Consider: Is money a necessary part of politics? The Last Word: Assignment 6 due Friday.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Advertisements

Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
 “Bypassing Campaign Contribution Regulation” warm up Bell ringer.
Federal Campaign Finance Law. Federal Election Commission  Established by Congress in 1974, the FEC in an independent agency in the executive branch.
Money and Politics Reference Ch 7.3.
CHAPTER 14 The Campaign Process. Nomination Process Once a candidate declares his/her intention to run their focus is on winning the nomination of their.
Campaign Finance 101 What is the difference between hard money and soft money? What is FECA? What is the BCRA? Why is campaign finance so controversial?
Campaign Finance Objective: To better understand campaign finance and its influence on political campaigns November 13, 2014
ISSUES Contributions: From what sources does money come? Where does it go? Should amounts be controlled? Expenditures: What can different “players” in.
As you read… Annotate the text. Be Prepared to Discuss: What did you find most shocking about campaign finance? How are interest groups connected to or.
Campaign Finance. Why is money necessary to political campaigns? Why is money in campaigns problematic for representative democracy? Can we restrict money.
FrontPage: Do you believe that the way money is used in baseball is fair? Should it be? Homework: Influences on Voters RQs due Thursday.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE. MONEY Politicians need money to win elections election cost over $1.1 billion!
Financing Campaigns. Running for office is very expensive; for example, presidential candidates spend about 1 billion dollars each in the 2012 election.
* Independent Expenditures – spending by political action committees, corporations, or labor unions to help a party or candidate but done independently.
Campaign Finance Campaign Finance Reform 1972: Watergate and illegal donations from corporation, unions, and individuals catalyzed change 1972:
Money in US Elections PART 1.  Teapot Dome scandal (1925)  Cabinet members illegally leased federal lands in exchange for bribes from private oil development.
* A committee set up by a corporation, labor union, or interest group that raises and spends campaign money from voluntary donations. * PAC must give.
 Presidential Primaries  Part private, part public money Federal matching funds for all individuals’ donations of $250 or less (incentive to raise money.
Chapter 9 Campaigns & Elections. How We Nominate Candidates The Party Nominating Convention The Party Nominating Convention –Select candidates and delegates.
Incumbents and Elections Free speech and Campaign Finance Reform.
Write 2 newspaper headlines for the following events – you must use the vocab words! 1. John McCain won the Republican nomination in (primary election,
 © 2001 by Prentice Hall, Inc. Chapter 7 – The Electoral Process.
 Presidential Primaries  Part private, part public money Federal matching funds for all individuals’ donations of $250 or less (incentive to raise money.
Campaign Finance & Political Speech Political speech – inseparable from the concept of self-government –Limits: 1907 Tillman Act 1910 Federal Corrupt Practices.
Unit II Election Process.  FEC – Federal Election Commission  BCRA – Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act  Buckley vs. Valeo  Citizens United vs. FEC 
NOMINATIONS AND CAMPAIGNS CHAPTER 8/10. THE NOMINATION GAME Nomination:  The official endorsement of a candidate for office by a political party.
WHAT DOES THIS POLITICAL CARTOON SUGGEST ABOUT
Campaign Finance How to fund a race for government office.
MONEY IN POLITICS Review & Update LWV Money in Politics Review and Update “This political system is awash in money... The effect of all this, unfortunately,
Money and Elections. Strategies to prevent abuse in elections Impose limits on giving, receiving, and spending political money Requiring public disclosure.
Campaigns The Message and the Money. The Media and Campaigns Campaigns attempt to gain favorable media coverage: Isolation of candidate (Biden, Palin)
 Presidential Primaries  Part private, part public money Federal matching funds for all individuals’ donations of $250 or less (incentive to raise money.
Money and Elections Objective 26H. Campaign Spending Total spending for all party efforts in the 2004 presidential election reached over $2 billion. Sums.
The Election Process Module 6.2: Campaign Finance.
Sources of Campaign Money Presidential Primaries Part private, part public money Federal matching funds for all individuals’ donations of $250 or less.
AP Government and Politics Chapter 8: Wilson
Campaign Finance The connection between money and the elections.
POLITICAL PARTIES ernment.cfm?subpage=
Campaign Finance Unit 4: The Electoral Process. Some terms to start FECA – Federal Election Commission BCRA – Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Hard money.
Money and Campaigning American Government. FEC  In 1974 Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act  This act was passed in response to illegal.
Consider: Is money a necessary part of politics? The Last Word: Assignment 8 due Friday.
Campaign Financing STEPHANOW, The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing.
Copyright © 2014 Cengage Learning CAMPAIGNING FOR OFFICE Chapter Ten.
Incumbents Always win!. Hey…must be the money! How to Fix a Rigged System “If you aren’t an incumbent or you don’t have personal wealth, there’s almost.
Summary of the Rules Governing Campaign Financing The New Rules of the Game.
Goal 4- Paying for Election Campaigns Chapter (10.3)
Campaign Financing. Major Issues How much can candidates raise How much can donors contribute How does the government influence campaign spending How.
The Election Process Elections and Paying for Campaigns.
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
AP US Government & Politics
Hard Money: Federal Election Campaign Act (1971, 1974) – increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns and 1974 amendments placed legal.
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Money in Elections and Improving the Election Process
Interest Groups and Campaign Finance
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER Why does money matter? What is it paying for?
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Unit 2: Pol. Beliefs, Behaviors & Unit 4: Institutions
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Money and Campaigning The Maze of Campaign Finance Reforms
Campaigns 5.8.
ISSUES Contributions: From what sources does money come? Where does it go? Should amounts be controlled? Expenditures: What can different “players”
Interest Groups and the Political Process Post-Citizens United
Campaign Finance Reform
Interest Groups and Campaign Finance
Presentation transcript:

Consider: Is money a necessary part of politics? The Last Word: Assignment 6 due Friday

Campaign Finance Law Unit 3: AP Government and Politics

Campaign Finance… Politics and money go together like… ◦ Why? Why regulate? ◦ Perceived corruption in government due to the influence of money Conflicting values ◦ 1 st amendment vs…

Sources of Campaign Funding Candidates, Parties, Individuals, PACs 527s Super PACs (Super 527s) Public Funds Bundling

Sources of Campaign Funding  Individuals $2,500 per election Small donations add up  Political parties $5000 per election to House, $43,000 to Senate  Personal savings No limits  Political action committees (PACs) A political committee that raises and spends money to elect or defeat candidates. An organization's PAC will solicit money from the group's employees or members and make contributions in the name of the PAC to candidates and political parties. $5,000 per election 13.3

Sources of Campaign Funding  501(c) groups Not primarily political; 501(c) groups are not legally required to disclose any information about their donors. 501(c)(3) groups -- operate for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. These groups are NOT supposed to engage in political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted. 501(c)(4) groups -- commonly called "social welfare" organizations. They may engage in political activities, so long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards and boards of trade face restrictions similar to 501(c)(4) groups regarding political activities.  Super PACs No limits on expenditures – See (Super) 527s Cannot contribute to candidates 13.3

Sources of Campaign Funding  527 political committees Named for section of tax code; Raise money for political activities including voter mobilization efforts, issue advocacy ads. The FEC only requires a 527 group to file regular disclosure reports if it is a political party or political action committee (PAC) that engages in either activities expressly advocating the election or defeat of a federal candidate, or in electioneering communications. Super 527s- The Citizens United ruling allows 527 committees to raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions to expressly advocate for or against federal candidates, and since the controversial ruling, several so- called 527 groups have registered with the FEC as "super PACs." 13.3

Bundling Bundling: The practice through which multiple contributions from a single industry, interest group, company or group of individuals are delivered to a candidate. Bundling is a legal practice that can occur one of two ways: ◦ 1) an individual or group, known as a conduit or bundler, collects and delivers the contributions in a "bundle" to a candidate (in some cases, the conduit must report bundled contributions to the Federal Election Commission), or ◦ 2) individuals from the same industry, interest group or company send contributions that reach a candidate around the same time. In these cases, the person or group who solicited the contributions (the bundler) is often given an identification code that the contributors put on their checks so he gets the credit for bringing in the contributions. Companies, industries and interest groups organize "bundles" of contributions in order to take credit for a total amount greatly exceeding what could be given by an individual or PAC. This gives them much greater impact than a trickle of apparently unrelated individual checks.

Public Funds  Presidential candidates Few candidates accept them Must raise at least $5,000 to qualify for matching funds Third party candidates only get funds after election Presidential Election Campaign Fund $3 from each taxpayer who ticks box 20% of taxpayers participate 13.3

“Dark” Money Coined by Mother Jones magazine in ◦ Play on the former terms “hard” and “soft” money Refers to donations to nonprofit groups who do not have to disclose where the money came from ◦ Used for political action, including ads Not to be confused with “black money”, which is an illegal bribe given to elected officials

The Last Word: Assignment 6 due Friday – Unit 3b Test next Thursday Consider: What are the conflicting values in the campaign finance debate?

Early Campaign Finance Reform First tried in late 1800s; ◦ Prohibit solicitation of funds from federal workers for campaign funds Tillman Act (1908) – banned corporate contributions to candidates Other laws sought to… ◦ Limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections; ◦ Regulate spending in campaigns for federal office; and, ◦ Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.

Campaign Finance Pendulum During the 20 th century, and beyond, campaign finance regulations have been enacted, repealed, upheld and struck down several times (regulation seems to go back and forth) ◦ FECAct (1974) ◦ Buckley vs. Valeo (1976) ◦ Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA,” 2002) ◦ McConnell vs. FEC (2002) ◦ Wisconsin RTL vs. FEC (2007) ◦ Citizens United vs. FEC (2010) The major distinction that has been made by the courts and laws dealing with campaign finance has been between donations/contributions and expenditures.

Current Campaign Donation Limits ***Contribution limits are adjusted for inflation each odd-numbered year

FECA (1971 and 1974) Attempt to enact comprehensive regulations of the way American campaigns for Congress and President are conducted; in the wake of Watergate ◦ Dealt primarily with how money is raised and spent Created the FEC Requires every candidate to establish a committee to report contributions and expenditures ◦ Every donor or expenditure over $100 Continued pre-existing bans on contributions by corporations and labor unions to campaigns ◦ Created new limits on other sources of funding, including individual contributions to candidates (people, PAC’s, other groups)

Buckley vs. Valeo (1976) The first case to challenge virtually every part of FECA ◦ In order for government to limit the free speech that is campaign contributions and expenditures, it had to prove that:  Its actions are justified by a particularly compelling interest;  The only government interest the Court has found acceptable is the “need to prevent actual or apparent corruption” in the political process Supreme Court struck down several parts of FECA  Upholds limits on contributions; strikes down limits on expenditures  Narrowed the ban on corporations/unions by banning “express advocacy” only, but can still focus on “political and policy issues” so that they can remain part of the discussion  Prohibitions on corporate/union donations and spending remain ◦ This leaves open the door for parties to solicit and gather “soft money” contributions from any source  Used for “grassroots” and get-out-the-vote initiatives since these are not directed towards any particular candidate

BCRA (2002) ◦ A bipartisan campaign finance reform bill passed in 2002 ◦ Known as “McCain-Feingold”, or “Shays-Meehan” in the House Provisions ◦ Banned “soft money” – unlimited contributions made to parties for “party-building activities.” ◦ Banned “electioneering communications” (express advocacy) by corporations/labor unions  “electioneering communications” – ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of primary or 60 days of general election ◦ Prohibited minors from making political contributions ◦ Raised individual contribution limits –  From $1000 to $2000, then adjusted for inflation.

McConnell vs. FEC (2003) Challenge to the BCRA Supreme Court upholds most provisions of the BCRA ◦ “electioneering communications” provision ◦ “soft money” ban ◦ New limits on contributions Overturned the ban on minor’s contributions to candidates  “money, like water, will always find an outlet”; therefore, regulations will continue to be needed.

FEC vs. Wisconsin RTL (2007) Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), a nonprofit political advocacy corporation, ran three advertisements encouraging viewers to contact two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees. WRTL intended to keep running the ads through the 2004 election, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) prohibits corporate funds from being used for certain political advertisements in the 60-day period prior to an election.

Text of Wisc. Right to Life Ad PASTOR: And who gives this woman to be married to this man? BRIDE'S FATHER: Well, as father of the bride, I certainly could. But instead, I'd like to share a few tips on how to properly install drywall. Now you put the drywall up... VOICE-OVER: Sometimes it's just not fair to delay an important decision. But in Washington, it's happening. A group of Senators is using the filibuster delay tactic to block federal judicial nominees from a simple "yes" or "no" vote. So qualified candidates don't get a chance to serve. It's politics at work, causing gridlock and backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency. Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster. Visit: BeFair.org Paid for by Wisconsin Right to Life (befair.org), which is responsible for the content of this advertising and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Decision in WRTL The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, crafted a major exception to the limitations on broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The court ruled that… ◦ Unless an ad expressly urges support or defeat of a candidate), it was eligible for an exception to the McCain-Feingold limits on issue ads close to an election.

Citizens United vs. FEC (2010) Facts of the Case: Citizens United sought an injunction against the FEC in the US District Court to prevent the application of the BCRA to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president. Question Presented: 1) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA? **Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

The decision in Citizens United The Supreme Court overruled portions of McConnell v. FEC. ◦ In prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.

Speechnow vs. FEC (US Court of Appeals) The five-justice majority in Citizens United did not address whether gov could regulate individual contribs to groups that make indie expenditures. This case, concerning 527s, was brought by SpeechNow.org, ◦ The group sued the FEC, saying that limits on annual contributions from individuals were unconstitutional. The FEC argued that large contributions to groups that made indie expenditures could “lead to preferential access for donors and undue influence over officeholders.” In May of 2010, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of SpeechNow.org, meaning the FEC could not longer enforce the individual contribution limits to independent groups. The court noted that the Citizens United case said that there is no corruption when the spending is not coordinated with a candidate. ◦ The Appeals Court said the FEC’s arguments “plainly have no merit after Citizens United.”

And yet one more… McCutcheon vs. FEC ◦ April 2014 decision ◦ Court strikes down BCRA limit on how much an individual could give overall in an election cycle. ◦ There is no longer a limit on this.

What will be the next move? New legislation? Challenge to existing rules? Spending bill of 2014