1. Functions of Parties  organized critique of the party in power  a choice of leaders and programs  recruit and nominate electoral candidates  Provide cues to voters  Mobilize voters  Capital Intensive Politics  Kayden vs. Greider

2. Buckley v. Valeo  Limits on spending are unconstitutional  Limits on contributions are okay  No limits on individual spending

3. Legacy of Buckley  Public financing is key  All CFR is a constitutional issue

4.  Who Gives  Individuals  Corporations/labor unions  Political action committees (PACs)  Who Receives  Candidates (hard $)  Parties (soft $)  "independent expenditures“ (express advocacy)

5. How Much to Whom?  INDIVIDUALS  Hard Money  $25,000 a year limit on all donations  $1,000 limit per election per candidate (primary and general)  $5,000 limit per PAC  Unlimited soft money contributions to party  Unlimited "independent expenditures"

6. How Much to Whom?  CORPORATIONS AND LABOR GROUPS  Hard Money from treasury- $0  barred from contributing to candidates  BUT, they can create PACs  $5,000 per candidate, per election (primary and general)  $15,000 a year to a party  Unlimited soft money contributions to party  Unlimited "independent expenditures"

7. Disclosure  Candidates must report  all PACs and party contributions  Name, address and occupation of any individuals contribution >$200  disclose all expenditures exceeding $200  Sunshine principle  candidates, parties and PACs must disclose how they raise and spend money

8. Presidential Candidates  Public funding based on matching system  candidates who accepted federal matching funds could not spend more than $37 million  $61.8 million in public money for campaign costs  $12.4 million for convention costs.  could accept $11.9 million from their parties

9. Hard vs Soft Money  Hard money given to candidates  Given by PACs, individuals  Heavily regulated  Soft money given to political parties for party building activities, GOTV  Corporations and unions may contribute soft money to parties in unlimited amounts  not constitute election activity, may be used on issue advocacy

10. Increasing Cost of Campaigns

11. Increasingly Expensive Races Most Expensive Senate Races 2000  New York Senate $83,698,388  New Jersey Senate $71,408,718  Minnesota Senate $23,649,774  Michigan Senate $17,974,728  Pennsylvania Senate $16,689,453

12. House Challengers in Battleground Districts in the 1992 Election

13. Challengers in Battleground Districts 1996 House Elections

14. PAC contributions

15. Soft Money contributions 2000

17. Comparison with Other Countries Public FinancingLimits on Spending Television BritainNoYesFree Time to parties DenmarkYes, to partiesNoFree Time to parties on public stations FranceYes, to candidatesYesFree Time to candidates ItalyYes, to candidatesNoFree Time to parties IsraelNoYesFree Time to parties on public stations JapanNoYesFree Time to candidates; no negative ads GermanyYes, to partiesNoFree Time to candidates on public stations USNO NONE

18. Two CF Systems  Official Post Watergate system  Low individual limits on giving  Ban on corporate and labor contributions  Disclosure/Sunshine  Grey market  Unlimited soft money contributions  Unlimited issues ads/indep expenditures  Leadership PACs

19. What is to be done?  Clean Money Solution (ME, NE, MA)  complete public financing  spending limits  Problems  Primaries  Issue ads/independent expenditures  Public resistance (David Duke problem)

20. McCain Feingold  Ban Soft Money contributions to national parties  Earlier versions  60% of funding from district  Free TV time

21. Brookings Proposal  Increase individual contribution limits  Increase limits on hard money contributions/end soft money  Require disclosure for issue ads  Tax credit for small contributors  Discount TV time

22. CFR is not a Problem View  Free speech costs money  How much is too much  $ guarantees audience not votes  $ goes to like minded candidates, does not buy votes  Most issues have big $ on both sides  Solution  No limits with full disclosure

23. CFR is a Problem  Only corporations/wealthy have $$$  $150,000 annual income =25% of contributions  Increases political clout of corporations  Uneven distribution of wealth + private financing of elections =  Solution= democratically/public financing

24. Barriers  Partisan reforms  Incumbent protection  Ants in the kitchen/balloon analogy

25. Why the system is broke!  Express Advocacy  communication whose purpose is to elect or defeat a candidate for office  "magic words" - "vote for," "vote against," "elect," "defeat"  subject to limits and regulation by FEC  all funds raised and spent must be reported to FEC

26. But Independent Expenditures  An independent version of express advocacy  No coordination with candidate  must be reported to the FEC  Can be done by PACs, parties, individuals (not corporations, unions)

27. Issue Advocacy  purpose is to promote a policy position  Does not use magic words  Not regulated by FEC  No disclosure!