gov speed study

Closed Primary

A primary election in which only registered members of a particular political party can vote

Open Primary

A primary election in which voters are not required to be registered with a political party to vote in that party's primary. Voters can choose which party's primary ballot they want to cast. (Not explicitly defined, but implied by primary system)

Primary

Voters directly cast ballots for candidates within a party to select delegates for the national convention. States decide how to conduct primaries.

Caucus

A meeting of party members to choose delegates for the national convention. Typically involves discussions and open voting.

Pledged Delegates

Chosen at the state level (through primaries or caucuses) and are expected to vote for a particular candidate at the party's national convention based on the primary/caucus results

Unpledged Delegates (super delegates)

Party leaders and elected officials who are not bound to vote for a particular candidate at the national convention. They can vote for whomever they choose, giving them influence in nomination battles

Proportional Systems

Electoral votes are divided among candidates based on the percentage of the statewide popular vote they win. Maine and Nebraska use a variation where electoral votes are awarded by congressional district winner and statewide winner

Soft Money

Campaign contributions unregulated by federal law, usually given to parties and party committees to help fund general party activities (e.g., "party-building" activities). (Largely banned by BCRA and impacted by later court decisions)

hard money

Campaign contributions that are regulated by federal law, requiring disclosure of sources and subject to strict limits on how much can be donated directly to candidates or parties

FECA / Federal Election Campaign Act

Created the FEC, required disclosure of funds, placed limits on contributions, and instituted public financing for presidential elections

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is the same as

McCain-Feingold Act

McCain-Feingold Act is the same as

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)

Placed stricter limits on contributions by individuals and PACs, and restricted independent groups from running ads close to elections (later partially struck down)

PACs (Political Action Committees)

Organizations that raise and spend money to elect or defeat candidatesad

Traditional PACs

Can donate directly to candidate campaigns (up to federal limits) and parties

Connected PACs (SSF)

receive and raise money from a ‘restricted class’ usually made of managers and shareholders (if a corporation or members of a non profit organization)

Non connected PACs

Groups with an ideological mission, single issue groups and members of congress. May accept funds from any individual, SSF or organization. no sponsor, can solicit the general public, but have tighter admin cost restrictions

Leadership PACs

Elected officials and parties can't give more than federal limits directly to candidates. But a leadership PAC makes independent expenditures (if not coordinated with the other candidate, spending is not limited)

Super PACs

Can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals to overtly advocate for or against political candidates, but they cannot directly coordinate with candidate campaigns. They primarily engage in independent expenditures

Electioneering

The process of actively campaigning for political candidates or parties, including direct contributions, independent expenditures, and grassroots efforts

Grassroots Lobbying

Mobilizing interest group members to pressure their representatives directly through phone calls, emails, and social media. Often used by less-funded groups due to its relative inexpensiveness

Astroturf Lobbying

An attempt to create the appearance of widespread grassroots support for an issue when in reality it is being orchestrated and funded by a central organization or campaign

District plan

Award electoral votes based on the winner of each congressional district (Maine and Nebraska). Arguments for: fairer representation, encourages campaigning in more districts. Arguments against: doesn't prevent popular vote loser from winning nationally, potential for gerrymandering

Issue Ad

Political advertisements that focus on broad political issues rather than specific candidates. While historically used to avoid campaign finance limits, they are now often associated with Super PACs, which can spend unlimited funds as long as they don't coordinate with campaigns. These ads often highlight a candidate's stance on an issue without explicitly telling people to vote for or against them

Collective Action

Political action that occurs when individuals contribute their energy, time, or money to a larger group goal

Collective Good (Public Good)

A public benefit (like clean air or national defense) that individuals can enjoy or profit from even if they do not help achieve it

Free Rider Problem

The problem faced by interest groups when people can enjoy the benefits of the group's efforts without contributing to them. This creates a disincentive to join the group

solution to Free Rider Problem

Interest groups offer selective benefits, available only to those who join or contribute (e.g., discounts, publications, professional credentials)

Amicus Curiae brief

A brief filed by someone who is not a party to a case (an interest group) in an attempt to persuade the Court to agree with the arguments set forth in the brief. This is a tactic interest groups use to influence the judiciary

Buckley v. Valeo

• Ruling: Upheld limits on campaign contributions (to prevent corruption/appearance of corruption) but struck down limits on independent expenditures and personal spending by candidates (seen as First Amendment free speech).

• Significance: Established that money equals speech, setting a precedent that significantly shapes campaign finance law. Created a distinction between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC)

• Background: Challenged provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 that restricted independent political spending by corporations and unions.

• Ruling: Corporations and unions have the same First Amendment free speech rights as individuals. Therefore, the government cannot restrict their independent political spending in candidate elections.

• Significance: Led to the rise of Super PACs and significantly increased the role of money in politics through independent expenditures. The majority argued that independent expenditures do not lead to corruption. Dissenters argued it would undermine democracy and that corporations are not "persons" in the same sense as individuals, thus having different speech rights.

Near v. Minnesota

• Background: Jay Near published a newspaper criticizing local officials, who sought an injunction to stop him based on a state law that allowed prior restraint against "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" publications.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint is (generally) unconstitutional, with very narrow exceptions (e.g., national security during wartime, incitement to violence).

  • 14th amendment freedom of press

• Significance: Established a high barrier for government censorship and is a landmark case for freedom of the press. Connects to the role of the media as a watchdog.

New York Times v. Sullivan

• Background: A libel lawsuit brought by a public official (L.B. Sullivan, a city commissioner) against the New York Times for publishing an advertisement that contained minor factual inaccuracies about the civil rights movement.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that to win a libel suit, a public figure must prove that the defamatory statement was made with "actual malice" – meaning the publisher knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

• Significance: Made it much harder for public officials to sue for libel, thereby protecting robust public debate and media criticism of government actions. Essential for freedom of speech and the press, even when reporting on political figures.

New York Times v. United States

• Background: The Nixon administration tried to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing classified government documents (The Pentagon Papers) about the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, claiming national security.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of Near v. Minnesota, ruling that the government failed to prove a direct and immediate threat to national security, thus upholding the newspapers' right to publish.

• Significance: Solidified the heavy presumption against prior restraint, even in cases involving national security, reinforcing the media's role in informing the public about government actions.