would be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).

The FDA researchers found no legislated press code of conduct.

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found no legislation requiring a press Code of Practice/Conduct for impartial, balanced electoral coverage. Although private press organizations have a Code of Conduct/Ethics, adherence is voluntary. The FDA researchers examined 34 Code of Conducts/Ethics by members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and found no instance of Code of Conduct/Ethics requiring impartial and/or balanced electoral coverage.

Total score for the electoral fairness on media election coverage: 42.5 percent out of 100 percent.


Analysis

The FDA auditors measured a failing score of 42.50 percent for American federal legislation pertaining to the media election coverage. The focus of this audit section is on media election coverage itself before and during the 60 day campaign period. The media election coverage section received the lowest score of the four audit sections.

Although the American media has freedom of expression, there are minimal checks on this freedom. As a result, the American media operates in a Darwinian-like fashion, in which the most powerful media corporations have the most influence over the public. This approach is problematic during elections because it may encourage narrow and imbalanced election coverage as illustrated by the FDA’s media study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. The media study focused on the last 32 days of the U.S Presidential election and factored in 7,921 data points from the U.S. national television, radio, and newspaper sectors, including online content from the sectors (FDA Media Study of the U.S. Presidential Election, 2012). Ranking of American national media total coverage from the FDA Media Study

Table 6

Presidential Candidates Total Media Coverage1. Barack Obama 54%2. Mitt Romney 44.75%3. Gary Johnson 0.62%4. Jill Stein 0.30%5. Virgil Goode 0.27%6. All Other Candidates/Parties 0.09%

As a consequence of narrow and imbalanced coverage, those persons who control media corporations can potentially influence the outcome of elections.

The FDA summaries its main findings on the American federal media laws

1) No legislative or even voluntary requirement for broad and balanced election coverage during the 60 day campaign period.

2) No legislative caps on media ownership concentration.

3) Only private, voluntary standards for disclosure of public surveys and polls.

4) No legislative or even voluntary press code of conduct on broad and balanced coverage during the 60 day campaign period.


Consequently, the American federal electoral system allows

1) Excessive media ownership concentration in the press, radio, and television sectors as long as the ownership concentration is not the result of anti-competitive practices;

2) Narrow and imbalanced media coverage during elections;

3) No legislative disclosure standards on surveys and polls.


Chapter Three: Candidates and Parties

This chapter focuses on American laws pertaining to candidates and parties. The FDA audit team examines election laws according to their equity for registered candidates and parties (see Appendix for further explanation). Table 7 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results: Table 7

Candidates & Parties Section Variables



Weight

Audit Results % Results

Campaign Period 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Methodology for Election Winners

2% 0.2 0.0 0.0%

Electoral Boundaries 2% 0.2 0.0 0.0%Process of Government 10% 1.0 1.0 100%Registration of Candidates 2% 0.2 0.1 50%Freedom of Expression and Assembly

20% 2.0 2.0 100%

Registration of Parties 2% 0.2 0.1 50%Electoral Complaints 3% 0.3 0.3 100%Presentation of Ballots 1% 0.1 0.1 100%Poll Watchers/Challengers 1% 0.1 0.1 100%Candidate and Party Campaign Advertisement

6% 0.6 0.35 58.33%

Variables from Other Sections

49% 4.9 1.55 31.63%

Total 100% 10 5.7 57%

Campaign Period Audit Question

1) Does the length of the campaign period reasonably and fairly allow all registered candidates and parties enough time to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public?


The FDA could find no legal limit on the length of presidential campaigns. Regarding limitation of awards during Presidential election year, the Presidential election period is defined as June 1 to January 20 in an election year (U.S. Code, Title 5, Section 4508).

Electioneering communications in television and radio format are distributed within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary, nominating convention or caucus (Code of Federal Regulations, Article 100.29).


Audit Findings

The FDA auditors, using their professional judgment, determine that 60 days is adequate time for candidates and parties to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public. The auditors factor in the freedom of speech candidates and parties have prior to the 60 day period of electioneering communication.

Methodology for Determining Winners of Districts Audit Questions

1) Is the determination of election winners based on first-past-the-post?2) Is the determination of election winners based on proportional representation closed list?3) Is the determination of election winners based on proportional representation open list?


Presidential

Federal Level

The U.S. President and Vice-President are not selected directly by vote of the people. They are selected by appointed electors from each state as per directions of each legislator: the number of electors from each state corresponds to the whole number of Senators and Representatives, which each State is entitled to in Congress. No federal Senators and Representatives may appoint electors. The electors vote by ballot for two presidential candidates and one of them must not be an inhabitant of the same State as themselves. The person having the greater number of votes will be the President, if such a number is a majority; if there are two majorities with equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives will choose by ballot the President; if no person has a majority, then from the five highest candidates on the list, the House of Representatives will choose the President with the representation from the States having one vote; quorum is two thirds of the States. After determining the President, the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the Vice-President. If two or more candidates have equal votes, then the Senate shall choose by ballot the Vice-President (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article II, Section 1).

The U.S. President and Vice-President are selected by the state electors based on first-past-the-post. The presidential candidate with the most Electoral College votes wins the presidency. The number of state electors each state has is proportional to the number of representatives each state has in the U.S. congress (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article II, Section 1).

The presidential and vice-presidential candidates having the most votes shall be President and Vice-President, as long as the number of votes for each candidate is a majority of the whole number of electors appointed. If no majority exists for the presidential candidates, then the candidates with highest number of votes (not exceeding three) shall choose the President via ballot and based on votes taken by states with each state having one vote. This vote requires a quorum of two-thirds of the states and a majority of the states. If there is no vice-presidential candidate with a majority of the vote, then from the two candidates with highest number of votes,


the Senate shall choose. This vote requires a quorum of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators and a majority of the Senate (U.S. Constitution, 2012, 14th Amendment).

State Level

The District of Colombia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) receives all of the state’s Electoral votes (U.S. Electoral College, 2012).

Nebraska and Maine allow for a possible split of votes through their system of proportional allocation of votes (based in Maine on Electoral districts and at-large Electoral votes). There is no winner-takes-all rule (U.S. Electoral College, 2012).

Congressional

Congressional election winners are based on a single member plurality system (first-past-the-post), except in the case of Georgia, Louisiana, California, and Washington where run-off is held if no candidate receives an absolute majority (United States of American House of Representatives, 2012; Two-Round system, 2012).

The election of congressional representatives is based on a single member plurality system (single-member districts) (U.S. Code, Title 2, Chapter 1, 2c).

Audit Findings

Congressional candidates are elected based on first-past-the-post. Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates are elected by Electoral College electors based on first-past-the-post. The thresholds for determining the U.S. President and Vice-President are 270 elector votes or first past the 269 vote count.

The first-the-past-post system does not give other parties an opportunity at the next seat nor does it base seats on proportion of votes cast.


For examples

Table 8

Candidates for Riding A Total Votes Seat WinnerCandidate A 65,000 Candidate ACandidate B 64,500Candidate C 15,000

Candidates for Riding B Total Votes Seat WinnerCandidate D 45,000 Candidate DCandidate E 44,780Candidate F 40,456

The FDA believes that proportional representation is a more effective system to capture the will of the majority. In proportional representation, candidates win seats based on the proportion to the number of votes cast for them and a formula of vote reduction for each time a party wins a seat, which then allows other parties increased opportunity at winning the next seat. For example, the Sainte-Laguë method, which is used on New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Germany, adheres to this calculation: the first round of seat allocation for all parties no reduction; all other seat allocations have the following deduction (Sainte-Laguë method, 2013):

Total number of votes received . 2 x (number of seats allocated) + 1

For example

Table 9

Parties Total Votes Seat 1 Seat 2 Seat 3 Seat 4Party A 50,000 Party A (wins)

(50,000)Party B (wins)

(30,000)Party C (wins)

(20,000)Party A (wins)

(16,666)Party B 30,000 Party B

(30,000)Party C (20,000)

Party A (16,666)

Party B (10,000)

Party C 20,000 Party C (20,000)

Party A (16,666)

Party B (10,000)

Party C (6,666)

Party D 5,0000 Party D (5,000)

Party D (5,000)

Party D (5,0000)

Party D (5,000)

Consequently, first-past-the-post is only reflective of the candidate with the most votes in each district; whereas, proportional representation is reflective of the most of the votes cast in each district. Therefore, the political representatives under proportional representation are more reflective of the voice of the electorate than under first-past-the-post.


Electoral Boundaries Audit Question

1) Is the process for determining electoral boundaries reasonable and fair for all registered candidates and parties?


Determination of State electoral boundaries

The U.S. government conducts a census for the purpose of apportioning electoral seats. States use this census to apportion State House and Senate seats (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article 1, Section 2).

Each state usually modifies congressional districts after the publication of the federal decennial census (Hope, 2012).

Redistrict methodology is based on one person, one vote, which means congressional districts must be drawn, as possible, so each person's vote is counted equally (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964). The apportionment of districts is based on the federal decennial census (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article 1, Section 2). At the state level, state governments have latitude with variances between rural, suburban, and urban areas, and preservation of county lines, as well as other political subdivisions. However, the districts must remain significantly equal in terms of population. The states' Justice Departments must approve redistricts (Hope, 2012).

Congressional representatives draw their district boundaries (Mundell, 2010).

The FDA found no legislation which prevents or deters partisan gerrymandering.

Determination of Congressional electoral boundaries

The U.S. government conducts a census for the purpose of apportioning electoral seats. States use this census to apportion State House and Senate seats (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article 1, Section 2).

Each state usually redistricts congressional districts after the publication of the federal decennial census (Hope, 2012).

Redistrict methodology is based on ‘one person, one vote,’ which means congressional districts must be drawn, as possible, so each person's vote is counted equally (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964). The apportionment of districts is based on the federal decennial census (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article 1, Section 2).

Audit Findings

Federal electoral boundaries are determined by U.S. Census reports, in which each district must have as similar a population as possible to ensure that each person’s vote counts equally. However, there are no federal laws which prevent gerrymandering, whether partisan or


bipartisan. Therefore, the FDA auditors determine that the federal electoral boundary process is unfair to candidates from new and small parties by favoring candidates and parties already part of the U.S. Congress. Viz., these incumbent candidates get to draw the electoral boundaries.

Process of Government

Audit Question

1) Within the structure of government do political representatives, individually and as government bodies, have reasonable say in the formation of government policy, legislation etc.?


The U.S. federal government is divided into three branches: legislative (comprised of Congress and Senate), presidency (executive), and judiciary (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Sections 1, 2, 3; Article II, Section 2; Article III, Section 2).

The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have legislative power; the President has the executive power of government; the judiciary has power cases involving the U.S. Constitution, laws, and treaties under its authority (U.S Constitution, 2012, Article I, Sections 1; Article II, Section 2; Article III, Section 2).

The President has the power to veto bills from the Congress and Senate, and the House of Representatives and Senate with two-thirds vote in each house have the power to overrule presidential vetoes (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2).

Every bill must pass in the U.S House of Representatives and Senate to become law (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2).

The President, Vice President and other civil officers can be impeached by the U.S. Congress and Senate for convictions of treason, bribery, and other serious crimes and/or wrongdoing (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article II, Section 4).

The U.S. Constitution may be amended by a two-third vote of both the U.S. Congress and Senate, or two-thirds of states which call for a convention on proposing amendments to the Constitution, and the amendments are ratified if three-fourths of the state legislatures support the amendments (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article V).

Audit Findings

There are three branches of government, executive, bicameral congress, and judiciary, all with political power over government policy and legislation, and checks and balances. For example, the Congress’s power over legislation is offset by the President’s power to veto and propose legislation, and the judiciaries’ power to overrule legislation which violates the Constitution.


Registration of Candidates

Audit Question

1) Are the registration requirements of federal candidates reasonable and based on reasonable popular support rather than finances?


Presidential

Presidential candidates must register with the Federal Election Commission once a candidates (or person acting on his behalf) receives contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching the $5,000 threshold, presidential candidates must file a Statement of Candidacy which authorizes a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on the candidate’s behalf. Within 10 days of the Statement of Candidacy, the principle campaign organization must file a Statement of Organization (How do I register as a candidate for federal office, 2012; U.S. Code, Title 2, 421 (2) – Definitions). Presidential candidates must have contributions or expenditures in excess of $5,000 in order to be a registered candidate (Candidate Registration, 2012; U.S. Code, Title 2, Section 421 (2) – Definitions).

Congressional

Congressional candidates must register with the Federal Election Commission once a candidates (or person acting on his behalf) receives contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching the $5,000 threshold, presidential candidates must file a Statement of Candidacy which authorizes a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on the candidate’s behalf. Within 10 days of the Statement of Candidacy, the principle campaign organization must file a Statement of Organization (How do I register as a candidate for federal office, 2012; U.S. Code, Title 2, 421 (2) – Definitions). Congressional candidates must have contributions or expenditures in excess of $5,000 in order to be a registered candidate (Candidate Registration, 2012; U.S. Code, Title 2, Section 421 (2) – Definitions).

Audit Findings

Although the barrier to entry for federal candidates is based merely on raising or spending at least $5,000, the registration is not based on popular support. For example, with no personal contribution limits for congressional candidates, a candidate could merely contribute $5,000 to his own campaign to meet the registration requirement for candidates, rather than meet the registration through having, for example, at least 500 $100 contributions.


Registration of Parties Audit Question

1) Are the registration requirements of parties reasonable and based on reasonable popular support rather than finances?


To be registered as a national political party, the party’s bylaws must state that the party is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the party at the national level (U.S. Federal Regulation, Article 100.13; U.S. Code, Title, Section 431 (14)).

The Federal Election Commission determines whether or not a political party is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the party at the national level (U.S. Federal Regulation, Article 100.13; Party Registration Toolkit, 2012).

A political party refers to an association, committee, or organization that nominates or selects a candidate for election to any Federal office, whose names appears on an election ballot as the candidate of the association, committee, or organization (U.S. Federal Regulations, Article 100.15).

Presidential candidates must register with the Federal Election Commission once a candidate (or person acting on his behalf) receives contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching the $5,000 threshold, presidential candidates must file a Statement of Candidacy which authorizes a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on the candidate’s behalf. Within 10 days of the Statement of Candidacy, the principle campaign organization must file a Statement of Organization (How do I register as a candidate for federal office, 2012; U.S. Code, Title 2, 421 (2) – Definitions).

Audit Findings

The registration of parties is indirectly connected to the registration of candidates. No candidates means no party. Therefore, the $5,000 threshold for registration of candidates indirectly applies to parties. Consequently, for 10 candidates, there is a registration fee of $50,000. Outside of this registration requirement and basic disclosures, there are no other requirements. The FDA, using professional judgment, marked down the score on grounds of no provisions for popular support, such as having a minimum threshold of party members or supporters. As the U.S. legislation stands, a small number of wealthy candidates and supporters can register as a party.


Electoral Complaints

Audit Questions

1) Do candidates and parties have mechanisms in which to file complaints for electoral wrongdoing/fraud?

2) Are there reasonable mechanisms to enforce candidate and party electoral complaints?


Any person can file a complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) about a perceived violation of any statute or regulation which the FEC has jurisdiction. The person making the election complaint must file a complaint in writing to the FEC, which includes the three copies (if possible), full name and address of complainant, and contents of the complaint (which sworn in front of notary and notarized). All statements are subject to statutes regarding perjury. The statements must distinguish personal knowledge from information and belief, identify each person or entity who is alleged to have committed violation; statements based on information and belief should identify source of information/belief; statements should contain clear and concise facts of the alleged violation; statements should include supporting documentation (U.S Federal Regulations, Article 111.4 Complaints; U.S. Code, Title 2, 437g(a)(1)).

The Federal Election Commission has a comprehensive process for process election complaints: initial review of complaint and contact complainant within 5 days; opportunity for respondent to demonstrate that no action be taken within 15 days of receipt of complaint; General Counsel of the FEC with advise the FEC on how to proceed; the FEC shall determine how to proceed based on this advice, internally generated findings, and responses from the respondent; if the FEC proceeds, it will conduct an investigation; the FEC may issue subpoenas and conduct field investigations, audits and other information-gathering; witnesses subpoenaed will be compensated as consistent with U.S. courts; any person subpoenaed may apply to quash or modify it; upon completion of the investigation and its findings, the General Council shall advise the FEC; the General Council shall attempt to reach a tentative conciliation agreement with the respondent; if no conciliation agreement is attainable, the General Council may recommend civil action; the FEC shall make public any findings that do not terminate its proceedings; respondent may be represented by council in civil hearing; the FEC has a comprehensive list of civil penalties; no penalty shall exceed $6,500 or an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation; in the case of knowing and willful violation, the civil penalty shall not exceed $11,000 or an amount equal to 200% of any contribution or expenditure in violation, or in case of U.S.C. 441f, the penalty shall not be less than 300% of the amount of any contribution involved in the violation, and shall not exceed $55,000 or 1,000% of the amount of the contribution; the respondent has an opportunity to challenge any FEC penalties; if the respondent is unsatisfied with the FEC response, the respondent can appeal the decision to the district court; the decision of the district court is not reviewable by a higher court; calculation of penalties factor in number of days late in submitting reports and previous violations (U.S. Federal Regulations, Articles 111.5 to 112.1)


Audit Findings

There is an extension process for electoral complaints, including provisions for appeal and mechanisms for civil penalties. However, there are no provisions to remove, for example, unlawful electioneering communication prior to a determination of wrongdoing. The FDA auditors did not deduct for this missing legislation as it is a slightly grey area, and it could be used to unnecessarily suppress freedom of expression.

Presentation of Ballots Audit Question

1) Are electoral lists presented on ballots in a fair, equitable way for all registered candidates and parties?


Presidential

Each state elector shall name in their ballot who they vote for as President, and in another ballot, who they vote for as Vice President. The ballots for states are processed according to the number for each presidential candidate and each vice presidential candidate (U.S. Constitution, 2012, 14th

Amendment). Congressional

The states regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections, unless Congress legislates to the contrary (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 4).

The states have their own ballot access laws, and these laws vary (Ballot Access, 2012).

The states determine their own ballot design for federal elections (Ballot Design Samples, 2012).

Audit Findings

The states determine the electoral lists and ballots subject to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees suffrage to U.S. citizens 18 years or older, and regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity etc. The FDA researchers found no evidence to suggest that electoral lists and ballots are being used to disenfranchise. The issue of photo identification applies to the section on Value of a Vote.


Poll Watcher and Challenger

Audit Question

1) Are candidates and parties allowed poll watchers and challengers at polling stations?


According to the U.S. Office of Federal Registry, electors may be required to vote for the candidate of their party or according to State law or pledges. Electors who pledge to vote for their party have done so 99 percent of the time in the Electoral College history. Electors from 24 U.S. States are not required to vote for specific candidate (i.e. candidate with the majority of the popular vote). Electors from 6 U.S. States are bound to party pledges; electors from 25 States are bound by state laws; electors from 4 States are bound by state pledges (U.S Electoral College, 2012).

Some U.S. states allow the public to view the voting of state electors at their state capitols (U.S Electoral College, 2012).

U.S. states have authority under their laws to resolve controversies about Electoral College votes and voting results (U.S. Code, Section 5; U.S Electoral College, 2012).

Electoral votes can be contested in the Senate and House of Representatives. Objections must be signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House Representative. The Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objections separately and within 2 hours. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives must agree to reject the votes (U.S Electoral College, 2012).

Audit Findings

There are provisions for poll watchers and challengers at polling stations. In some states, the Electoral College vote is open to public viewing. Although more transparency of the Electoral College vote would create a more accountable system, the FDA auditors did not deduct from the score due to the numbers of state laws regulating the Electoral College vote, and the vote does not include a polling station and members of the public who vote.

Candidate and Party Advertisement

Audit Questions

1) During the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal access to radio, television, and print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?

2) During the campaign period, do candidates' and parties' political advertisements in media include a public subsidy component to ensure an equality of political advertisement in the media?

3) Outside of the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal to radio, television, and print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?



The Federal Election Commission may revoke any broadcast station license or construction permit for willful and repeated failure to allow reasonable access or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time by a registered federal candidate or committee on behalf of his candidacy (Communications Act, Section 312(a)(7) and Code of Federal Regulations, Section 73.1944(a)).

Broadcasters shall make its facilities available to federal advertisers on the weekend before an election, if the broadcasters provided similar access to commercial advertisers during the relevant election period. Also, broadcasters shall not discriminate between candidates for weekend access (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 73. 1944(b)).

Electioneering communications are limited to paid programming and only apply to 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days before a primary election for federal office including elections in which a candidate is unopposed (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 100.29).

Expenditures of political committees which are otherwise reported to the Federal Election Commission are not considered electioneering communication. [This provision prevents double accounting of expenditures.] (Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 100.29; 104.20(b)).

Corporations and labor organizations are required to make electioneering communication within their restricted class and may not provide funds to any person for the purpose of electioneering communication (Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 114.2(b)(2)(iii); 114.14(a)).

Qualified nonprofit corporations may make electioneering communications. Communications in excess of $10,000 in a calendar year must be reported. Qualified nonprofit corporations cannot accept funds from corporations or labor organizations or make contributions to federal political committees (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 114.10).

Unincorporated, unregistered "527" tax-exempt organizations, individuals, and partnerships may make electioneering communication as long as funds are not from corporations and labor organizations, and can be satisfactorily subject to reasonable accounting procedures (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 114.14).

Federal political committees are required to be put a disclaimer on their public web sites and in emails sent in excess of 500 similar times (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 110.11).

Corporations must provide commercial services equally to all federal candidates and political committees and for their usual and normal fees (Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).

Corporations and labor organizations may send political endorsement emails only to the designated audience within their restricted class. In addition, corporations and labor organizations may have endorsements and solicitations on their websites as long as the contents are only accessible by designated audience for their restricted class (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 114.3; Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).

Any corporation or labor organization may donate funds to support a debate conducted by a nonprofit organization. The debate must not support or oppose any candidate or party, be


sponsored by a broadcaster, newspaper, magazine, other circulation periodical publication, and include at least two candidates who meet face to face, does not promote one candidate over the other. In a primary election, organizations staging a debate may restrict candidates to those seeking nomination of one party, and in a general election may not use nomination of a particular party as the sole criterion for debate participants. Staging organizations must use preestablished objective criteria to determine participants (Code of Federal Regulations, Section 114.4(f)).

Broadcast stations must provide equal airtime and equal opportunities to all registered federal candidates. The only exception to equal airtime and equal opportunities is during bona fide news programming, such as an appearance of a candidate on bona fide newscast, interview, documentary, or on the spot news event (including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities) (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Station, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 315).

Broadcast political advertisements must display photographic or similar image of candidate and a statement identifying the candidate, the candidate's approval for the advertisement, and the candidate's authorized committee which paid for the broadcast (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Station, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 315).

Radio political advertisements must include a personal statement from the candidate, which identifies the candidate and the office the candidate is seeking, and indicates that the candidate approved of the broadcast (The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Station, 2008; U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 315).

Paid political statements through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising must clearly state which authorized political committee paid for communication or other persons, and who authorized the other persons such as a candidate or authorized political committee. If transmitted by television, the statements must include either an unobscured, full-screen views of the candidate or agent of the candidate making the statement, or in voice-over, or both, and shall also appear in a readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4 seconds. If the political statement is not authorized by a candidate or political committee, the communication must state the name and permanent street address, telephone number or World Wide Web address of the person who paid and that it is not authorized by a candidate or political committee (Code Federal Regulations, Section 441d).

No person shall sell space in a newspaper or magazine to a candidate or agent of a candidate for amount that exceeds charges for comparable spaces (Code Federal Regulations, Section 441d).

Audit Findings

During the 60 day campaign period, candidates and parties have equal access and cost to electioneering communication in the broadcast media. In the press, paid advertisements must disclose the source and be of equal cost to all candidates and parties. However, there are no equal access provisions for the press. There are no subsidies for electioneering communication. Although there is no equal access and cost to electioneering communication outside of the campaign period, this inequality is cancelled out because the government disallows


electioneering communication in this period by all candidates and parties. Consequently, the FDA auditors determined full marks for outside of the campaign period.

During the campaign period received a deduction of 0.25 on grounds of no equal access to the press. Outside of the campaign period received a deduction of 0.25 on grounds of no equal access to the press.

Freedom of Speech and Assembly Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of speech and assembly? Legislative Research

Paid political statements through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising must clearly state which authorized political committee paid for communication or other persons and who authorized the other persons, such as a candidate or authorized political committee. If transmitted by television, the statements must include either an unobscured, full-screen views of the candidate or agent of the candidate making the statement, a voice-over, or both, and shall also appear in a readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4 seconds. If the political statement is not authorized by a candidate or political committee, the communication must state the name and permanent street address, telephone number or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that it is not authorized by a candidate or political committee (Code Federal Regulations, Section 441d).

No person shall sell space in a newspaper or magazine to a candidate or agent of a candidate for amount that exceeds charges for comparable spaces (Code Federal Regulations, Section 441d).

The U.S. Congress has legislative power (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 1), and the U.S. Congress must not make laws which prohibit or abridge freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (U.S. Constitution, 2012, First Amendment).

Citizens of the United States cannot be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and equal protection of the laws (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1).


Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found nothing in the U.S. Constitution and legislation which would unreasonably limit the freedom of speech.


Legislative Process Audit Question

1) Is there a reasonable legislative process to enforce electoral laws?


Any person can file complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) about a perceived violation of any statute or regulation which the FEC has jurisdiction. The person making the election complaint must file a written complaint to the FEC, which includes the three copies (if possible), full name and address of complainant, and contents of the complaint (which sworn in front of notary and notarized). All statements are subject to statutes regarding perjury. The statements must distinguish personal knowledge from information and belief, identify each person or entity who is alleged to have committed violation; statements based on information and belief should identify source of information/belief; statements should contain clear and concise facts of the alleged violation; statements should include supporting documentation (U.S Federal Regulations, Article 111.4 Complaints; U.S. Code, Title 2, 437g(a)(1)).

The Federal Election Commission has a comprehensive process for managing election complaints: initial review of complaint and contact complainant within 5 days; opportunity for respondent to demonstrate that no action be taken within 15 days of receipt of complaint; General Counsel of the FEC will advise the FEC on how to proceed; the FEC shall determine how to proceed based on this advice, internally generated findings, and responses from the respondent; if the FEC proceeds, it will conduct an investigation; the FEC may issue subpoenas and conduct field investigations, audits and other information-gathering; witnesses subpoenaed will be compensated as consistent with U.S. courts; any person subpoenaed may apply to quash or modify it; upon completion of the investigation and its findings, the General Council shall advise the FEC; the General Council shall attempt to reach a tentative conciliation agreement with the respondent; if no conciliation agreement is attainable, the General Council may recommend civil action; the FEC shall make public any findings that do not terminate its proceedings; respondents may be represented by council in civil hearing; the FEC has a comprehensive list of civil penalties; no penalty shall exceed $6,500 or an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation; in the case of knowing and willful violation, the civil penalty shall not exceed $11,000 or an amount equal to 200% of any contribution or expenditure in violation or in case of U.S.C. 441f, the penalty shall not be less than 300% of the amount of any contribution involved in the violation, and shall not exceed $55,000 or 1,000% of the amount of the contribution; the respondent has an opportunity to challenge any FEC penalties; if the respondent is unsatisfied with the FEC response, the respondent can appeal the decision to the district court; the decision of the district court is not reviewable by a higher court; calculation of penalties factor in number days late in submitting reports and previous violations (U.S. Federal Regulations, Articles 111.5 to 112.1)

The United States has a legislative process to enforce electoral finances laws. The legislative process is comprised of transparency of candidate, party, and PAC contributions and expenditures, and criminal penalties for illegal electoral finance acts (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9012; Guide to Researching Public Records, 2013; Federal Election Campaign Act, Articles 432, 433, 434, 438).


Any person, including any authorized committee or officer or member of such committee, who violates the Presidential and Vice Presidential campaign expenses and nominating convention in excess will be fined no more than $5,000 or imprisoned no more than 1 year, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9012(1) and 9012 (2)).

Any person including any officer or member of a political committee who violates the campaign expenditure limits for publicly funded candidates shall be fined no more than $25,000 or imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Articles 9035 and 9042).

Any person who uses contributions other than to defray qualified campaign expenses, to repay loans or restore funds which were used for campaign expenses will be fined no more than $10,000 or imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9042 (2)).

Any person who makes false, fictitious, or fraudulent financial evidence, books, or information to the Federal Election Commission shall be fined no more than $10,000, or imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9042 (C) False statements). Any person who receives kickbacks and illegal payments for contributions shall be fined no more than $10,000, or imprisoned for no more than 5 years, or both. In addition, any person who receives a kickback or illegal payment in connection with any qualified election expense of a candidate or his authorized committee shall pay to the Secretary of the Federal Election Commission an amount equal to 125% of the kickback and payment received (Federal Election Campaign Act, Article 9042, (D) Kickbacks and illegal payments).

The Federal Election Commission imposes fines for late financial reports. The fines are determined under the Administrative Fine Program. Fines are calculated based on election sensitivity, late file or not filed, level of financial activity on the relevant report, and number previous violations. Each previous violation will increase the fine by 25%. Based on examples provided fines may range from $100 to $3,500 (How the Administrative Fine Program Works, 2012).

The Federal Election Commission has jurisdiction to impose civil fines for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The fines are determined through a conciliation process. Some violations may result in imprisonment, and the Federal Election Commission may refer criminal violations to the US Department of Justice. The US Sentencing Commission determines the sentencing of civil fines. Civil fines vary based on the severity of the violation including the amount of excessive funds involved (Federal Election Commission, Quick Answers to Compliance Questions, 2012). For example, in the Treffinger case, Treffinger, his 2000 New Jersey U.S. Senatorial campaign committee, and his treasurer Robert A. Mathers agreed to pay a fine of $171,000 for excessive contributions. In the Hynes case, the committee for Daniel Hynes’ 2004 Illinois Democratic Senate primary campaign, and its treasurer, Jeffrey C. Wagner agreed to pay a civil penalty of $76,500 for excessive contributions. In the Turnham case, Joe Turnham for Congress Committee, and Pete Turnham (the candidate’s father) have agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty for excessive contributions (Hynes Campaign Pays $76,500 Penalty for Excessive Contributions, 2006; Treffinger and Others to Pay $171,000 Civil Penalty for Excessive Contributions, 2006).


Audit Findings

The FDA auditors use professional judgment on the score regarding reasonable legislative processes to enforce electoral finance laws. The FDA auditors found comprehensive legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws, including fines reflective of severity of the offense and prison time up to five years. Generally, the more money involved in an electoral finance wrongdoing, the higher the fine will be.

Total score for the electoral fairness on candidates and parties: 57 percent out of 100 percent.


Analysis The FDA auditors measured an unacceptable passing score of 57 percent for American federal legislation pertaining to candidates and parties. The score is 13 percent below an acceptable passing score of 70 percent.

The FDA auditors identified a sound legislative structure for candidates and parties: freedom of speech, sound structural checks and balances, sound valuation of votes, and reasonable processes on election complaints, candidate and party registration requirements, and enforcement of election law. However, these areas are offset significantly by numerous deficiencies in electoral finance and media legislation, and methods to determine electoral boundaries and winner of electoral districts. For example, the American federal methodology and guidelines to determine federal electoral boundaries does not prevent partisan and bipartisan gerrymandering, and the first-past-the-post system for both congressional elections and the Electoral College does not necessarily reflect proportionally the voice of Americans. The finance and media deficiencies, which are carried over from the previous two sections, favor special and minority interests. For example there are no caps on independent third-party expenditure, no expenditure limits on congressional and privately funded presidential candidates, and no caps on contribution to independent third-parties.

Similar to the limits on the effectiveness of electoral finance transparency, a sound electoral structure is ineffective if unfairness is embedded in the structure. Certainly, a sound structure is better than an unsound structure. Yet, the sound structure is useless if it allows for electoral unfairness. To illustrate, what purposes do sound governmental checks and balances serve if the elected officials who comprise government are elected to it unfairly? Based on its research and measurements, the FDA believes that the American federal electoral system faces this severe shortcoming: sound structure made ineffective by embedded unfairness.


Chapter Four: Voters This chapter focuses on the American electoral laws relating to voters. The FDA audit team gauges these laws according to their equity for voters. This implies an equal value for each vote cast, equitable opportunity for voters prior to and during the campaign period and reasonable means to take advantage of these opportunities. The FDA acknowledges that absolute equal opportunity is not likely attainable. For example, it is implausible that either government or society can ensure that every citizen have the same education, income, intelligence, leisure time etc. However, the FDA is interested in the overall equity of American legislation relating to voters. Does the legislation promote equity within reasonable bounds? Are there areas of the legislation that clearly favour certain voters? Table 10 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 10

Voters Section Variables



Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Blackout Period 2% 0.2 0.0 0.0%Value of a Vote 5% 0.5 0.375 100%Freedom of Speech and Assembly

20% 2.0 2.0 100%

Voter Registration Requirements

2% 0.2 0.2 100%

Voter Electoral Complaints Process

3% 0.3 0.3 100%

Voter Protection 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Assistance 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Citizens Living Abroad 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Inclusion of Minorities 2% 0.2 0.0 0.0%Variables from Other Sections

60% 6.0 3.55 59.16%

Total 100% 10 7.025 70.25%

Blackout Period Audit Question

1) Is the length of the campaign blackout period reasonable? Legislative Research A ‘blackout’ period exists for particular forms of ‘electioneering communications.’ Electioneering communications are any form of broadcast, satellite or cable advertisements that refer to a specific candidate for Federal office and are delivered to its relevant electorate (Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter A, Section 100.29 “Electioneering communication”; U.S. Code, 434(f)(3)).


No candidate or agency acting on behalf of a candidate (including corporations and unions) may publically distribute any form of electioneering communications within 30 days prior to a primary election or 60 days prior to a general election or special runoff election (Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter A, Section 100.29 “Electioneering communication”; U.S. Code, 434(f)(3)).

Electioneering communications do not include communications featured in news stories or editorials that have been funded and distributed independent of a candidate or party; a communication that is considered an expenditure or independent expenditure according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002; debates or forums held by candidates that adhere to the rules and regulations set by the Federal Elections Commission; or any other form of communication that the Federal Elections Commission labels as acceptable according to the established requirements of sections 301(20)(A)(iii) (2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(iii) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Federal Election Campaign Laws, Section 434 (3) (B)).

Audit Findings

There is no blackout period within the 60 day campaign period. The intent of a blackout period is to give voters time to process information prior to voting, without being bombarded by campaign information at the same time.

Value of a Vote Audit Question

1) Is the electoral (numerical) value of votes the same for all eligible voters? Legislative Research Presidential

The Electoral College elects the U.S. President. Eligible voters have no vote for who is the U.S. President (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article II, Section 1).

Congressional

An elector/voter has only one vote (The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 2012).

Audit Findings

Eligible voters are entitled to one vote each when voting for congressional candidates. However, the Electoral College only allows selected electors to vote for the President Vice-President, and thereby denying most Americans a vote for the President and Vice-President. Yet, 48 states out of 50 states Electoral College are based on a winner take all, and 27 states Electoral College are bound by state law to vote according to the popular vote, while 24 states are not. In the history of the Electoral College, only 4 times has the Electoral College vote not been consistent with the popular vote. Therefore, due to the low of probability of the Electoral College vote being


inconsistent with the popular vote, the FDA auditors deducted only 0.25 from the score to reflect the unequal public vote value of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential vote.

Freedom of Speech and Assembly Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of speech and assembly? Legislative Research

Media entities' online news content is not considered contributions or expenditures. The media exemptions apply to all bloggers and others who communicate by means of the Internet unless the facility includes websites owned or controlled by a political party, candidate or a political committee (Internet Communications and Activity, 2012).

If a paid political statement is not authorized by a candidate or political committee, the communication must state the name and permanent street address, telephone number or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and must state that it is not authorized by a candidate or political committee. If transmitted by television, the statements must include a either an unobscured, full-screen view of the person making the statement, or a voice-over, or both, and shall also appear in a readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4 seconds (Code Federal Regulations, Section 441d).

The U.S. Congress has legislative power (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Article I, Section 1), and the U.S. Congress must not make law prohibiting or abridgeing freedom of speech, or the press, or right of the people peaceably to assemble (U.S. Constitution, 2012, First Amendment).

Citizens of the United States cannot be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and equal protection of the law (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors found nothing in the U.S. Constitution and legislation that would unreasonably limit the freedom of speech.


Voter Registration Requirements Audit Question

1) Are the voter registration requirements reasonable? Legislative Research

The age limit to vote is 18 years of age or older (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Twenty-sixth Amendment, Section 1).

Some states allow 17-year-olds to vote in a primary if in the upcoming November election they will be 18-year-old. Other states allow 17-year-olds to register to vote if they will be 18-year-old by the general election (A Voter’s Guide to Federal Elections, 2012).

Eligible voters must be U.S. citizens (A Voter’s Guide to Federal Elections, 2012).

The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, sex, or failure to pay any poll tax or other tax (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Fiftieth, Ninetieth, and twenty-fourth Amendments).


Each state determines the requirements for voter registration. These requirements include deadline for voter registration prior to an election, minimum length of residency in state, and identification and in some cases social security number (Register to Vote, 2012).

Most states participate in the National Mail Voter Registration, with the exception of North Dakota, Wyoming, and New Hampshire (only accepts its own absentee voter mail-in registration form) (Register to Vote, 2012).

Each state determines the requirements for eligible voters to be able to cast a ballot. Some states require state photo ID while other states require varied form of identification, such as driver’s license, passport, non-photo ID, and/or state ID. As of August 2012, 6 states have photo ID laws; 5 states have strict photo ID laws; 19 states have non-photo ID laws; and 21 states have no photo ID laws (Voter Identification Requirements, 2012).

Audit Findings

The FDA auditors, using their professional judgment, found no unreasonableness with the voter registration requirements, such as being at least 18 years old and American citizen to vote. Although the FDA auditors believe that the registration process may be improved if it was included in annual tax returns.


Voter Electoral Complaints Audit Questions

1) Is there a reasonable electoral complaints process for voters?2) Are there reasonable mechanisms to enforce voter electoral complaints?


Any person can file complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) about a perceived violation of any statute or regulation which the FEC has jurisdiction. The person making the election complaint must file a complaint in writing to the FEC, which includes the three copies (if possible), full name and address of complainant, and contents of the complaint (sworn in front of a notary and notarized). All statements are subject to statutes regarding perjury. The statements must distinguish personal knowledge from information and belief, identify each person or entity who is alleged to have committed violation; statements based on information, and belief should identify source of information/belief; statements should contain clear and concise facts of the alleged violation; statements should include supporting documentation (U.S Federal Regulations, Article 111.4 Complaints; U.S. Code, Title 2, 437g(a)(1)).

The Federal Election Commission has a comprehensive process for process election complaints: initial review of complaint and contact complainant within 5 days; opportunity for respondent to demonstrate that no action be taken within 15 days of receipt of complaint; General Counsel of the FEC with advise from the FEC on how to proceed; the FEC shall determine how to proceed based on this advice, internally generated findings, and responses from the respondent; if the FEC proceeds, it will conduct an investigation; the FEC may issue subpoenas and conduct field investigations, audits and other information-gathering; witnesses subpoenaed will be compensated as consistent with U.S. courts; any person subpoenaed may apply to quash or modify it; upon completion of the investigation and its findings, the General Council shall advise the FEC; the General Council shall attempt to reach a tentative conciliation agreement with the respondent; if no conciliation agreement is attainable, the General Council may recommend civil action; the FEC shall make public any findings that do not terminate its proceedings; respondent may be represented by council in civil hearing; the FEC has a comprehensive list of civil penalties; no penalty shall exceed $6,500 or an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation; in the case of knowing and willful violation, the civil penalty shall not exceed $11,000 or an amount equal to 200% of any contribution or expenditure in violation or in case of U.S.C. 441f, the penalty shall not be less than 300% of the amount of any contribution involved in the violation, and shall not exceed $55,000 or 1,000% of the amount of the contribution; the respondent has an opportunity to challenge any FEC penalties; if the respondent is unsatisfied with the FEC response, the respondent can appeal the decision to the district court; the decision of the district court is not reviewable by a higher court; calculation of penalties factor in number days late in submitting reports and previous violations (U.S. Federal Regulations, Articles 111.5 to 112.1)

Audit Findings

There is an extensive process for electoral complaints for any citizen, including provisions for appeal and mechanisms for civil penalties. However, there are no provisions to remove, for example, unlawful electioneering communication prior to a determination of wrongdoing. The


FDA auditors did not deduct for this missing legislation as it is a grey area, and it could be used to unnecessarily suppress freedom of expression.

Voter Protection Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes that protect voters in carrying the act of voting? Legislative Research

The Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice has provisions categorizing any form of voter intimidation and coercion as a federal criminal offence. This legislation was enacted and codified under section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits all forms of voting intimidation that prevent a person from voting freely during a federal election (The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 11, 2012; Voter Intimidation, 2012).

The U.S. Department of Justice monitors these crimes by placing federal personnel in those states identified as likely to violate any established voting rights. Complaints are then managed by the Civil Rights Division attorneys who deal specifically with the Voting and Criminal sections located in Washington D.C. (The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 2012; Voter Intimidation, 2012).

Several United States Constitutional Amendments and several Acts seek to maximize voter accessibility and prevent exclusionary practices. These Constitutional Amendments ensure that no citizen will be denied the opportunity to vote on the basis of their race, sex, or age (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Fifteenth Sixteenth, and Nineteenth Constitutional Amendments; The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 2012).

The Voting Rights Act helps secure fair and uninhibited voting privileges to all citizens of the United States regardless of their race, sex and socioeconomic class etc. In Section 2 of the Act includes in-depth legislation on the prevention of discriminatory redistricting practices, poll worker hiring procedures, voter registration processes, as well as other election-related practices that my have a discriminatory impact. Sections 3 and 8 include provisions that allow federal courts and Attorney General to have federal observers in counties who voting procedures threaten the fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments (The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 2012).

Within particular counties there must be election language provisions such as bilingual ballots (The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 203 and Section 4(f)(4), 2012).

Voters including those affected by blindness, deafness or the otherwise disabled, must have equal access to voting stations (The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 208, 2012).

States and territories must assist certain expatriates and members of the armed forces with voter registration and absentee voting for federal offices (The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 2012).


Voters permitted to register by mail when they receive a driver’s license or when obtaining services from other government agencies (The National Voter Registration Act, 2012).

The Help America Vote Act seeks to improve election administration in three primary areas: federal agency to act as a clearinghouse for election administration; state funding to improve or replace outdated voting systems or technologies; establish minimum set of standards for important areas of electoral administration (The Help America Vote Act, 2002).

Audit Findings

There are comprehensive provisions to protect voters from intimidation and coercion by making such acts a federal criminal offence.

Voter Assistance Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes to assist voters with the act of voting? Legislative Research

The Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, recognizes that physically or otherwise impaired American citizens have been systematically disadvantaged in critical areas of life, including voting and that legislative provisions ought to be made to prevent this (The Americans with Disabilities Act, 2012).

The Help America Vote Act provides legislation to improve access to polling places and voting systems for persons with disabilities. Federal funding was provided to states to replace or upgrade the outdated lever voter system, which was seen as an exclusionary piece of technology for those hindered by a disability. Additionally, states must provide other forms of assistance, where necessary, to allow disabled voters to cast their ballot properly. This may take the form of, such as the case in Texas state legislation, a polling station worker reading the ballot or providing a voting system with headphones that dictate the ballot to an illiterate or blind voter (The Help America Vote Act, 2002; Services to voters with Special Needs in Texas, 2012).

States are required to offer voters alternative means of voting for those unable to be physically present at a polling station. For example, voters are allowed to register to vote by mail as long as they meet the required criteria. Exact legislation concerning voting by mail varies from state-to-state, but the right to do so as a disabled person is secured by The Help America Vote Act (The Help America Vote Act, Section 303 (A) (ii), 2012).

Polling stations have a checklist to ensure that all locations are accessible for those with limited mobility or other disabilities. The checklist includes ensuring that handicapped parking, as well as wheelchair ramps, are provided at all locations (amongst other provisions) (ADA Checklist for Polling Places, 2012).

The Electoral Assistance Commission has committed $7,000,000 to research and development initiatives to support the research of technological advances in voting technology. The


Commission looks to continually improve upon voting practices, so that it can meet the challenge of increased accessibility for all voters (2010 Accessible Voting Technology Initiative, 2010; A Voter’s Guide to Federal Elections, 2012).

Audit Findings

There are comprehensive provisions to assist disabled and impaired voters with the act of voting. In addition, there are provisions to assist voters who are unable to travel in person to polling stations.

Citizens Living Abroad Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes which allow citizens living abroad to vote?

Legislative Research Active-service members of the Armed Forces, Merchant Marine, Public Health Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and their family members, as well as citizens living outside of the US for school, work or other reasons are allowed to absentee vote. These citizens are permitted to register and vote, both online and by mail, in a manner consistent with their home state’s legislation. Further, for members of the Armed Forces, the opportunity exists to vote at a satellite polling station located within a US state or territory. They must however, change their permanent address to that location (The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 2012; Frequently Asked Questions, 2012).

Those American citizens living in US territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands or the American Samoa are not eligible to vote in a presidential election unless they have official residency (domicile) within the United States or District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote). Political parties may authorize citizens within these territories to select a delegate to represent their area during the presidential primaries (The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 2012; Frequently Asked Questions, 2012 ).

Audit Findings

There are comprehensive provisions to ensure that citizens living abroad have the opportunity to vote through such mechanisms as absentee voting.


Inclusion of Minorities Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable measures that support the political representation of minorities and disadvantaged groups of people?


To be eligible to become an elected member of the House of Representatives, a person must be at least 25 years of age, an American citizen for the past 7 years and be a resident of the state they are seeking election in (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Section 2).

To be eligible to become a Senator, a person must be at least 30 years of age, an American citizen for the past 9 years and be a resident of the state they are seeking to represent (U.S. Constitution, 2012, Section 3).

The FDA researchers found no codified legislation that promotes the political representation of minorities or other disadvantaged groups of people (e.g. there are no affirmative action plans) in place. However, there is no legislation that seeks to suppress it.

There are currently 93 women and 444 men holding positions in Congress. There are 81 members of a visible minority group in Congress. There are 76 women and 361 men in the House of Representatives. There are 76 members of a visible minority group in the House of Representatives:

1) African American - 432) Asian - 73) American Indian - 1 4) Hispanic - 25

There are 17 female and 83 male members in the Senate. There are only 4 members of a visible minority group in the Senate (Congressional Demographics, 2012).

Audit Findings

There is no legislation supporting the political representation of minorities and disadvantaged groups of people with federal political representation. The FDA researchers found evidence of unequal representation of ethnic groups in the Congress.

Total score for electoral fairness on voters: 70.25 percent out of 100 percent.


http://congress.org/congressorg/directory/demographics.tt?catid=ethnic&chamber=H&group=Hispanic

http://congress.org/congressorg/directory/demographics.tt?catid=ethnic&chamber=H&group=American%20Indian

http://congress.org/congressorg/directory/demographics.tt?catid=ethnic&chamber=H&group=Asian

http://congress.org/congressorg/directory/demographics.tt?catid=ethnic&chamber=H&group=African%20American

Analysis

The FDA auditors measured an acceptable passing score of 70.25 percent for American legislation pertaining to voters. The score means that there is a satisfactory process in place for voters, and that any deficiencies in the process are outweighed by reasonableness in the process. The voters section received the highest score of the four audit sections, and it is the only audit section to receive an acceptable passing score or better.

Similar to the candidates and parties section, there is a sound structure to the legislation on voters through various measures to assist and aid voters in voting, reasonable processes for such things as electoral complaints and enforcing election law, and comprehensive constitutional basis for freedom of speech and assembly. However, the score for voters is reduced due to the overlap from the finance and media sections, no blackout period, and no measures for the inclusion of minorities.

Although there are satisfactory processes for voters, this does not guarantee a sound democracy. For example, what is the purpose of highly proficient vote counting if the votes themselves are not reflective of citizens as a whole? What good is an array of measures to assist and aid voters in voting if the votes themselves are not reflective of citizens as a whole? A sound process for voters is better than an unsound process, but it means very little if the voters are not represented truly at the ballot boxes.

The FDA summarizes the main findings on voters:

1) No blackout period deprives voters of reasonable and independent time to evaluate campaign information, and thereby impacts how voters will vote. According to American federal law, voters can be bombarded with electioneering communication right up to the day of the vote.

2) The Electoral College does not allow Americans to choose their President and Vice-President. Although this deficiency is reduced by the fact that the Electoral College vote tends to mirror the popular vote.

3) No legislation directly supports the inclusion of minorities in elected positions and as a consequence, discourages broad ethnic representation in elected positions. Therefore, the U.S. Congress will be less representative of all Americans.

4) The electoral finance deficiencies as discussed in Section 1 favor wealthier candidates, parties, and voters, and special and minority interests thereby encouraging an unequal playing field for candidates and parties. These biases impact the campaign information citizens receive, and thus, how citizens vote.

5) The media deficiencies as discussed in Section 2 favor candidates and parties connected to large corporate media, and this in turn, impacts the campaign information voters receive.

6) No legislation to prevent gerrymandering may impact the voice of voters in electoral districts if those districts are set up to favor particular parties.

7) The lack of linkages between registration of candidates and parties to popular support encourages candidates and parties who do not have popular support. This deficiency may


impact voter choice by creating confusion over who to vote for. Yet, this deficit is offset partly by the minimal financial requirement for candidate and party registration.


Chapter Five: Overall Audit Results

1) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of American laws on electoral finance:

48.25 percent

2) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of American laws on media political content:

42.5 percent

3) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of American laws relating to candidates and parties:

57 percent

4) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of American laws relating to voters:

70.25 percent

Total score: 54.5 percent

The bar chart illustrates the level of electoral fairness based on the audit result for each section and overall. Each section has an equal weight of 25 percent.


Chapter Six: Analysis

Overall, the American federal electoral system in terms of legislation received an unacceptable passing score of 54.50 percent out of 100 percent. The score is 15.5 percent below a minimum acceptable passing score of 70 percent, and 4.51 percent above a failing score. The FDA auditors measured two failings score for electoral finance and media, one unacceptable passing score for candidates and parties, and one acceptable passing score for voters.

Table 11

Audit Main Variables Audit Weights Audit Results % ResultElectoral Finance Transparency 2.0 2.0 100%Contributions to Candidates & Parties 1.5 1.5 100%Caps on Contributions to Candidates & Parties 2.0 0.3 15%Campaign Expenditure Limits 2.25 0.0016 0.071%Caps on Third-party Expenditures 1.25 0.01 0.8%Legislative Process 1.0 1.0 100%Broad & Balanced Election Coverage 3.0 0.0 0.0%Media Ownership 1.5 0.0 0.0%Survey/Polls 0.5 0.25 50%Freedom of Media 4.0 4.0 100%Press Code of Practice/Conduct 1.0 0.0 0.0%Campaign Period 0.2 0.2 100%Methodology for Election Winners 0.2 0.0 0.0%Electoral Boundaries 0.2 0.0 0.0%Process of Government 1.0 1.0 100%Registration of Candidates 0.2 0.1 50%Freedom of Expression and Assembly 2.0 2.0 100%Registration of Parties 0.2 0.1 50%Electoral Complaints 0.3 0.3 100%Presentation of Ballots 0.1 0.1 100%Poll Watchers/Challengers 0.1 0.1 100%Candidate and Party Campaign Advertisement 0.6 0.35 58.33%Blackout Period 0.2 0.0 0.0%Value of a Vote 0.5 0.375 100%Freedom of Speech and Assembly 2.0 2.0 100%Voter Registration Requirements 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Electoral Complaints Process 0.3 0.3 100%Voter Protection 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Assistance 0.2 0.2 100%Citizens Living Abroad 0.2 0.2 100%Inclusion of Minorities 0.2 0.0 0.0%Totals 40 21.8 54.50%*

*Percentage total score includes measurement of some variables in more than one audit section.

The FDA auditors identified a sound structure and processes, but also found gaps in the electoral system, which allow for an unfair and unequal playing field for candidates and parties, and


influence by special and minority interests. Sound structures and processes do not necessarily guarantee a highly functional electoral system. How can provisions ensuring voter assistance and protection at polling stations, Americans abroad voting mechanisms, or processes for electoral complaints and enforcement of election law be effective if voters are unfairly influenced by partisan and imbalanced election coverage, candidates and parties, and the influence of money interests on the corporate media? What good are election laws and their enforcement if the election laws themselves are deficient? In the FDA’s opinion, this is the key issue facing the American federal electoral system.

Deficiencies from the four audit sections and their corresponding impact on capturing the will of Americans as a whole in electoral districts are as follows

Electoral Finance

1) Electoral finance transparency is essential for identifying corruption and electoral wrongdoing and encouraging reform, but at the same time, finance transparency is neutral in the sense that it only shows what is.

2) Caps on maximum individual contributions to multiple parties are unreflective of per capita disposable income, and therefore, these caps favor wealthier citizens.

3) No caps on personal contributions by federal candidates, with the exception of publicly funded presidential candidates, favor wealthier candidates. The cap of personal contributions by publicly funded presidential candidates is unreflective of per capita disposable income, and therefore, it also favors wealthier candidates.

4) No campaign expenditure limit on federal candidates and parties, with the exception publicly funded presidential candidates, favors wealthier candidates and parties, and allows for influence by special and minority interests.

5) No caps on contributions to independent third-parties and no expenditure limit on independent third-parties favors wealthier individuals and corporations, and allows for significant influence by special and minority interests.

6) The sound legislative process for enforcing election law has no impact on legislation favoring of wealthier interests or the influence of special and minority interests as outlined above.

Media

1) No requirement on media to provide broad and balanced campaign coverage during the 60 day election period favors candidates and parties connected to corporate media, and allows for influence by special and minority interests through the media.

2) No media ownership concentration laws allows for media oligopoly, and therefore, a potentially narrow presentation of election coverage.

3) No legislative disclosure requirement for public surveys and polls allows the survey and polling companies to influence public opinion with less than credible surveys and polls.


4) No press code of conduct on broad and balanced election coverage allows for partisan and imbalanced election coverage.

5) The freedom of the press does nothing to directly offset the deficiencies above.

Candidates and Parties

1) No provisions to discourage gerrymandering allows incumbent candidates and parties to tilt future elections in their favor, and thereby weaken the will of Americans as a whole in electoral districts.

2) The lack of linkages between registration of candidates and parties to popular support encourages candidates and parties who do not have popular support. This deficiency may impact voter choice through a distortion of voter choice. Yet, this deficiency is offset partly by the minimal financial requirement for candidate and party registration.

3) No provisions for equal opportunity (cost) for candidates and parties in buying press advertisement space favors candidates and parties connected to major press.

4) The media laws as outlined above favor candidates and parties connected to media corporations. The lack of legislated standards for survey and poll disclosure is cancelled out because it applies to all candidates and parties.

5) The finance laws as outlined above favor wealthier candidates and parties. 6) No provisions for the inclusion of minorities in elected positions favor candidates and parties,

which are less representative of minorities.

7) The voter assistance programs, sound structure of government, and processes for electoral complaints and enforcement of election law do nothing to offset the deficiencies above.

Voters

1) No blackout period deprives voters of reasonable time to evaluate campaign information, and thereby impacts how citizens vote. According to American federal law, voters can be inundated with campaign information right up to the day of the vote.

2) The Electoral College does not allow Americans to choose their President and Vice-President. Although, this deficiency is reduced by the fact that the Electoral College vote mirrors the popular vote. There are only four instances of the Electoral College vote not mirroring the popular vote.

3) No legislation for the inclusion of minorities in elected positions discourages broad ethnic representation in elected positions, and therefore, the U.S. Congress will likely be less representative of all Americans.

4) The electoral finance deficiencies, as discussed in Section 1, favor wealthier candidates and parties, and special and minority interests, thereby encouraging an unequal playing field for


candidates and parties. This financial bias impacts the information voters receive and thus, voters’ electoral choices.

5) The media deficiencies as discussed in Section 2 favor candidates and parties connected to large corporate media, and this in turn impacts the campaign information received by voters.

6) No legislation to prevent gerrymandering may impact the voice of voters in electoral districts if those districts are set up to favor particular parties.

Chapter Seven: Conclusion & Recommendations


Based on the FDA’s research and measurements, the American federal electoral system borders a failed state. There is considerable evidence of an overall sound structure and processes. Yet, within this structure and around these processes are significant evidence of biases towards special and minority interests, including wealthier citizens, candidates, and parties. As a result, the FDA believes that the democratic validity of American federal election outcomes is questionable, and that the overall electoral structure and processes do not correlate with capturing the will of Americans as a whole in electoral districts. Therefore, the FDA concludes that the American federal electoral system requires significant reform. Specifically, the U.S. requires reform in the areas of electoral finance and media in order to move the system from a special interest-based democracy to a people-based democracy. (See How to Read the Report on page 5 for definitions of special interest-based and people-based democracies.)

According to its review of the 2012 democracy reform platforms and policies of the Republican and Democratic Parties, and the Obama and Romney campaign platforms, the FDA sees minimal evidence of interest by these organizations in reform of American federal democracy (Democratic Party under the Microscope, 2012; Republican Party under the Microscope, 2012). The FDA hopes that its report, through its measurements, findings, and objectivity, will create the impetus for American democracy reform by reaching Americans inside and outside of government who are sincere about putting the interests of Americans as a whole first.

Table 12


FDA Scoring Scales Score Range Revised 2012 United States Score

A +Exceptional electoral process

85% to 100%100% maximum score

n/a

AOutstanding electoral process

80% to 84.99% n/a

B+Very satisfactory electoral

process

75% to 79.99% n/a

BSatisfactory electoral process

70% to 74.99% n/a

D to C+Unsatisfactory electoral

process (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in

the electoral legislation)

50% to 69.99% 54.50%

FFailed electoral process

0% to 49.99%0% minimum score

n/a

Foundation for Democratic Advancement (2012)

Recommendations


The FDA focuses on major reform recommendations, which if implemented, would make significant democratic advancement of the American federal electoral system.

Electoral Finance

1) Reduction in caps on individual contributions to multiple candidates, dependent PACs and parties, so that the caps are reflective of per capita disposable income. The caps ought to be reduced from $46,200 to about $3,050 for contributions to multiple candidates and from $70,800 to $3,050 for contributions to dependent PACs and parties. Through FDA consensus and Desjardins’ household budget calculator, the FDA determined that 10 percent of per capita disposable income is a reasonable maximum contribution amount (Determine How Much to Allocate to Each Expense, 2013). The 10 percent contribution amount takes into consideration other expenditures such as housing, food, services like electricity and heat, clothing, and health.

Impact

Contributions will more closely correspond to per capita disposable income, and therefore, more fairly represent Americans as a whole. In addition, the new cap will reduce the influence of wealthy individuals on elections.

2) Cap on personal contributions by all federal candidates reflective of per capita disposable income. The cap ought to be set at around $3,050 or 10 percent of per capita disposable income.

Impact

Personal contributions will more closely correspond to per capita disposable income, and therefore more fairly and accurately represent Americans as a whole. In addition, the cap will reduce the influence of wealthy candidates on the elections by creating a more equal playing field for candidates in terms of electoral finances.

3) Campaign expenditure limit on all federal candidates and parties. The expenditure limits would be determined based on per capita disposable income and population size of electoral districts. Each voter in electoral districts would represent a dollar amount and this amount would be multiplied by the number of voters in each district. For example, the province of Quebec in Canada has an expenditure limit of 0.69 cents per voter (FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report, 2012). The expenditure limits must be reasonably attainable by all registered candidates and parties.

Impact

The expenditure will help shift the focus away from fund raising to issues and policies. Also, the limit will reduce the influence of special and minority interests.

4) Caps on contributions to third-parties and expenditure limits on third-parties. These caps and limits should be reflective of per capita disposable income, and be reasonably attainable by all third-parties.


Impact

The caps and expenditure limits will reduce the influence of special and minority interests on elections

5) Disallow corporations and trade unions from acting as third-parties.

Impact

The removal of corporations and trade unions from third-party contributions and expenditures will reduce the influence special and minority interests, and thereby make the American people the focal point of the American electoral process. The impact on freedom of expression will be minimal, as individuals who are part of corporations and trade unions still have the right to act as third-parties and contribute to third-parties.

Media

1) Media code of conduct for broad and balanced coverage during the 60 day election period. The code of conduct would apply to press, radio, television sectors, including online components. The impact on the media’s freedom of speech would be minimal. Viz., the media would be entitled to its opinions as long as the election content is broad and balanced.

Impact

A legislated media code of conduct would help create a broad and balanced electoral discourse, so that the electorate would have the opportunity to be in the most informed position on Election Day.

2) Media ownership concentration laws. These laws prevent excessive concentration of media ownership, and therefore, narrow presentation of election coverage. As an example, Norway has media ownership concentration laws:

a) Section 10 National restrictions on ownershipA significant ownership position in the market nationally shall normally be considered to exist:a) in the case of control through a share of 40 percent or more of the total daily circulation for the daily press,b) in the case of control through a share of 40 percent or more of the total viewing figures for television,c) in the case of control through a share of 40 percent or more of the total listening ratings for radio,d) in the case of control through a share of 30 percent or more in one of the media markets mentioned in litras a), b) or c), and 20 percent or more in one of the other media markets mentioned in litras a), b) or c),e) in the case of control through a share of 20 percent or more in one, 20 percent or more in another and 20 percent or more in a third of the media markets mentioned in litras a), b) or c) orf) when an enterprise controlling 10 percent or more in one of the media markets


mentioned in litras a), b) or c) becomes owner or part-owner of an enterprise forming part of another grouping controlling more than 10 percent or more within the same media market (cross ownership).Section 11 Regional ownership restrictionsA significant ownership position in the media market regionally shall normally be considered to exist in case of control through a share of 60 percent or more of the total daily circulation of regional and local newspapers in one media region.(The Media Ownership Act, 1999)

Impact

Prevent excessive concentrations of media ownership, and narrow election discourse. There would be no impact on freedom of speech itself, as media owners would still have the right to express their opinions.

Candidates and Parties

1) Create independent electoral district committees, which are comprised of voters. These committees would be responsible for drawing federal election districts subject to the U.S. Census Reports, and the constitutional requirement of equal populations in each district.

Impact

Create a process for the elimination of gerrymandering from the electoral process, and thereby support fairer elections.

2) Due to changes in media coverage and more equal playing field in terms of electoral finances (as set out above), increase the barrier of entry for candidates and parties. Registration of parties and candidates should remain at $5,000 per candidate in terms contributions received or expenditures spent. Also, candidates should have at least 5 percent popular vote from the corresponding the electoral district and parties, 1 percent popular support from eligible voters nationally.

Impact

Deter non-serious candidates and parties, and encourage candidates and parties with popular support.

3) Provisions for the inclusion of minorities and disadvantaged groups in elected positions.

Impact

Make elected bodies more reflective of Americans as a whole, and increase the voice of minority and disadvantaged groups in elected bodies.

Voters


1) Provisions for a blackout period at least 48 hours in length prior to Election Day. This period gives voters time to reflect upon the campaign information and election issues without being bombarded with campaign information.

Impact

Allow voters to make informed and clear decisions on Election Day.

2) Replace the Electoral College with a national vote for President and Vice-President, so that all eligible voters have a say in who are the President and Vice-President.

Impact

Give American voters equal say in who are the President and Vice-President, and prevent the voice of Americans as a whole (or popular vote) from being undermined by the Electoral College.

3) Replace first-past-the-post system with proportional representation.

Impact

Under proportional representation, elected representatives will more accurately represent the voice of the people from electoral districts. In addition, majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives will occur when there is significant popular support for a majority. As examples, Norway and Sweden have an open list, Sainte-Laguë’s modified method proportional based electoral systems (FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of Norway, 2011; FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of Sweden, 2011).

References


2010 Accessible Voting Technology Initiative. (2012). U.S. Electoral Assistance Commission. Retrieved from http://www.eac.gov/payments_and_grants/2009_accessible_voting_technology_initiative.aspx

A Voter’s Guide to Federal Elections. (2012). U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Retrieved from http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/EAC_VotersGuidePrint%20%282%29.pdfReynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

ADA Checklist for Polling Places. (2012). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/votingscrn.pdf

Adjusted Gross Income for the Year 2009. (2009). Internal Revenue Service.Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in11si.xls

Ballot Access. (2012). In In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 22, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

Ballot Design Samples. (2012). AIGA. Retrieved from http://www.aiga.org/ballot-design-samples/

Code of Conduct Journalists and Photographers. (2012). American Press Association.Retrieved from http://www.americanpressassociation.com/code.php

Code of Conduct. (2012). American Society Newspaper Editors. Retrieved from http://asne.org/kiosk/archive/principl.htm

Code of Federal Regulations. (2009, January 1). Federal Registry. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/cfr_2009.pdf

Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees. (2012). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nongui.pdf

Candidate Registration. (2012). Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml

Communications Act. (1934). Information on the Act retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice: http://www.it.ojp.gov/default.aspx?area=privacy&page=1288

Congressional Demographics. (2012). Congress.org. Retrieved fromwebsite:http://congress.org/congressorg/directory/demographics.tt?catid=ethnic&chambr=senate

Contribution Limits 2011/2012. (2012). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimitschart.htm

Contribution Limits. (2012). Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/rad/candidates/documents/CanGuide29-30_000.pdf


Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission (No. 08-205). (2010). U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

Democratic Party under the Microscope. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2012/08/democratic-party-under-microscope.html

Determine How Much to Allocate to Each Expense. (2013). Desjardins. Retrieved March 14, 2013 fromhttp://www.desjardins.com/en/particuliers/conseils/gerer-finances/budget-mensuel/calculez-depenses.jsp

Ethnic Diversity in the Senate. (2012). The United States Senate. (2012).. Retrieved fromhttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/minority_senators.htm

FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved fromhttp://democracychange.org/2012/06/canadian-provinces-electoral-finance-report/

FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of the American Federal Electoral System. (2011). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://democracychange.org/2011/07/2011-fda-global-electoral-fairness-audit-of-the-u-s-federal-electoral-system/

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of Norway. (2011). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Unpublished.

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of Sweden. (2011). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved fromhttp://www.slideshare.net/FDAdvancement/sweden2011-fda-electoral-fairness-audit-report

FDA Media Study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://democracychange.org/2012/12/2012-united-states-presidential-election-media-study/

FDA Talking Points Series: 10 Percent Rule. (2013). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2013/03/fda-talking-points-series-10-percent.html

Federal Election Campaign Act. (1971). Retrieved from the Federal Election Commission with amendments http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

Federal Election Campaign Finance Laws. (2008, April). Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf


Frequently Asked Questions. (2012). The Federal Voting Assistance Program. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fvap.gov/faq.html#usmq6

FEC Campaign Guide: Congressional Candidates and Committees. (2011). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf

Guide to Researching Public Records. (2013). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fec.gov/pubrec/publicrecords.shtml

Help America Vote Act. (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/41.PDF

Help America Vote Act of 2002. (2012). U.S. Election Assistance Commission.Retrieved fromhttp://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/41.PDF

Hope, A. (2012). Frequently Asked Questions Regarding The Census and Redistricting. Retrieved from http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/faqcensus.shtml

How do I register as a candidate for federal office? (2012). Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_candidate.shtml#register

How the Administrative Fine Program Works. (2012). Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/admin_fines.shtml

Hynes Campaign Pays $76,500 Penalty for Excessive Contributions. (2006). United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20061219mur.html

IBISWorld Business Environment Report. (2013, March). IBISWorld. Retrieved fromhttp:www.ibisworld.com

Internet Communications and Activity. (2012). Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/internetcomm.shtml

Kimmelman, G, I. (2012, June 21). Antitrust Enforcement and Media Industries: Competition and Beyond. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/284492.pdf

Kosmo. (2012, June 12). “How many people don't pay taxes?” Hyrax Publications. LLC. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thesoapboxers.com/how-many-dont-pay-taxes/

Mundell, B. (2010). Reason TV interviews Mundell. The Legal Way to Rig an Election:


Filmmaker Bill Mundell on Gerrymandering. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXPWLSQorXE&feature=player_embedded

National Voter Registration Act. (1993). Retrieved from http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/27.PDF

Party Registration Toolkit. (2012). Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/info/toolkit.shtml

POP 1 Child Population. (2012). Forum on child and family child statistics. “POP 1 Child population: Number of children (in millions) ages 0–17 in the United States by age, 1950–2010 and projected 2030–2050.” Retrieved from http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp

Presidential Election Campaign Fund. (2012). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. (2012). U.S. Code. Retrieved from http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C96.txt

Presidential Spending Limits for 2012. (2012). Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund_limits_2012.shtml

Principles of Disclosure. (2012). National Council of Public Opinion Polls. Retrieved from http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/19

Public Funding of Presidential Election Brochure. (2012). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml

Quick Answers to Compliance Questions. (2012). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_compliance.shtml#penalties

Quick Answers to General Questions. (2012). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml#How_much_can_I_contribute

Record. (1996, April). Volume 22, Number 4. Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/1996/apr96.pdf

Republican Party under the Microscope. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved fromhttp://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2012/08/republican-party-under-microscope.html

Right to Vote Frequently Asked Questions. (2012). The Center for Voting and Democracy. Retrieved from http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-f-aq#.UChxEKP4Jah

Register to Vote. (2012). U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 2012.. Retrieved from


http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/National_Mail_Voter_Registration_Form_English_2%2015%2020121%20Cor.pdf

Sainte-Laguë method. (2013). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 15, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method

Services to voters with Special Needs in Texas. (2012). Texas Secretary of State. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/services.shtml/

Sherman Antitrust Act. (2012). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved September 5, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

SSFs and Nonconnected PACs. (2012) Federal Election Commission.Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/ssfvnonconnected.shtml

Standards and Ethics. (2010). American Association for Public Opinion Research. Retrieved from http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standards_and_Ethics&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3140

State & County QuickFacts. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Statutory Provisions and Guidelines of the Antitrust Division. (2012). Chapter II.Antitrust Division Manual, Fourth Edition. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.justice.gov/atr/public/divisionmanual/chapter2.pdf

Telecommunications Act. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-104s652enr/pdf/BILLS-104s652enr.pdf

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (2012). As Amended. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.pdf

The Help America Vote Act of 2002. (2012). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/hava/hava.php

The Media Ownership Act (Norway). (1999). Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=9667

The National Voter Registration Act. (2012). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/nvra/activ_nvra.php

The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Station. (July 2008). The Media Bureau. Federal Communications Commission.

The Uniformed Citizens and Absentee Voting Act. (2012). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from


http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/activ_uoc.php

The Voting Rights Act of 1965. (2012). U.S. Department of Justice.Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/overview.php#vra

Transcript of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (2012). Our Documents. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100&page=transcript

Treffinger and Others to Pay $171,000 Civil Penalty for Excessive Contributions. (2006). United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060425mur.html

Turnham Agrees to Civil Penalty for Excessive Contributions. (2006). United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20061205mur.html

Two-round System. (2012). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system

Voter Identification Requirements. (2012). National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

U.S. Electoral College. (2012). Office of the Federal Register. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#selection

Voter Intimidation. (2012). Project Vote. Retrieved fromhttp://projectvote.org/voter-intimidation.html

Women in the Senate. (2012). The United States Senate. Retrieved fromhttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/women_senators.htm

U.S. Code. (2012). Cornell University Law School. Retrieved fromhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

U.S. Constitution. (2012). Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

United States House of Representatives. (2012). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 18, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

United States of American House of Representatives. (2012). Inter-Parliamentary Union. Retrieved from http://www.ipu.org/parline/reports/2339_B.htm

Appendix


Research and Audit Methodology

The FDA research methodology is rooted in non-partisanship and the political concepts of egalitarianism and liberalism. A non-partisan approach allows the FDA to remain as objective as possible.

Egalitarianism is part of the FDA methodology from the standpoint of political equality (or neutrality), in which each person has one vote of equal value. The FDA extends political equality into non-election and election periods, demanding a relatively equal playing field for registered candidates and parties and broad and balanced political discourse. The FDA believes that political equality is a core component of democracy, whereby electoral legislation is neutral for all candidates and parties, the value of a vote is same for all eligible voters, and candidates and parties have an opportunity to disseminate political viewpoints in a reasonably balanced manner. The FDA recognizes that complete political equality is not likely attainable, but assumes that a reasonable state of political equality is possible.

Liberalism is part of the FDA methodology from the standpoint of political freedom, and progress, innovation, and reform through the freedom to initiate reform. The FDA believes that political freedom is also a core component of democracy, whereby candidates and parties, citizens, and media persons are permitted to express their political views.

The FDA believes that the union of freedom and equality, an essential part of democracy, means compromise for the greater democratic good of society and political freedom within the bounds of political equality.

Based on its research of international electoral systems and study of fundamental democratic concepts, the FDA believes that optimal democracy results from a balance of freedom and equality. Too much freedom can allow the most powerful (or wealthy) to dominate politically, and too much equality can weaken individual freedoms to a point that impedes progress and innovation. The FDA's methodology centers on finding the optimal balance between freedom and equality.

The FDA methodology has two main components: research and audit. The research component is qualitative, based on collecting relevant facts and data, and sourcing the information collected using APA guidelines. The audit process too is qualitative but also employs a quantitative aspect. The audit entails team analysis of research using matrices and financial spread sheets and statistical data, and the interpretation of the audit results using scoring scales.

Matrices

The FDA matrices are a detailed, spreadsheet scoring system of relevant data and information. The matrices' scores conform to the concept of optimal democracy defined as a balance of freedom and equality. The purpose of the matrices is to objectify the audit process and help create result reliability through an established structure of scoring. Relevance to the electoral process and the four audit sections inform the variables in the matrices. To illustrate, the two subsections below were part of the matrices used in the American electoral fairness audit:

Media Election Coverage, Matrix Section, for the United States


Table 13

Categories Measures Example or Alternative

Scale

Rational Score

Freedom of the Media

Is the freedom of the media (including journalists) established through constitutional or legislative law?

If yes<4; if no=0

The score of 4 represents the significance of media freedom within reasonable limits. The score of 0 represents imbalanced, one-sided political discourse in the media through unreasonable restrictions on media freedom.

4

Broad & Balanced Political Coverage

During the campaign period is the media (private and public) required legally to publish/broadcast broad/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?

If yes=2; if no=0; if freedom of media=0, then yes=0

The campaign period is the most heightened period in terms of voter awareness. The media due to its mass influence has the means to impact significantly electoral discourse. The requirement of balanced, broad media coverage would prevent the media from being imbalanced and partisan.

0

In this example, media freedom garnered significant weight (40 percent of the total score for election content of media) and value in other subsections. (As an example, see the intersection of column 'Example or Alternative Scale' and row 'Impartial and Balanced Political Coverage' above.) Impartial and Balanced Political Coverage is weighted on grounds of the democratic importance of a broad and balanced electoral discourse and a corresponding well-informed electorate. As mentioned, a positive or negative impact on the electoral process determines matrix weightings and scores. According to the scores in the matrix example above, the FDA assumes that freedom of media has more impact on the electoral process than impartial and balanced political coverage.

The FDA matrices are comprised of four sections:

1) Electoral finance.2) Media Election Coverage.3) Candidates and parties. 4) Voters.

In the electoral finance section there are 14 subsection variables; in election content of media section there are 11 subsection variables; in the candidates and parties section there are 42 subsection variables; and in the voters section there are 37 subsection variables. The subsection variables are the focal points of the audit. Each subsection variable has a weighted maximum score.


Weighting and Scoring

Overall, the soundness of reasons for scores and the relevancy of each area guides FDA grading. Since each audit section has a maximum and minimum score, subsection scores are determined based on their relation to each other and their impact on optimal democracy as related to the relevant section. The FDA acknowledges that the determination of scores is an unavoidable qualitative step. The FDA minimizes the subjectivity of scores through required group consensus on their values.

Each audit section has a score range between 0 and 10, and each section counts equally. As mentioned, the FDA matrices allow, based on relevancy, subsections apply to multiple sections. For example, the subsection 'electoral finance transparency' is part of the electoral finance, voters and candidates and parties sections.

As illustrated in the matrix example above, scores are based on the formula if yes=#, if no=#. The scale rests on yes and no answers. In the case of ambiguous answers, the FDA uses the lesser than and greater than values (“<” and “>”). When these values are used, the FDA audit team attempts to reach consensus on the score, and if that it is not possible, the FDA takes the mean of the individual scores, with each score having equal weight. Relevant and sound evidence, facts, and/or reasons, whether team or individual, must support audit scores. To enhance the reliability of audit results, the FDA has a group of experienced auditors. An audit team has a minimum quorum of five auditors and maximum of nine auditors. Any auditors in excess of nine act as silent observers. New auditors are introduced to the process first as observers, then as researchers, and finally as auditors within a team of experienced auditors.

Survey

The FDA has an ongoing survey of relevant persons with a background in political science, finance, accounting or related field on the FDA’s main variables for electoral finance. The FDA used two surveys: a scoring table and preference table (reproduced below). The purpose of the surveys is to test the validity of FDA weights for its electoral finance variables.

Survey 1


Please weight each section so that the total score for all sections is 10; weights based on the relevancy to the fairness of democratic processes (for registered candidates and parties).

Sections Score RationaleElectoral finance transparency

Contributions to candidates & parties restricted to citizens

Caps on electoral contributions to candidates & parties

Campaign expenditure limits & party subsidies

Third-party spending limits

Electoral legislative processes

Survey 2


Rank each section based on the relevancy to the fairness of democratic processes (for registered candidates and parties).

Sections Highly insignificant

Very Insignificant

Insignificant Significant Very significant

Highly significant

Rationale

Electoral finance transparency

Contributions to candidates & parties restricted to citizens Caps on electoral contributions to candidates & parties Campaign expenditure limits & party subsidies Third-party spending limits

Electoral legislative processes

Audit Focus

The FDA audits four electoral areas because they cover broad aspects of the electoral process. The FDA acknowledges that electoral laws may not necessarily correspond to the implementation of those laws or the public response to them. The implementation and response could be positive or negative, in terms of electoral fairness. Nevertheless, laws provide the foundation for democracy, framework for the electoral system, and an indication of electoral fairness. A country's constitutional and/or electoral laws are part of the functionality of its democracy. The FDA acknowledges that in countries that are lawless, process audits are useless. However, in countries guided by the rule of law, process audits are extremely useful in determining electoral fairness.

FDA Research and Audit Teams and Observers


FDA Research Team

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Mr. Michael Szabo, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Queens University.

FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Team

Chief Electoral Auditor

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia andMaster of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Electoral Auditors

Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University.Mr. Dale Monette, Bachelor of Commerce and Master of Accounting (in progress), University of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Mark Schmidt, Bachelor of Science in Psychology, University of Calgary. Ms. Lindsay Tetlock, Master of Arts in Historical Studies, University of Calgary.

Observers

Mr. Michael Szabo, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Queens University.Mr. Steve Stevenson, Master of Arts in International Security, University of Bristol. Mrs. Liza Valentine, Master of Architecture, University of Calgary.

Report Writer

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Internal Report Reviewers

Mr. Dale Monette, Bachelor of Commerce and Master of Accounting (in progress), University of Saskatchewan.Mr. Mark Schmidt, Bachelor of Science in Psychology, University of Calgary.


News & Politics

United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013)