elections: the role of money
DESCRIPTION
Elections: The Role of Money. Based on Is This Any Way to run An Election? By Stephen J. Wayne. Does Money Matter?. What does money have to do with democracy? A lot, if it: Gives wealthy people and groups an unfair advantage Affects who votes and how they vote - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Elections: The Role of Money
Based on Is This Any Way to run An Election?
By Stephen J. Wayne
What does money have to do with democracy? A lot, if it: Gives wealthy people and groups an unfair
advantage Affects who votes and how they vote Conditions who runs for office and who does
not Affects information the electorate receives
about candidates and issues Affects public perceptions
Does Money Matter?
Cycle Total Cost of Election2008* $5,285,680,8832006 $2,852,658,1402004* $4,147,304,0032002 $2,181,682,0662000* $3,082,340,9371998 $1,618,936,265*Presidential election cycle Methodology Source: opensecrets.org
The Price of Running
McCain Raised $368,000,000
Spent $333,000,000
Obama Raised $745,000,000Spent $730,000,000
2008 Presidential Campaign
A more competitive nomination process Modern campaigning techniques
Contributing Factors
Passed 1971, scheduled to go into effect in
1972 Objectives:
Reduce the cost of elections Decrease dependence on large donor Open contributions and expenditures to public
scrutiny To reduce the Republican Party’s financial
advantage in elections!
Federal Election Campaign Act
FECA immediately challenged as
unconstitutional Limits on contributions and spending violated
right to political free speech Funding provisions unfairly discriminated
against third-party and independent candidates Appointment of four of the commissioners by
Congress violated the principle of separation of powers
Court Challenges
The High Court ruled
Congress has the right to regulate campaign contributions for candidates in federal elections
Independent spending by individuals and groups is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be regulated
Congress’s selection of four of its six election commissioners is an intrusion into executive authority and is void
1976 USSC Decision
1976
Retained contribution and spending limits and public funding of presidential campaigns
Funding voluntary If candidates accepted federal money, they were
limited in how much they could contribute or lend to their own campaigns and how much the campaign could spend
THE FEC was reconstituted with three Republicans and three Democrats, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate
Back to the Drawing Board
Bulk of resources spent on TV advertising Voter turnout continued to decline Congress concerned that funding limitations,
emphasis on TV and media-oriented campaigning, and the drop in turnout were all related
Consequences
Enabled parties to raise and spend unlimited
amounts of “soft” money for their voluntary efforts to promote voting: Educational campaigns Get-out-the-vote drives Other party-building efforts
Could not be spent advocating a specific candidates’ election
1979 Amendment
“Soft” money not regulated The new rules permitted, perhaps encouraged,
the solicitation of large contributions and the expenditure of those funds to help influence the outcome of an election
1980, 1984: Advantage Republicans 1994 midterms go to Republicans; Clinton devises
a $$$ strategy, launched in summer of 1995 Republicans play tit-for-tat; the “soft money”
wars were on
Loophole
AKA McCain-Feingold Purpose: to ban political parties from raising
soft-money funds Purpose: to prevent parties and non-party
groups from using advocacy advertising as a vehicle for promoting particular candidates
Purpose: to increase the amount that individuals were allowed to give to candidates and their parties
2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act
Prohibited national parties from soliciting unregulated
contributions Doubled individual contribution limits to $2,000, indexed
to inflation Party & non-party groups prohibited from mentioning
candidates by name in advocacy ads thirty days or less before a primary and sixty days or less before a general election
Allowed federal candidates facing self-financed opponents to raise additional funds to level the playing field – the so-called “millionaires amendment.”
IMMEDIATELY CHALLENGED
BCRA
December, 2003, USSC upholds major provisions Reaction: Terry McAuliff, DNC hair, recommends
use of nonparty, nonprofit 527 and 501c groups as vehicles to raise and spend “soft” money
Such spending could not be coordinated with eitehr the party or candidates
Beginning in 2003 (before the USSC decision!), these groups began to raise money; aided with seed money donated by billionaire financier George Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis
McConnell v. FEC
Outraged Republicans see the move as a ruse and
appeal to the FEC, but the commission votes 4 to 2 not to intervene in 2004
In response Republicans establish their own 527 and 501c organizations
More than $417,000,000 raised by these groups and $420,000,000 spent
Parties took advantage of law to raise more money, facilitated by raised individual limits, computerization of und-raising databases, and deep partisan divisions
Republican Reaction
Positive: Encouraged parties to improve and
broaden fundraising base Positive: Increased the number of small donors
($200 or less) Positive: Advocacy advertising limits
motivated parties and groups to spend more on grassroots efforts, resulting in higher voter turnout
BCRA Outcomes
Negative: Soft money continued to find its way
into federal election campaigns Negative: 527 and 501c groups weakened the
control the candidates and their parties had on campaigns because of separate and (maybe) uncoordinated campaigns
Negative: Allowed parties to engage in independent spending, resulting in more being spent on uncoordinated campaigns than in coordinated ones
BCRA Outcomes
January 21, 2010 The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, aka McCain-
Feingold, banned corporations and unions from "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
considered whether the government could ban a 90-minute documentary called "Hillary: the Movie" that was set to run on cable channels during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Because it was funded by an incorporated group and was less than complimentary of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, the film became a target of campaign-finance limits.
Citizens United v. FEC
Justices rejected that limit on corporate spending as
unconstitutional. Corporations are entitled to the same right that individuals have to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.
Justice Kennedy: "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence." The ban on corporate expenditures had a "substantial, nationwide chilling effect" on political speech, he added.
Citizens United v. FEC
Soft money still flows into federal elections The cost of campaigns continues to escalate Most of the money comes from a small group
of wealthy people The connection between contributions and
expenditures and the special treatment of large donors continues to challenge the notion of democracy in the electoral process
Money Makes the (Political) World Go ‘Round
Former House Majority Tom DeLay: “Americans
spend twice as much per year on yogurt than they spend on political campaigns.”
1996: Dems spent $M363.1; Reps spent $M558.2
2000: Dems spent $M510.7; Reps spent $M679.8
2004: Dems spent $M655.6; Reps spent $M752.6
Elections more expensive, but public participation is little improved
Are Elections Too Expensive?
1996 $M192.2 2000 $M239.9 2004 $M343.1 2008 $M1,063!!!
Presidential Candidates
“Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C. “ American Institute for Economic Research
Access & Influence: Any way to Run an Election?
The proximate goal is… Democracy is damaged if the public believes
that the system is of, by, and for special interests
A matter of equity: businesses outspend consumer groups, tend to gain the most
Thinking about Mayhew
The need for money has come to obsess
candidates; the wealthy exercise the most influence, undermining the equity principle
Political speech = political spending: can campaign spending be equalized without harming constitutionally protected freedoms?
The inability to resolve the problem contributes to public cynicism in the electoral system: Government appears to be for sale to the highest bidder
Dilemmas
“ In Australia, there is a growing trend for MPs
to become directly involved in the corporate fundraising efforts of their parties. Ministers and staff are encouraged to engage with donors and business supporters, with the aim of raising cash for their political parties. It is known for business leaders to pay $1400 to get near a federal minister.”
A Global Problem
Is money really as corrupting an influence on government
and politics as people believe? Do the wealthy exercise disproportionate influence on the
conduct of elections and, through that influence, on the operation of government?
Are American elections really too expensive? What would be a reasonable criterion by which to evaluate whether or not costs were excessive?
Can money in elections be regulated without violating First Amendment protections of freedom of speech? If so, how? If not, why not?
Does money buy electoral success?
Discussion