Freewrite
Why is money necessary to political
campaigns? Why is money in campaigns
problematic for representative democracy?
Can we restrict money in politics to create
an equitable electoral process? Should
we? In what ways should we restrict it?
CAMPAIGNS: SEASON,
MONEY, MEDIA
EARLY HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND


First 50 years-costs
are low--small pop.,
only white male
property owners
could vote: 1 out of
5 adults
cheap election costs
The history involves 3 issues:
•public disclosure of funds
•restrictions on contributions
•public financing of Presidential campaigns
The history involves 6players:
•parties, media, interest groups, PACS , FEC, Courts, Congress
The history involves 1 big question:
Is money protected by the First Amendment?
The Growth of “Boodle”

19th century changes
– expansion of rights and enfranchisement
– industrialization
– big interest groups emerge: industry,
labor
– Democratic reforms increase pressure:
17th, 19th Amendments
– hyperpluralism
Attempts at Reform
Before
20th Century
– focus on political
participation
In the 20th
Century
efforts focus on the
campaign process
itself
Zig Zag path of Reform

1905: Teddy Roosevelt “all contributions
by corporations to any political committee or for
any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”

1907--Tillman Act, 1910 and 1925
Federal Corrupt Practices Acts: set
spending limits for House/Senate Campaigns and
disclosure laws ALL: weak enforcement!
Zig Zag path of Reform

1944: AFL-CIO
form first PAC, or Political
Action Committee

Congress:
– 1971 FECA:
repeals FCPA and creates updated
framework for regulation of campaign financing--$,
advertising, disclosure
– 1974 Amendment:
abolishes limits on media
advertising and establishes the FEC

Courts:
1976: Buckley v. Valeo: keeps FEC,
disclosure laws, but strikes down as
unconstitutional limits on candidate spending on
their own campaign
Buckley on spending
limits

Can’t limit Independent Expenditures
– “The concept that government may restrict the speech of
some elements of our society in order to enhance the
relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First
Amendment.”

Can’t limit Candidate Personal expenditures
– “The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First
Amendment right to engage in the discussion of public
issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own
election and the election of other candidates.”

Can’t limit Overall Campaign expenditures
– “The major evil associated with rapidly increasing
campaign expenditures is the danger of candidate
dependence on large contributions. The interest in
alleviating the corrupting influence of large contributions is
served by the act’s contribution limitations and disclosure
provisions rather than by campaign expenditure ceilings.”
Buckley and TV ads

Buckley, among other things, established the
difference between:
– express advocacy ads: ads that show
“electioneering” language, and directly
communicate a message to support or reject a
candidate: used by political parties, etc.
– “Magic Words” test
– express ads-subject to federal regulation
– issue advocacy ads: ads that neither directly
promote or reject candidates: used by 501
groups, etc.
– issue ads: not subject to federal regulations
Buckley v. Valeo




Upholds disclosure requirements
Strikes down spending limits because they
interfere with first amendment freedoms
Upholds contribution limits
Upholds presidential public financing
because expenditure limits are voluntary
Soft Money Dance

1979: Carter:

1991: FEC

Congress: 1996: McCain-Feingold--ban
signs law to allow unlimited soft
money contributions for “party-building activities”
requires parties to disclose soft
money contributions
PACs and offer financial incentives, later--limit soft
money
Bipartisan Campaign
Finance Reform Act of 2002
(BCRA)





Bans national party soft money
Limits state party soft money
Raises hard money limits
Millionaire amendment
Ad limits
Hard Money limits under
BCRA

Individuals:
– Can give $2,000 per candidate per
campaign
– Can give $25,000 to a party, per year
– Can give a maximum of $95,000 to
candidates, parties, and PACs

PACs:
– Still can give $5,000 to each candidate
– Still can give $15,000 to each party
– No limit on overall contributions
How does money influence
today’s elections?

BCRA 2002: $2,000 individual cap
(matchable); $5,000 PAC Cap
– Ergo: get as many individual donors as
possible
– Ergo: the little guy can still matter
– Ergo: internet serves as a great interface
between the party organization and the
voter
Controversy: is a campaign donation
considered an “act of speech” --speech
Bush Administration
•2000 election: both parties raise up to $500 million
•2002 Bush signs legislation:
bans national party committees and
federal office holders from soliciting soft money
•May 2003
3 judge Fed. Court struck down most of the ban
Top Ten Democratic 527s in
2004
America Coming Together - NonFederal Account
79,795,487
Joint Victory Campaign 2004
71,811,666
The Media Fund
59,404,183
Service Employees International Union Political
Education & Action Fund
48,426,867
AFSCME Special Account
25,144,915
MoveOn.org Voter Fund
12,558,215
New Democrat Network Non Federal Account
12,726,158
Citizens for a Strong Senate
10,853,730
Sierra Club Voter Education Fund
87,271,27
EMILYS List Non Federal
77,399,46
Top Ten Republican 527s,
2004
Progress for America Voter Fund
44,929,178
Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth
25,758,413
Club for Growth
19,365,903
College Republican National Committee, Inc.
16,830,651
Club for Growth.net
4,115,037
National Association of Realtors 527 Fund
3,215,263
The November Fund
3,151,170
CA Republican National Convention Delegation 2004
Account
4,393,055
Republican Leadership Coalition, Inc.
2,365,550
National Federation of Republican Women
2,201,533
“Working Together”

Federal Candidate
Committee (FEC) – e.g, Jones for
President Campaign Committee

National Party

State Parties
(FEC) –
Democratic National Committee
Election Comm)
Virginia
–

Local Parties

PACs
Election Comm)
(FEC & State
Democratic Party of
(FEC & State
– Connected PACs
– Unconnected PACS
– SuperPacs


Individual contributors
527s
Connected PACs










n the 2008 elections, the top nine PACs by money
spent by themselves, their affiliates and
subsidiaries were as follows:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PAC $3,344,650
AT&T Federal PAC $3,108,200
American Bankers Association (BANK PAC)
$2,918,140
National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC
$2,869,000
Dealers Election Action Committee of the
National Automobile Dealers Association $2,860,000
International Association of Fire Fighters
$2,734,900
International Union of Operating Engineers PAC
$2,704,067
American Association for Justice PAC $2,700,500
Laborers' International Union of North America
PAC $2,555,350
McConnell v. FEC

Upholds soft money ban. The governmental interest
underlying §323(a).preventing
– “The actual or apparent corruption of federal candidates
and officeholders constitutes a sufficiently important
interest to justify contribution limits. …The idea that large
contributions to a national party can corrupt or create the
appearance of corruption of federal candidates and
officeholders is neither novel nor implausible.”

Upholds hard money restrictions on issue ads.
– “Although the . . . advertisements do not urge the viewer
to vote for or against a candidate in so many words, they
are no less clearly intended to influence the election."
Supreme Court

June 2003 5-4 ruling!
– McConnell v. FEC
– “coordinated expenditures” to campaigns
subject to FEC limits
– BUT: soft money spent by parties
independent of candidate campaigns is
o.k.
– minority: Kennedy, Rehnquist, Scalia,
Thomas
Citizens United vs. FEC

Overrules McConnell in part:
– Overrules the ban on independent expenditures
paid for by corporations or unions out of their
treasuries 60 days before an election

Overturns ban on independent expenditures
from corporate and union treasuries
– "If the First Amendment has any force, it
prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens,
or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in
political speech," - Justice Kennedy
Effects of Polispots





Perceptions of candidates can be
changed
Costs of campaigning skyrocket
Traditional parties are weakened;
money wins out
Voter cynicism
The Iron Law: Politicians must be able
to handle the media
Campaign Ads


The goal: reinforce, activate, and convert voters
Polispots and their stages: miss one stage, you
lose the election!
Stage 1: Identification—Who am I? (background
and qualifications)
Stage 2: Arguments-What is my position? (position
on different issues)
Stage 3: Attack—What’s wrong with my opponent?
Stage 4: Future “ I see an America…” (visionary,
hopeful)
Heading off the Attack Ad

Late defense

Inoculation
Some examples
1988 Election: Willie Horton Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o
2000 Election: Ralph Nader Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH4VCtAQcP4

2004 Election: Kerry Windsurfing Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbdzMLk9wHQ
2004 Election: Bush Cheney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iPnvACXXV0
1980 Election: Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY
2008 Election: Mitt Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HsaCqLzA0
2000 Election AD: George Bush
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vULB2jtmlyw
2006: Bill Richardson
http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0juSJ-y9xg
Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DLNsFjFGCI