Campaign Finance and Elections

CAMPAIGN FINANCE & COURTS

I. Introduction to Campaign Finance

  • Reading + Lecture:

    • Sources: Brennan Center, Five to Four

    • Lecture notes encompass discussions on Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), Buckley v. Valeo, and Citizens United.

A. Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1974

  • Overview:

    • Established as a reform act following the Watergate scandal aimed to regulate campaign funding.

  • Key Components:

    • Limits on individual contributions to political campaigns.

    • Mandatory disclosure of all donations.

    • Provision for public financing of presidential elections.

    • Important distinction between contributions (money given directly to candidates) and expenditures (money spent independently by individuals or groups).

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • The act is focused on preventing corruption and maintaining the integrity of elections rather than ensuring equality among candidates.

    • Congressional authority stems from the regulation of elections; however, restrictions on speech bring forth considerations under the First Amendment.

B. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

  • Core Holding:

    • Contribution limits established by FECA were deemed constitutional, while expenditure limits were ruled unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

  • Key Logic:

    • Spending money as a means to express political ideas is classified as protected speech under the First Amendment.

    • Though contributions may pose a corruption risk, independent expenditures do not manifest the same risk.

  • Why It Matters:

    • This case set a significant constitutional framework that influences all subsequent campaign finance litigation.

II. Modern Developments in Campaign Finance

A. Buckley and Deregulation

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • Buckley v. Valeo serves as the foundational case leading to modern campaign finance deregulation trends.

B. McCain-Feingold Act (BCRA, 2002)

  • What it did:

    • Prohibited soft money contributions to national party committees.

    • Imposed regulations on electioneering communications during the lead-up to elections.

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • This legislation aimed to close loopholes that arose from the Buckley ruling.

    • The effectiveness of this law has diminished due to later Supreme Court decisions.

C. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

  • Holding:

    • Corporations and unions are permitted to spend unlimited amounts of money independently on political communications.

  • Rationale:

    • Political speech cannot be discriminatively restricted based on the identity of the speaker.

    • Independent expenditures do not pose corruption risks in the same manner as direct contributions.

  • Consequences:

    • Significant increase in outside spending for elections.

    • Rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees) which can raise and expend unlimited funds but cannot coordinate directly with candidates.

    • Lesser transparency in campaign financing practices.

    • Greater influence of elite interests in political processes.

    • Movement from traditional party financing to reliance on outside groups for campaign support.

  • Independent PAC (Super PAC):

    • Defined as organizations capable of raising and spending unlimited funds.

    • They must avoid coordination with the campaigns they support.

  • Lecture Reality Check:

    • The coordination rules associated with Super PACs are often weak, leading to practical conflicts wherein many are run by former insiders from political campaigns.

PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS & PRIMARIES

I. Structure and Dynamics of Presidential Primaries

  • Reading + Lecture:

    • Source: Brewer & Maisel, chapter 8

    • Notes taken illustrate key features of early states and delegate allocation.

A. How Presidential Primaries Work

  1. Invisible Primary:

    • Involves fundraising, endorsements, and media influence prior to visible electoral processes.

  2. Early States:

    • Notably Iowa (caucus) and New Hampshire (primary):

    • Their early scheduling grants them substantial influence due to media attention and momentum builder for candidates.

  3. Delegate Allocation:

    • Critical in determining the nominee at the party convention.

B. Party Differences

  • Democrats:

    • Delegate Allocation: Proportional representation is utilized.

    • Include superdelegates in their delegate count.

    • Strategy emphasizes inclusiveness.

  • Republicans:

    • Delegate Allocation: May adopt winner-take-all strategies.

    • Do not utilize superdelegates.

    • Strategy leans towards speed and decisiveness in their decision-making.

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • The internal rules of parties significantly shape candidate strategies and campaign tactics.

C. Presidential Primary Caucuses

  • Definition:

    • These are local party meetings where members convene for public voting.

  • Key Characteristics:

    • Typically have lower turnout rates.

    • Favor more ideologically motivated and dedicated voters.

    • Often less representative of the general electorate compared to primary elections.

  • Exam Tip:

    • Caucuses are particularly influential as they skew outcomes towards activist candidates.

PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTIONS & THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

I. Electoral College Overview

  • Reading + Lecture:

    • Source: Belenky, discussion on the Electoral College and campaign strategies.

A. How the Electoral College Works

  • Voters cast their votes not directly for presidential candidates but for electors pledged to those candidates.

  • The total number of electors is 538, with a majority of 270 votes required to win the presidency.

  • Most states employ a winner-take-all system where the candidate receiving the majority of the popular vote in that state secures all electoral votes.

B. Consequences vs. Popular Vote

  • Advantages:

    • Supports federalism, promotes coalition-building, and enhances the influence of smaller states.

  • Disadvantages:

    • Potential for a candidate to lose the popular vote yet still secure the presidency.

    • Focus on swing states can lead to voter suppression in states deemed 'safe' for one party.

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • The Electoral College primarily shapes campaign strategies and prioritizes electoral votes over total votes, thus impacting voter equality.

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

I. Characteristics and Trends

  • Reading + Lecture:

    • Source: Smith, The American Congress, chapter 3.

A. Major Trends in Congressional Elections

  • Setbacks in competitiveness observed in elections, leading to high reelection rates for incumbents.

  • Increasing polarization of parties observed, contributing to fewer competitive districts.

  • Nationalization of Elections:

    • Exhibits a trend where local elections become influenced by national issues and party dynamics.

B. Contributing Factors

  • Gerrymandering: Politically motivated redistricting that creates safe seats for certain parties.

  • Fundraising advantages favor incumbents who can leverage resources more effectively than challengers.

  • Strong partisan identities diminish the likelihood of changing voter allegiance.

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • Elections now reinforce existing political polarization rather than accountability mechanisms for representatives.

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS

I. Overview of Judicial Selection Methods

  • Readings + Lecture:

    • Source: Ballotpedia, Brennan Center, Buying Time.

    • Key cases: Caperton and Republican Party of Minnesota v. White.

A. Types of Judicial Selection

  1. Partisan Elections: Candidates run with party affiliation.

  2. Nonpartisan Elections: Candidates run without party labels.

  3. Retention Elections: Voters decide whether to retain judges.

  4. Appointment Systems: Judges are appointed rather than elected.

B. Trends in Judicial Elections

  • Observations note rising campaign expenditures, increasing focus on attack advertisements, and heightened partisan messaging.

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • Contemporary judicial elections are beginning to resemble the dynamics seen in legislative races, heavily influenced by financial contributions.

C. Notable Cases

  1. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009):

    • Holding: Noted that due process was violated when extreme financial support for a candidate created a likelihood of bias.

    • Significance: Acknowledged limits on campaign financing in judicial elections while highlighting conflicts between election processes and judicial impartiality.

  2. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002):

    • Holding: Judicial candidates were permitted to voice their political opinions.

    • Impact: Acknowledged increased politicization within judicial elections leading to reduced public perception of impartiality.

CANDIDATE RECRUITMENT & CLASS

I. Barriers to Entry for Working-Class Candidates

  • Reading + Lecture:

    • Source: Gulzar, study on political candidacy dynamics.

A. Reasons Few Working-Class Candidates Enter Politics

  • Financial Risks: High opportunity costs associated with running for office deter working-class participation.

  • Party Gatekeeping: Political parties often establish barriers to entry dependent on candidates’ fundraising capabilities and professional backgrounds.

  • Professionalization of Politics: Entry into politics often demands specific experiences that are limited to higher socioeconomic classes.

B. Evaluation of Voter Attitudes

  • Findings:

    • Voter biases against working-class candidates are not particularly strong; rather, the prioritization by party elites for fundraising and credentials creates a significant barrier to candidacy.

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • Underrepresentation of working-class individuals in politics is driven mainly by systemic entry barriers rather than inherent voter prejudices.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS & POLITICAL PARTIES

I. Dynamics Between Movements and Parties

  • Reading + Lecture:

    • Source: Schwartz on interactions between social movements and U.S. political parties.

A. Stages of Social Movements

  1. Emergence: Initial mobilization of ideas and potential supporters.

  2. Coalescence: Organization of resources and strategizing to press demands.

  3. Bureaucratization: Development of structured organizations to manage movement activities.

  4. Decline: Outcomes may lead to success, repression, co-optation by political parties, or outright failure.

B. Factors for Success

  • Resource Mobilization: Adequate resources are vital for effective action.

  • Framing Strategies: Effective messaging and framing of issues can significantly impact movement success.

  • Political Opportunity Structure: The openness of the political environment to influence outcomes.

  • Key Insight:

    • Social movements tend to succeed when their demands are assimilated and addressed by established political parties.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MANDATES

I. Definition and Analysis of Mandates

  • Readings + Lecture:

    • Sources include works from Grossback et al., Anzari.

A. Mandate Definition

  • Definition:

    • A mandate refers to the claim that an election victory provides a mandate for enacting specific policy changes.

B. Key Findings

  • Ambiguity of Elections: Voter decisions are influenced by a multitude of factors leading to vague signals about public policy preferences.

  • Selective Congressional Response: Congress may respond selectively to the outcomes rather than adhering strictly to mandates.

  • Lecture Emphasis:

    • Mandates are less about democratic facts and more about strategic assertions made by political leaders following electoral victories.