Financing and Organizing the General Election

General Election Strategy and the Role of Political Parties

• Cadre Parties in the General Election   

  • Cadre parties are primarily organized to support general election campaigns.     

  • In the modern, candidate-centered era, many politicians believe they are better off running independent campaigns ("going it alone").     

  • However, establishing a separate brand is difficult due to strong party-line support in the electorate.   

  •  It is often inefficient to separate from the party; the central goal is to marshal all possible resources to turn out supporters and persuade the undecided.

• The Impact and Timing of Campaigns     

  • Campaigns rarely succeed in outright persuasion, as it is difficult to change a voter's mind.   

  • Mobilization is more straightforward than persuasion, though it is not inherently easy.

  • It is difficult to isolate the effect of a single campaign effort due to the involvement of multiple actors (candidates, parties, and interest groups).   

  • Textbook Conditions for Campaign Influence:

    • The race is close.

    • Voters know less about the candidates.  

    • There are significant disparities in campaign resources/efforts.

• Voter Outreach and Segmentation     - Mass Media (Low Specificity): Includes television ads, digital ads, radio ads, and print ads.     - Direct Contact (High Specificity): Includes mail, email, phone, text, and canvassing.     - Voter Segmentation (Bankston, 2021):         - Data visualizes the probability of voting against the probability of supporting a candidate.         - Mobilization targets voters with a high probability of support but a lower probability of voting.         - Persuasion targets voters with a high probability of voting but a middle-range probability of supporting the candidate.         - Segmentation occurs across wide, moderate, and narrow categories.

Demographic and Behavioral Mapping of the Electorate (Echelon Insights)

• Extracurricular Activities and Political Leanings (N = 1,054 Voters)     - Republican Leaning: High school sports, religious clubs, farming clubs (4-H, FFA), Cheer, and Junior ROTC.     - Democratic Leaning: Academic clubs (math, chemistry, poetry), cultural/heritage clubs, theater, and debate.     - Highest Turnout Activities: National Honor Society (NHS), Model U.N., Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts.     - Lower Turnout Activities: Robotics club, Quiz Bowl, and Chess club.

• TV Viewership and Political Leanings (N = 1,001 Voters)     - Republican Leaning: Yellowstone and NCIS.     - Democratic Leaning: Euphoria (heavily Democratic but lower turnout, likely due to a younger audience), Succession, The Office, and Grey's Anatomy.     - Highest Turnout Viewers: Ted Lasso, The Crown, Bridgerton, The Great British Baking Show, and those who watch none of the tested shows.

Incumbency and Issue Ownership

• The Power of Incumbency     - Elections always feature an incumbent office holder or party.     - Incumbents win frequently because voters are better informed about them and perceive them as more important.     - General elections are often framed as a contest between the "ins" and the "outs."

• Issue Ownership Theory (Petrocik)     - Voters evaluate parties based on their perceived ability to resolve specific problems.     - Parties "own" certain issues, which is identified by surveying the public on which party handles an issue better.     - Ownership Factors:         1. The Incumbent's Record (short-term effect).         2. Party Constituencies (long-term effect).     - Ownership is based on party emphasis rather than specific policy details.     - Campaign Task: The primary task is to "prime" (draw attention to) issues owned by the candidate's party.

• Issue Agendas (1952–2000)     - Democrats: Focus on social welfare issues ($29\%$) and spending/taxes/deficits ($25\%$).     - Republicans: Focus on defense policy ($20\%$), crime/drugs/morality ($21\%$), and spending/taxes/deficits ($23\%$).     - Voter Issue Concerns: Data shows a correlation of $0.65$ between voter issue concerns and the eventual vote. The regression formula is: $0.26 \times \text{Issue Concerns of the Voters} + 46.4$ ($p = 0.008$).

Campaign Finance: Spending and Distribution

• Media Spending in the 2020 General Election (April 9 to Election Day)     - Total Spent: $\$1,787,970,692$     - Broadcast TV: $\$987,320,661$ ($55.2\%$ of total).     - Digital: $\$434,992,986$ ($24.3\%$ of total).     - Local Cable: $\$214,408,849$ ($12.0\%$ of total).     - National Cable: $\$100,940,593$ ($5.6\%$ of total).     - Radio: $\$40,295,691$ ($2.3\%$ of total).     - Satellite TV: $\$10,011,912$ ($0.6\%$ of total).

• Spending Trends     - Presidential Spending: Increased from roughly $\$1$ billion in 2000 to an estimated $\$7$ billion in 2024.     - House and Senate Spending: Increased significantly, with 2024 estimates reaching $\$10$ billion.     - Since 2010, the percentage of ads aired by outside groups has risen, while party-aired ads have fluctuated.

The Legal Framework of Campaign Finance

• Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)     - Aimed to end the "wild west" of political spending in the 1970s through disclosure and contribution limits.     - Provision Limits: Initially $\$1,000$ per candidate/election for individuals and $\$5,000$ for PACs.     - Reporting: Requires public reports on receipts/disbursements and disclosure of contributors giving $\$200$ or more.     - Presidential Funding: Established public funding for primary and general campaigns.     - Expenditure Limits: Set a $\$1,000$ limit on independent expenditures and limits on candidate self-funding (later struck down).

• Significant Court Rulings and Loopholes     - Buckley v. Valeo (1976): Struck down limits on candidate self-funding and independent expenditures, ruling that uncoordinated spending does not corrupt. Established the "magic words" test for express advocacy.     - Soft Money: FECA amendments allowed unlimited contributions to parties for "party building" activities (voter registration, etc.).     - Issue Advocacy: Advertisements that avoid "magic words" (e.g., "vote for") were used to bypass spending limits.

• Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA/McCain-Feingold)     - Banned soft money to national parties.     - Doubled individual hard money limits to $\$2,000$ (indexed for inflation).     - Required labels on issue ads ("Stand By Your Ad").     - Banned business and labor groups from airing ads near election day.

• Modern Contribution Limits (2023-2024)     - Individual to Candidate Committee: $\$3,300$ per election.     - Individual to National Party Committee: $\$41,300$ per year.     - Individual to PAC: $\$5,000$ per year.     - Individual to National Party Accounts (Additional): $\$123,900$ per year.

The Era of Dark Money and Super PACs

• Post-BCRA Entities     - 527 Groups: Allow unlimited spending for issue advocacy as long as they are uncoordinated; they must eventually disclose contributors.     - 501(c)(4) Groups (Social Welfare): Can accept unlimited, undisclosed "dark money" if political activity is not their primary purpose.     - Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Struck down the BCRA ban on express advocacy by corporations and unions based on First Amendment rights.     - SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010): Led to the creation of Super PACs, which accept unlimited contributions for independent expenditures.

• The Coordination Issue     - Super PACs and campaigns are legally prohibited from direct coordination, but many links exist.     - Evidence of Interconnection (e.g., 2012 Romney Campaign):         - Multiple firms (TargetPoint Consulting, Black Rock Group, WWP Strategies) shared the same office space (Suite 555, Alexandria, VA).         - The Super PAC "Restore Our Future" and the Romney campaign paid the same consultants (e.g., TargetPoint) for similar services, sometimes on the same day.         - Personnel overlaps: Alexander Gage (Romney strategist) was married to Katie Packer Gage (Romney deputy campaign manager); Carl Forti (Restore Our Future) and Michael Dubke (Crossroads Media) were partners in shared firms.

• Gray Money and Nonprofit Funneling     - Nonprofits like "Our American Future Foundation" and "Future Forward Fund USA" funnel anonymous billionaire donations through complex networks to Super PACs (e.g., "Future Forward PAC").     - This allows donors to transfer large sums (over $\$100$ million in some cases) while maintaining anonymity.