Money in Campaigns Candidates need money to campaign and get the message out. The common perception is that money buys votes and influence.

Let’s Start Class with Thinking I know right? What a concept!  Do you think that companies should be allowed to provide political candidates access to their mailing lists? For example, in your position as a candidate, candidate team, media expert, or interest group member, do you think this would help you to find members, voters, or readers? Why or why not?

With distribution of mailing lists comes direct mail With distribution of mailing lists comes direct mail! (High-tech politics = Facebook, etc.)

Federal Election Campaign Act 1974 Congress passed the act with the goals of tightening reporting requirements for contributions and limiting overall expenditures.

FECA Created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Part of the FEC Act was to create the FEC to administer campaign finance laws and enforce compliance by campaign teams.

Provisions of Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) All candidates must file periodic financial disclosure reports with the FEC, listing how contributed funds and how much money were spent. 2. It limited individual contributions to $2,000. (McCain-Feingold Act of 2004 changed contributions from $1,000 to $2,000.) 3. It provided partial public financing for presidential primaries through matching funds. 4. It provided full public financing for major party candidates in the general election for president.

How Reform Rules Have Changed Elections hard money: is regulated by FEC; requires filing paperwork; is raised and spent on specific candidates Match for donations for president under $250. McCain-Feingold Act (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [BCRA]) banned soft money (unregulated money) at the national level but there are other loopholes.

What Is Soft Money? It is a loophole to campaign finance reform. Unregulated money goes to the PARTIES, not the CANDIDATES—considered party-building activities. Below: McCain and Feingold, who sponsored bill on campaign reform

And the Way to Get around the Ban: 527 Groups Named after federal tax code, 527 groups are protected by freedom of speech. They spend money on our “liberty,” and citizens give their views using media. You could write a check for any amount to a 527 group!

They are independent groups that influence political process but are not subject to contribution restrictions. Examples of 527s are “America Coming Together” and “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” 527 groups do not “directly” endorse candidates and are not connected to a specific party, but they make strong and obvious attacks on their opponents. This is called NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING.

527 ads: issues advocacy; cannot say “vote for” or “vote against” or something similar Example: Swift Boat ad against John Kerry during 2004 presidential race (also example of soft money) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ti-V_rORIw

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) is also called the McCain-Feingold Act. Candidates must approve ads: “I am Barack Obama and I approved this ad.”

“Hard Money” Candidate Campaign Ad: Express Advocacy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vFQAaRKkiY&app=desktop (Bruce Braley) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU&app=desktop (Joni Ernst)

Campaign Finance Reforms: Decided by the Supreme Court At the national level; none at state level Buckley v. Valeo (1976): Individuals can contribute as much of their own money to their own campaign as they want. .

Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from placing limits on spending for political purposes by corporations or unions Money cannot go directly to candidates or political parties in a race for federal office, but it can go toward advertising and other electioneering communications.

Impact of Citizens United Supreme Court Opinion -Gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics and giving rise to Super PACs! -Unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result, we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics ($460.8 million spent in 2012). ANY outside group can use corporate money to make a direct case for who deserves your vote and why, and they can do it right up to Election Day.

What Is a Super PAC? Examples: http://www.nrlpac.org/ and http://nowpac.org/ A Super PAC is a relatively modern breed of political-action committee that is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals, and associations. They replaced 527 groups! They are relatively easy to create under federal election laws. Super PACs have to disclose the identity of its donors. Comedian Stephen Colbert, seen here in Washington, DC, after addressing the Federal Election Commission in 2011, has his own Super PAC.

Super PACs Express Advocacy but Run a Campaign SEPARATE from Candidate’s Campaign Here are the priorities for Iowa: http://www.p4ia.com/ (Who do they want you to vote for?) NextGen Climate http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pacs-spending-isnt-always-welcomed-by-candidates-they-support/2014/08/04/ecc36ed6-18ed-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html (Who do they want you to vote for?)

Political Action Committees (PACs) Interest groups, like business and labor, can contribute to campaigns and form their own PAC to directly channel contributions to the candidate.

PACs can give up to $5,000 per federal candidate per election that they believe will be favorable toward their goals. PACs must register with the FEC and report expenditures. PACs contributed $609 million to congressional candidates in 2012.

Are Campaigns Too Expensive? Are elections being bought? Every four years, Americans spend over $2 billion on national, state, and local elections. **The 2012 election was the most expensive yet—over $6 billion was spent. Many officeholders feel like the need to fundraise constantly takes them away from their job as legislators.

Does Money Buy Victory? Money is crucial. There is a direct link between money spent and votes received. **Most corporations and interest groups give money to INCUMBENTS (people already in office).

Three Major Effects Campaign Have on Voters Reinforcement: reinforce voter preferences for candidates Activation: activates voters Conversion: convert by changing voters minds Campaigns primarily reinforce and activate; only rarely do they convert. People have selective perception and pay most attention to positions they already agree with.

The American political system allows citizens a voice at almost every point of the election process. As a result, party outsiders can get elected. The “permanent campaign” has overwhelmed citizens; therefore, they do not participate. Burdens of modern campaigning discourage good candidates from running.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/17/us/politics/a-guide-to-political-donations.html?hp&_r=3&

Look at the Below FRQ from Your Resource Packet! Let’s Practice! Underline the words you do not understand. Circle the action verbs. How many points do you think the parts of this FRQ are worth?

4 Total Points Part A: 2 points possible Part B: 2 points possible   Part A: 2 Points 1 point for correct description of an obstacle of each Acceptable answers include: Buckley v. Valeo (1976): This Supreme Court ruling held that individuals could contribute as much of their own money as they want for their own campaign. Tie it back to why it makes it hard for Congress to pass campaign finance laws! Soft money is unregulated money, which means that it is not regulated by the Federal Election Commission. Groups such as 527 groups and super PACs can contribute as much money as they want to the parties (NOT the candidate) because they are expressing their “freedom of speech.” Tie it back to why it makes it hard for Congress to pass campaign finance laws! Incumbency refers to people already holding office. President Obama was an incumbent when he ran for reelection.

Part B 1 point for correct explanation of how each obstacle has made it difficult for Congress to enact significant campaign reform Acceptable answers include:   Buckley v. Valeo (1976): This ruling is an obstacle because it gives people with a lot of money an advantage over someone who is relying on matching funds or contributions for their campaign. Ross Perot ran for office in the early 1990s and used millions of his own money to run his campaign. It is hard to enact significant campaign finance reform when the wealthy people running for office have a loophole such as this that has been backed by the Supreme Court. Soft money is an obstacle because it allows wealthy people/corporations to give as much money as they want to the parties or to an advertising campaign that will be attacks directed at the opponent. It is hard to enact significant campaign finance reform when the Supreme Court has upheld that the First Amendment prohibits the government from placing restriction on people’s freedom of speech in Citizens United v. FEC. Incumbents are an obstacle to campaign finance because they already have an advantage of money that has been given to them during their term in office that they can use for their campaign to get reelected. And, most corporations and interest groups give money to incumbents rather than challengers. It is hard to enact significant campaign finance reform when incumbents automatically have more money than the challengers. It once again becomes about who has the money rather than who is the best person for the job.