5-2: Presidential Campaigns and Elections
Big Idea: Civic Participation in a Representative Democracy Enduring Understanding: The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested by both sides of the political spectrum.
Learning Objectives: Explain how the different processes work in a U.S. presidential election. Explain how campaign organizations and strategies affect the election process. Explain how the organization, finance, and strategies of national political campaigns affect the election process. Explain how the Electoral College impacts democratic participation.
Campaigning Background Spending Totals 1976: $67,000,000.00 1976: $67,000,000.00 1992: $192,000,000.00 2004: $718,000,000.00 2016: $2,100,000,000.00
Campaigning Campaign Finance Reform PACs Federal Election Campaign Act Formed by interest groups to raise money to donate to campaigns Federal Election Campaign Act Created FEC in 1974 Provided public financing for major party candidates Placed limitations on contributions and spending Buckley v. Valeo, 1976 Upheld donation limits by PACs Struck down spending limits Candidates can spend unlimited amounts of their own money (free speech)
Campaigning Campaign Finance Reform Soft Money Unregulated donations for “party-building activities” Would be funneled to campaigns Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act), 2002 Eliminated soft money donations
Campaigning Campaign Finance Reform 527 Organization Super PACs Tax-exempt Influence elections Includes PACs, Super PACs Super PACs Organizations created to influence the political process Not subject to donation restrictions Citizens United v. FEC (2010) “Money is speech” Cannot officially endorse a candidate
Electoral College Background Allocation of Electoral Votes No direct election Safeguard against factions Allocation of Electoral Votes Total number of Congressmen from the state Minimum of 3 Electoral votes change with reapportionment The Electors Originally independent Today mirror popular vote
Electoral College Winner-Take-All System District Method Candidates emphasize large states, swing states, competitive states Severely restricts 3rd party candidates District Method Nebraska and Maine only One electoral vote for each district winner (House) Two electoral votes for statewide winner (Senate)
Percentage of Population Share of Electoral Votes Electoral College Persistence Constitutional amendment needed to abolish it Benefits small states Can benefit minorities located in key states It works No consensus on how to replace it State Percentage of Population Share of Electoral Votes Wyoming 0.1% 0.6% Virginia 2.6% 2.4% California 11.9% 10.2%