Congressional Elections Learning Objective 6: Identify the role that money plays in elections and analyze the impact that it has on election results and re-election rates among incumbent candidates.

Introduction U.S. congressional elections are regularly scheduled. As opposed to Britain where elections are called by the gov’t. Members of Congress have fixed terms Term Limits imposed by states have been overturned by Supreme Court. (U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton; AR. 1995). Winner-Take-All System. Single member district system. Candidate who wins popular vote wins the congressional district.

Type of Election Incumbent campaigns: least competitive. Often in districts w/ safe seats Open Seat campaigns (most competitive) House or Senate (Senate is more competitive) Midterm elections (loss of seats for President’s party) –Occurred in House every year –Exceptions in congressional elections (1998/2002) –Once again in President’s party lost seats, even control of both Houses of Congress

Types of Primary Elections Closed – Only registered party members can vote for partisan offices, no crossing of party lines (Used in most states, OR., NY, FL.) Open – Independents may vote, crossing party lines allowed (danger of damaging or “raiding” political parties; ID, TX, MO.)

Factors affecting outcomes of congressional elections Incumbency Type of elections Coattail Effect (Obama in “08) Media, esp. in Senate elections Party affiliation – still a strong predictor of voting behavior Issues (economy) Campaign consultants: increasing importance of these, decreasing importance of political parties Technology (social networking)

Incumbency: The greatest influence Scope of incumbency advantage – 90% of congressmen are reelected ~ 80% senators; lack of competitiveness brings charges of “permanent Congress” and the call for term limits (unconstitutional) Advantages: - Franking Privilege (allow members to send official mail w/o stamp) -Campaign staff already in place -Gerrymandering Districts. Drawing of districts to create “Safe Seats” -Committee service to district (Greg Walden- 2 nd Dist. passed bill to provide greater access to hospitals for rural oregonians; 2009) -Name recognition

Incumbency: The greatest influence Casework done for constituents: -Pork Barrel projects for district. – explosion of “earmarks” in recent years. Pet projects that members designate for their states/districts (Peter Defazio of Oregon’s 4 th dist. Secures $2.7 Bil. For Oregon roads/bridges in Highway Bill) -Money, e.g., in recent House elections, incumbents outspent challengers by 3:1 ratio. “War chest” built to discourage challengers from running

What wins elections Safe district Incumbency Party Issue (“It’s the economy, stupid!” – James Carville, Clinton campaign strategist) Learning Objective 6: Identify the role that money plays in elections and analyze the impact that it has on election results and re-election rates among incumbent candidates.

Oregon’s Congressional Districts

Campaign Finance Rules Presidential General Election Candidates can accept federal funding, but do not have to –Total limit on spending ($85 Mil; 2008) No limit on unconnected issue spending by PAC’s No limit on unconnected party spending –Soft Money (unregulated spending by party committees) –Campaign activities by RNC/DNC

Campaign Finance Rules Individuals (“hard money”; regulated by FEC) –Not exceed $1000 per candidate (now $2300) –Not exceed $20,000 to party –No limit on “independent advertising” –No limit on your own campaign Learning Objective 6: Identify the role that money plays in elections and analyze the impact that it has on election results and re- election rates among incumbent candidates.

Campaign Finance Rules PACs –Any corporation, union, or organization –Must register with FEC –Cannot exceed $5000 to one candidate –Cannot exceed $15,000 per party

Growth of PAC’s (groups that raise funds for favored candidates) In 1974, only 600 PAC’s existed; Now: more than 4100 Reason: Cong. Legislation had intent of preventing a few wealthy campaign contributors from helping candidates “buy” elections. Instead, Cong. Wanted to “open up” campaign contributions to the masses, as represented by PAC’s FECA (1974) did just that: –Indiv. Could contribute no more than $1000 (now $2300 for ’07-’08 cycle) –Indiv. Could also contribute $1000 to a PAC w/ no limit on number of PAC’s they can contribute to. –Furthermore, PAC’s could contribute 5X (now 2 ½) what and indiv. Could contrubute in a year –In addition, there is no limit on the amount of independent expenditures that a PAC could make

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) Cannot limit political free speech, including money Individual limit remained in place as well as reporting Independent expenditures by candidate is allowed.

Effects of Rules Negative –PACs have proliferated (527’s) Swiftboat Vets For Truth; 2004 Citizens United v. FEC; 2009 (Corporations can spend unlimited money on Ads –Elections have gotten more expensive –Control has shifted from parties –Advantage to incumbents –Advantage to wealthy candidates (wealth coming from pac’s; not personal wealth) –Advantage to candidate with strong ideological appeal (e.g., Bush)

Campaign Finance Reform 1996 Defeated Attempt to outlaw PACs –Bipartisan effort –Common Cause, AARP support McCain-Feinngold (2002) –Ban all “soft” money to nat’l parties; not independent groups –Fed. Candidates would be prohibited from raising soft money –Increase individual contributions to state parties (5>$10,000/yr.) Disclosure