Chapter 9 Campaigns & Elections

How We Nominate Candidates The Party Nominating Convention The Party Nominating Convention –Select candidates and delegates Party Control over Nominations Party Control over Nominations Caucuses Caucuses The Direct Primary The Direct Primary –Closed Primaries –Open Primaries –Blanket and Nonpartisan Primaries

Nominating Presidential Candidates Presidential Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Primaries and Caucuses –State presidential primaries –Primaries - The Rush to be First (Front loading) –Revival of the “White Primary” Debate National Party Conventions National Party Conventions

State Primaries © 2004 Wadsworth Publishing / Thomson Learning™

The Modern Political Campaign The Professional Campaign Organization The Professional Campaign Organization –Political consultants –Campaign Strategy

Campaign Finance Problems The high cost of campaigns The high cost of campaigns –Media markets –Political consultants –Get out the vote efforts –Party building efforts –Wealthy or well-financed candidates create a spending race Soft Money Soft Money –Funds raised and spent by political parties and organizations created, financed, or controlled by parties or candidates outside the limits and oversight of the Federal Election Commission Independent Expenditures Independent Expenditures –Funds raised and spent by individuals and third parties independent of political campaigns –Corporate and interest group influence on elections –Corporate and Union powers to extract contributions from employees

Approaches to Decoupling Money from Politics Demand-side management: Demand-side management: –Control costs of elections –Address media costs –Control spending by candidates –Control influence of interest groups, corporations or individuals –Reduce party influence –Shorten campaigns –Sunshine Laws and Watchdog groups

Supply-side management: Supply-side management: –Curb contributions –Limit contribution windows or spending flexibility –Curb union and corporate fundraising practices –Curb fundraising activities by third party groups

Campaign Finance Reforms The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) 1971 The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) 1971 (Amendments in 1974) (Amendments in 1974) –Buckley v. Valeo (1976) The Rise of PACs (Political Action Committees) The Rise of PACs (Political Action Committees) The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) See: and See: and

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) Closed “soft money” loophole in Federal Election Campaign Act by prohibiting national parties from raising and spending money outside the limits and prohibitions of FECA. Closed “soft money” loophole in Federal Election Campaign Act by prohibiting national parties from raising and spending money outside the limits and prohibitions of FECA. Limits state and local party use of soft money to influence federal elections, including using these funds to pay wages for officials who spend more than 25% of their time on activities connected to a federal election. Limits state and local party use of soft money to influence federal elections, including using these funds to pay wages for officials who spend more than 25% of their time on activities connected to a federal election.

Bans the use of soft money (non-federal funds) for voter registration and GOTV efforts by state and local party officials w/in 120 days of election when a federal candidate appears on the ballot. Bans the use of soft money (non-federal funds) for voter registration and GOTV efforts by state and local party officials w/in 120 days of election when a federal candidate appears on the ballot. Limits party fundraising. Prohibits parties from soliciting funds for 501(c) tax- exempt organizations that spend funds on federal elections and 527 groups (not affiliated with parties). Limits party fundraising. Prohibits parties from soliciting funds for 501(c) tax- exempt organizations that spend funds on federal elections and 527 groups (not affiliated with parties).

Bans federal candidates from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending “soft money” on federal elections; limits their ability to use these funds for state elections. Bans federal candidates from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending “soft money” on federal elections; limits their ability to use these funds for state elections. Bans state and local candidates (and officers) from using “soft money” on public communications that support, attack, promote, or oppose federal candidates. Bans state and local candidates (and officers) from using “soft money” on public communications that support, attack, promote, or oppose federal candidates.

Defines and regulates “electioneering communications.” Defines and regulates “electioneering communications.” Doubles “hard money” contribution limits. Doubles “hard money” contribution limits. “Party choice” provision. “Party choice” provision. “Millionaire’s Amendment” increases spending limits when candidate faces a deep-pocket opponent. “Millionaire’s Amendment” increases spending limits when candidate faces a deep-pocket opponent. Bans minors from making contributions to parties or federal candidates. Bans minors from making contributions to parties or federal candidates. Signed into law on March 27, Signed into law on March 27, Effective November 6, Effective November 6, Immediately challenged in federal district courts. Immediately challenged in federal district courts.

Court Challenges to BCRA McConnell v. FEC (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia) combined several related challenges to the BCRA into one case. McConnell v. FEC (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia) combined several related challenges to the BCRA into one case. The cases involved more than 80 plaintiffs, including the NRA, the ACLU, big campaign donors, labor unions, and an array of special interest groups. The cases involved more than 80 plaintiffs, including the NRA, the ACLU, big campaign donors, labor unions, and an array of special interest groups.

May 2, 2003: Court ruled that the main provisions were constitutional, but other provisions were problematic or nonjusticiable. Ruling was stayed until expedited Supreme Court appeal. May 2, 2003: Court ruled that the main provisions were constitutional, but other provisions were problematic or nonjusticiable. Ruling was stayed until expedited Supreme Court appeal. Read more at: 4.pdf Read more at: 4.pdf

Court challenges to BCRA McConnell v. FEC (12/10/2003) McConnell v. FEC (12/10/2003) –U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BCRA’s ban on soft money and regulation of electioneering communications. –Struck down provisions banning contributions from minors and the “choice provision” which forced party committees to choose between coordinated and independent expenditures after the nomination. –Ruled “Millionaire’s Amendment” nonjusticiable.

Opinion of the Court Contribution limits and free speech: Contribution limits and free speech: –Government interest in “preventing the actual or apparent corruption of federal candidates and officeholders” is sufficient to justify limits on contributions. Limits to freedom of assembly Limits to freedom of assembly –Court rejected arguments that BCRA violated freedom of assembly between national, state, and local party committees. Limits on state and local party activities Limits on state and local party activities –Upheld on the grounds of important government interest

The Growth in Soft Money Contributions See: See: Political parties and special interest groups spent an estimated $900 million on issue ads during the 2002 elections. Political parties and special interest groups spent an estimated $900 million on issue ads during the 2002 elections.

The NRA alone spent $25 million to defeat Al Gore in The NRA also gave $1.5 million in soft money during the 2000 elections, and roughly $600,000 in soft money during the 2002 congressional elections, all of it to Republicans. The NRA alone spent $25 million to defeat Al Gore in The NRA also gave $1.5 million in soft money during the 2000 elections, and roughly $600,000 in soft money during the 2002 congressional elections, all of it to Republicans. The AFL-CIO gives 95% of its campaign contributions to Democrats, mostly in hard money. In the 2002 election cycle, they only gave $130,000 in soft money, but were famous for independent expenditures in the form of issue ads aimed at influencing voters directly. The AFL-CIO gives 95% of its campaign contributions to Democrats, mostly in hard money. In the 2002 election cycle, they only gave $130,000 in soft money, but were famous for independent expenditures in the form of issue ads aimed at influencing voters directly. The ACLU argued that restrictions on broadcast ads were unconstitutional. They had been involved earlier (1976) in Buckley v. Valeo, where restrictions on contributions were ruled unconstitutional. The ACLU argued that restrictions on broadcast ads were unconstitutional. They had been involved earlier (1976) in Buckley v. Valeo, where restrictions on contributions were ruled unconstitutional.

Republican National Committee: Republican National Committee: –In 2002, the RNC raised $250 million for congressional races, including more than $100 million in soft money. –During the 2000 election, the committee raised more than $166 million in soft money. – Prior to the reforms, soft money averaged about percent of the group's total amount raised. Democratic National Committee: The DNC raised almost $76 million in soft money during the 2002 election cycle. Democratic National Committee: The DNC raised almost $76 million in soft money during the 2002 election cycle.

State parties stand to lose the most. State parties stand to lose the most. California Democratic Party and California Republican Party California Democratic Party and California Republican Party –Argued that the BCRA is an illegal extension of federal powers and pre-emption of state authority. –These state parties were given $900,000 and 1.5 million, respectively, by the national party organizations. Source: Vikki Kratz, Capital Eye, Center for Responsive Politics at November 25, Source: Vikki Kratz, Capital Eye, Center for Responsive Politics at November 25,

Top Contributors in 2000 Election Cycle © 2004 Wadsworth Publishing / Thomson Learning™

Top Contributors in 2000 Election Cycle, (cont.) Go to: © 2004 Wadsworth Publishing / Thomson Learning™

How We Elect Candidates Types of Elections Types of Elections –General Election Types of Ballots Types of Ballots –Australian Ballot Conducting Elections and Counting the Votes Conducting Elections and Counting the Votes Presidential Elections and the Electoral College Presidential Elections and the Electoral College –Electors and the Electoral College –Go to: –Go to: ml ml ml

Americans at Odds over Campaigns and Elections Should We Eliminate the Electoral College? Should We Eliminate the Electoral College? Do National Conventions Serve Any Purpose Today? Do National Conventions Serve Any Purpose Today? Does Money Buy Votes? Does Money Buy Votes?

Primaries across the U.S.