Elections and Campaigns Chapter Ten

Campaigns, Then and Now Many things have changed with elections and campaigns, but the key changes are related to one another: Parties are less important Media is more important Polling is ever-present Money (constant fund-raising) matters most

Campaigns, Then and Now Because the control of political parties has been regulated, candidates are now responsible for hiring people to perform campaign-related tasks: Media Consultants Direct mail firms Polling firms Political technology firms

Campaigns, Then and Now Candidates spend, by far, the most money on media. A 2006 study showed that a plurality of ads were designed to play on people’s fears, while a smaller percentage of ads focused on creating positive emotions. Researchers are still unsure of just how influential televised ads are on results.

Better or Worse? Candidates, at all levels of elections, often use polling to shape their campaigns. Only in major elections do candidates conduct very extensive polling on voters’ attitudes and how to change them. Recently, pollsters are considered to be the new political bosses because of the influence that they wield.

Better or Worse? Candidates for major offices have two top needs: Money for televised ads Time for fund-raising

Here and Abroad Unlike many other democratic nations, in the U.S. elections have two phases: getting nominated and getting elected. In the U.S. this requires individual effort, in Europe this requires organizational party effort. American political parties do play a role in determining the election, however.

Presidential vs. Congressional Campaigns There is more voter participation in presidential campaigns. Presidential races are more competitive than House races.

Presidential vs. Congressional Campaigns Lower turnout in off years means that candidates must appeal to more motivated and partisan voters. Members of Congress can do things for their constituents that the president cannot. Members of Congress can distance themselves from the “mess in Washington.” All of these factors affect the likelihood of an incumbent winning in House elections. Because of this congressional elections have become independent of presidential ones.

Funding for Congressional Elections Most money comes from individual small donors ($100–$200 a person) $2,000 maximum for individual donors $5,000 limit for PACs, but most give just a few hundred dollars Challengers must supply much of their own money

Federal Election Commission. Figure 10.2: Growth of PACs Insert Figure 10.2 (formerly 8.2 in 9e) Federal Election Commission.

Congressional Elections Incumbents have an extraordinary advantage – and no terms limits in Congress Each state has two senators; number of House representatives based on state population, as determined by the census House members are now elected from single- member districts

Table 10.2: Top Twenty PAC Contributors to Federal Candidates, Democratic and Republican (2005–2006)

Drawing District Boundaries Malapportionment: districts have very different populations, so the votes in the less-populated district “weigh more” than those in the more-populated district Gerrymandering: boundaries are drawn to favor one party rather than another, resulting in odd-shaped districts

Following the 1990 census, reapportionment shifted 19 seats among 21 states. The largest gains were in California (seven seats), Florida (four seats), and Texas (three seats). Five states gained one seat each: Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington.

See Census 2010 results…

Q: What is Gerrymandering? "Since a single party usually controls each state legislature, it is in the best interest of the party in power to redistrict their state so that their party will have more seats ... than the opposition party. This manipulation of electoral districts is known as gerrymandering.... "The term gerrymandering is derived from Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814), the governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to 1812. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill into law that redistricted his state to overwhelmingly benefit his party, the Republican Party. The opposition party, the Federalists, were quite upset. One of the congressional districts was shaped very strangely and, as the story goes, one Federalist remarked that the district looked like a salamander. No, said another Federalist, it's a gerrymander. The Boston Weekly Messenger brought the term gerrymander into common usage when it subsequently printed an editorial cartoon that showed the district in question with a monster's head, arms, and tail and named the creature a gerrymander."

Let’s Play the Redistricting Game!!!

Staying in Congress The way people get elected to Congress has two important effects: It produces legislators who are closely tied to local concerns. It ensures that party leaders will have relatively weak influence over them. Members gear their offices to help individual constituents back home.

Staying in Congress Committee members secure “pork” for the district through pork-barrel legislation or patronage. "Pork barrel" came into use as a political term in the post-Civil War era. (It comes from the plantation practice of distributing rations of salt pork to slaves from wooden barrels.) When used to describe a bill, it implies the legislation is loaded with special projects for Members of Congress to distribute to their constituents back home as an act of largesse, courtesy of the federal taxpayer. In US politics, an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding. Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

Staying in Congress Money is taken from individuals, businesses and consumers in the form of taxes. This money is then filtered through Congress and thirteen appropriations bills to be allocated by federal level Cabinets and agencies. These agencies dole out the funding through programs that have been set up over the years by Congress, most often to perform a certain function. Usually the money can be spent three ways: 1) on federal programs that have been authorized and legislated 2) on state programs that have been authorized at the state level 3) to grant recipients that have competitively bid for federal financing. The theory is that all of these programs represent federal priorities and therefore are deserving of the federal dollar.   Members must decide to what extent to be delegates ( to do what the district wants) versus trustees ( to use their independent judgment)

1974 Campaign Finance Reform 1972: Watergate and illegal donations from corporation, unions, and individuals catalyzed change Brought about the 1974 federal campaign reform law and Federal Election Commission (FEC) See pgs.240-241

Raising Money Individuals can give $2,000; PACs can give $5,000 in each election to each candidate Candidates must raise $5,000 in twenty states in individual contributions of $250 or less to qualify for federal matching grants to pay for primary campaigns

Problems with Campaign Financing Independent expenditures: an organization or PAC can spend as much as it wishes on advertising, so long as it is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign Soft money: unlimited amounts of money may be given to a political party, so long as a candidate is not named

Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act Banned soft money contributions to national parties from corporations and unions after the 2002 election Raised the limit on individual donations to $2,000 per candidate per election

Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act Sharply restricted independent expenditures Corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofit organizations cannot use their own money for an advertisement referring to a candidate by name 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election See Supreme Court cases: Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2002). See pgs.241-245

527 Organizations A new source of money under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Designed to permit the kind of soft money expenditures once made by political parties They can spend their money on politics so long as they do not coordinate with a candidate or lobby directly for that person

Money and Winning Presidential candidates have similar funds because of federal funding During peacetime, presidential elections are usually decided on the basis of three factors: Political party affiliation The economy Character

Voter Behavior V. O. Key: most voters who switch parties do so in their own interests Prospective voting (voting for a candidate b/c you favor his/her ideas for handling issues) is used by relatively few voters “Political junkies” Retrospective voting (voting for a candidate b/c you like his/her past actions in office) is practiced by most voters, and decides most elections

Coalitions Putting together a winning coalition means holding on to your committed voters and attracting swing voters. Two questions help determine coalitions: What percentage of population groups support either the Democrats or Republicans? What percentage of the party’s total vote came from these groups? Democratic coalition: African Americans, Jews, Hispanics (not Cuban) Catholics, southerners and union members are leaving the Democrats Republican coalition: business and professional people who are very loyal, farmers

Figure 10.4: Partisan Division of the Presidential Vote in the Nation, 1856–2004 Insert Figure 10.4 (formerly 8.4 in 9e)

Do Elections Make a Difference in Policy? Many American elections do make differences in policy But the constitutional system generally moderates the pace of change See pgs.253-256