National Party Organizations, Campaign Finance, and the US Electoral System

Plurality Elections and the United States Two-Party Framework

• In a plurality election, the winner is the candidate who receives more votes than anyone else, even if they do not achieve an absolute majority.

• This system creates specific incentives for candidates:

  • Candidates who finish in second place are significantly more likely to attempt a run in the next election because they feel they are within reach of victory.

  • Candidates who finish in fourth place or lower often conclude they do not have a realistic shot and may drop out or choose not to run again.

• Under plurality rules, a candidate can win with as little as, for example, $45\%$ of the vote.

• The speaker notes that looking at historical presidential election margins over the last $20$ years reveals that winners often fail to hit the threshold of $50\% + 1$.

• The two major political parties favor plurality rules and single-member districts because these structures actively hurt challengers and support the status quo.

Unique Characteristics of the US Presidential and Executive System

• Unlike many other countries that use plurality voting, the United States elects its president separately from the legislature.

• In the US, the president is granted the power to appoint almost the entire cabinet.

  • The cabinet typically only includes members of the president's own party. For example, the current cabinet contains no Democrats (relative to the opposition party context of the discussion).

  • This differs from parliamentary systems where multi-member cabinets can include representatives from smaller, minority parties.

• The US executive is not "split"; it remains the domain of a single party.

• The presidency can be viewed in two ways:

  1. As the largest single-member district in the country (one president for the whole nation).

  2. As $50$ separate statewide elections due to the Electoral College mechanics.

• The popular vote is constitutionally irrelevant. A candidate can lose the popular vote yet win the presidency if the math aligns in the Electoral College.

• The specific majority threshold to win the presidency in the Electoral College is $270$ votes.

Direct Primaries and Internal Party Factionalism

• Direct primaries allow voters themselves to choose the party's nominee, rather than the party organization selecting five candidates for the general election.

• Primaries serve as a staging ground for dissenters to fight for control inside a major party.

• Example: In the $2016$ Republican primary, there were approximately eight candidates including Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Donald Trump.

  • The Republican organization was initially not "super friendly" to Trump; they preferred Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.

  • Because Trump kept winning primaries, the party organization was forced to align with him as the winner.

• Factions within the Trump and Biden camps in $2016$ and $2024$ were often displeased with their nominees but ultimately "stood down" to avoid a third-party candidate handing the win to the opposition.

  • Example: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) represented a faction on the political right that was not totally aligned with Trump, but he eventually stood down and was appointed to the executive.

Challenges, Roles, and Success of Minor Parties

• Minor or "third" parties vary significantly in ideology and origin:

  • Single-issue parties: Example: Prohibition parties, whose goal was to ban legal alcohol sales (a goal they largely succeeded in historically).

  • Targeted ideological parties: Examples include the Libertarian Party and the Green Party.

  • Sweepingly ideological parties: Example: The Socialist Party (originally influenced by European thinking).

  • Protest/Splinter parties: These form when a faction breaks away from a major party. Examples include the Bull Moose Party founded by Teddy Roosevelt and the Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights).

• Success metrics for minor parties:

  • Only $7$ minor parties in US history have carried even one state in a presidential election.

  • Since $1952$, only $4$ members of Congress won on a minor party ticket.

  • Minor party success is most visible at the local level.

• Political influence of minor parties: They primarily influence the system by "floating ideas" that major parties eventually adopt.

  • Example: Bernie Sanders pushed the Democratic Party further left on healthcare and environmental issues during his presidential runs.

• Ballot access laws: Major parties write laws that make it difficult for third parties to run. In Texas, a third-party member must collect $120,000$ petition signatures, which is approximately $1\%$ of the vote, to run for Congress.

Nonpartisan Elections and Local One-Party Dominance

• Nonpartisan elections are those where party labels are removed from the ballot.

  • Nebraska's entire state government (State House and State Senate) is elected via nonpartisan elections.

  • Approximately $3/4$ of US cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami, run nonpartisan local elections.

• Historical context: These were largely stripped of labels during the Progressive Era in the early $1900s$.

• Limitations of nonpartisan elections:

  • They do not erase partisanship; voters often still know if a candidate is liberal or conservative.

  • Research comparing Nebraska (nonpartisan) and Kansas (partisan) suggests that without party labels, it is harder to predict legislators' votes and harder to hold them accountable.

• Localities are often too small to sustain the diversity of both parties, leading to one-party dominance (Democrats in cities, Republicans in rural areas).

  • This creates a "cycle of losing": the weaker party has no money or strong candidates, leading to further electoral failure.

The Modernized National Party Organizations

• Today's national parties are massive, multi-billion dollar fundraising machines that operate largely behind the scenes.

• In the $2024$ presidential cycle, the national party organizations raised and spent more than $3,000,000,000$ on federal/state candidates and voter outreach.

• Historical shift:

  • Historically, national parties were cash-poor and weak, with power concentrated at local and state levels.

  • Nationalization occurred because politicians now focus on national discourse. For example, Texas candidates like James Talarico and Ken Paxton discuss national issues (Congress, the President) alongside local issues.

  • Crisis-driven centralization: In the $1970s$, Republicans faced the Watergate scandal while Democrats faced internal battles over civil rights and the Vietnam War, pushing both toward stronger national committees.

Structure and Governance of the RNC and DNC

• Each party has a National Committee that meets at a National Convention every $4$ years.

• The convention is now largely a "PR event" or "media spectacle" because primaries already determine the nominee.

• Democratic National Committee (DNC):

  • Much larger in membership than the RNC.

  • Seats are weighted by population and party support (e.g., California gets $30$ seats, Wyoming gets $4$).

  • Reserved seats for specific groups: Black members, women, labor rights advocates, and certain mayors.

  • Redesign in $1972$ reduced the weight of conservatives and moderates.

• Republican National Committee (RNC):

  • Smaller and more uniform.

  • Each state and territory gets exactly $3$ seats regardless of population.

  • This design boosts the power of rural/conservative regions.

• National Party Chair:

  • By tradition, the sitting president names the party chair.

  • Central job: Raise money and minimize internal squabbles.

  • They have "soft power" (persuasion) rather than formal authority. Example: In $2016$, RNC Chair Reince Priebus asked Trump to tone down his rhetoric; Trump refused.

  • Presidents dominate their committees. In $2024$, Trump merged the RNC with his campaign and screened hires based on their stance on the $2020$ election.

Hill Committees and Congressional Services

• There are four "Hill Committees" (one per party for each chamber of Congress).

• In $2022$, these committees put over $1,200,000,000$ into campaigns. For Congressional candidates, these committees are more important than the RNC or DNC.

• Functions of Hill Committees (Parties as service organizations):

  1. Recruit attractive candidates and hold boot camps for first-time members (strategy, polling, staffing).

  2. Conduct research, generate talking points, and perform opposition research (video tracking).

  3. Voter contact and micro-targeting using purchased third-party voter data.

  4. Direct "hard money" contributions and coordinated spending on ads and polls.

  5. Organize fundraising events and leader visits.

Campaign Finance: Hard Money, Soft Money, and Super PACs

• Hard Money: Money donated directly to a candidate or party; highly regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

  • Individual to Candidate: $3,500$ per election.

  • Individual to PAC: $5,000$ per year.

  • Individual to Party Committee: $44,300$.

  • PAC to Candidate: $5,000$ per election.

  • Party to House Candidate: $5,000$ per election.

  • Party to Senate Candidate: $62,000$ per campaign.

• Soft Money: Unlimited independent spending. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ($2002$) barred national committees from using soft money, forcing a shift to small digital donations via platforms like ActBlue (Democrats) and WinRed (Republicans).

• Super PACs and "Dark Money":

  • The "No Coordination" Wall: Independent spenders can spend unlimited amounts but cannot legally coordinate strategy or messaging with a candidate's campaign.

  • Citizens United ($2010$): Supreme Court ruled that corporations/unions can give unlimited money to super PACs as a form of First Amendment expression.

  • Dark Money mechanism: An individual gives money to a nonprofit, which then funnels it to a super PAC, making the original source untraceable.

Allied Networks and Modern Party Power

• Parties ally with specific interest groups:

  • Democrats: Labor interests, environmental groups, civil rights groups.

  • Republicans: Small business groups, gun rights advocacy (NRA), conservative Christian groups.

• These groups may run parallel campaigns or ads.

• Power remains decentralized in the US due to federalism and state laws. Party messaging is still candidate-centered rather than party-centered. Candidates like James Talarico make the case for themselves personally rather than for the party as a whole.

Questions & Discussion

• Question on Wealthy Donors: A student asked if families like the Soros family could donate individually and through corporations.

  • Response: Yes, wealthy individuals employ campaign lawyers to maximize every legal mechanism, including maxing out individual limits and donating through various entities/nonprofits.

• Question on Unspent Funds: A student asked what happens to money if a candidate loses (referencing Jasmine Crockett).

  • Response: Candidates largely keep the money in a "for next time" fund or can donate it to the party or other committees. They do not have to refund donors. The party often encourages the reallocation of these funds to other competitive races.

• Discussion on Identifying Ad Sponsors: All ads must include a "paid for by" disclaimer. This allows voters to distinguish if an ad is from a candidate's own committee or an outside group like "Americans for Progress" or a super PAC.

• Discussion on Competitive Races: Parties pour the bulk of their money into a handful of truly competitive seats. James Talarico is an example where Democrats are spending heavily to see if the margin can be closed, even if they aren't currently favored.

• Discussion on Personal Wealth: Individuals like Michael Bloomberg or Tom Steyer can spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their own campaigns, though this does not always guarantee success.