Unit #2 Political
Behaviors & Beliefs
In Class Lecture & Activities
Political Culture:
The widely shared beliefs, values and norms
that citizens share about government.
• Characteristics
1. Liberty
2. Equality
• Of opportunity more than equality of result
• Political equality more than economic equality
3. Democracy
4. Civic Duty
5. Individual Responsibility
Sources of Political
Culture
• Constitution: developed in an “adversarial spirit”
• Distrust of government
• Religious beliefs
• The family
• Absence of class consciousness
• Culture War
Mistrust of government
• Distrust of Government has grown, esp. since the
1960s (Vietnam, Watergate, inflation-70s, Clinton,
Bush)
• Political Efficacy: the sense that one can both understand
& influence public policy (Internal) or that the
government will respond to the citizenry (External)
• Political tolerance-more in the abstract than in the
concrete
Types Public Opinion:
Ch. 7, 155-158
• Types of Publics
• Elites:
• 1.
• 2.
• Attentive:
• Mass:
• Types of Opinions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stable:
Fluid:
Latent:
Salient:
Consensus:
Polarized:
measurements of
Public Opinion
1. By elections
2. Straw (informal) polls3. Scientific polls – Validity of polls must consider:
a) Definition of universe:
b) Selection of sampling
•
Random
•
Representative sample -
•
Sampling error:
c) writing the questions to avoid bias
o Uses of polls:
•
1.
•
2.
measurements of
Public Opinion
Abuses of polls:
• “Horse-race” mentality
• Pandering
• ProjectionsPublic Awareness & Interest in politics:
1. Surveys show a substantial lack of political knowledge
2. Secondary in importance to mass public
Political Socialization: process by
which people acquire their political
beliefs.
1. Family: Strongest.
2. Schools:
3. Religion
•
Protestant -
•
Catholic –
Jewish -
4. Race/Ethnicity
•Whites:
•Blacks:
•Hispanics
•Mexican-Americans and Puerto
Ricans
•Cubans
•Asians:
5. Income/Social Class:
• higher income
•
lower income
6.
Gender Gap
• Women
• “Year of the Woman” 1992:
• Emily’s List
• “Soccer Moms”
•
“NASCAR Dads”
• Million Mom March 2000:
7. Geographic Region:
• Solid South:
• New England:
8. Mass media:
•
• “security moms” (2004)
• Palin’s “Hockey Moms” (2008),
• “Mama Grizzlies” (2010)
• 2012: “War on Women”
• Sex-sensitive issues:
Level of political information
is single best predictor of
being liberal on civil
rights/liberties issues
9. Elite opinion:
•
Shapes public policy and
influences results, but does not
define problems
2012 Election
http://www.morni
ngsidecenter.org/
teachablemoment/lessons/
after-2012election-exitpollsdemographics
Ideology: integrated set of beliefs
& values that shape a person’s views.
Liberalism:
• Smaller percentage of
ideologues in our two-party
system than in the multiparty systems used in
Europe.
• Most Americans tend to be
non-ideological and more
moderate in their beliefs
• 18th century classical liberalism:
• Limited gov
• Gov is chief threat to liberty
• Role of government to protect
property rights.
• 20th century Modern liberalism (New
Deal Liberalism)
• Expanded role of gov
• Corporations seen as chief threat to
liberty
• Role of gov to protect people’s wellbeing.
Political ideology: a consistent set of
beliefs about what policies government
ought to pursue. Liberalism v.
conservativism
• Liberalism:
• Strong influence of liberalism 1930s-1970s
• Backlash 1980s & 1990s
• Liberalism gone too far. Need to return to individualism
and less reliance on big gov
• Neoliberals
• Less likely to rely upon gov as solution as New Deal liberals
• Rise of Democratic Leadership Council with members
Clintons, Harold Ford, Jr.
• Obama & the return of New Deal Liberalism
• Greater willingness to use the fed gov as tool to protect wellbeing of people
conservativism
• Essentially Classical Liberalism
• Neoconservatives & the “New
Right”
• Resurgence since late 70s:
• Some emphasize social issues
(school prayer, anti-abortion, anti• Reagan/Bush 41/ Bush 43
homosexuality) Known as the
th
th
• 104 -109 Congresses (Gingrich
“Religious Right.” Use of faithbased initiatives by Bush 43.
“Contract with America”)
• Strength in formerly “solid
• Some focus on foreign policy and
south,” Rocky Mtn., Great Plains
national security-war on terrorism
& pre-emptive strikes (Iraq)
• evangelical Christians
• “Compassionate Conservatism”:
• Strong support for tax cuts
Bush 43
(Clinton, Bush 43)
• Emphasis on private sector to
solve problems
• Socialism
• means of production, distribution, and exchange controlled
by gov.
• Western Europe
• Weak in U.S. (associated with radicalism, goes against belief
in individualism, American Dream, and suspicion of big
gov.)
• Libertarianism
• Extreme emphasis on individual liberty
• Extreme cutback on role of gov.-gov should only defend the
nation
Political Spectrum Quiz
1-Where are you?
2-What Do these Labels Mean?
3-Were the Questions Relevant, why or why not?
LEFT
RIGHT
AUTHORITARIAN
LIBERTARIAN
2008 presidential
candidates
2012 Presidential
candidates
VP
Candidates
Ideology
Scores
Ch. 8: Voter TurnOUt
A. Historical Qualifications for Suffrage
1. Religion
2. Property
3. Race (eliminated by ___Amendment-1870)
• Supreme Court’s interpretation: denial of right to vote could not be solely on
basis of race
• Methods used to disenfranchise:
• Literacy test, poll tax, grandfather clause, white primary
4. Sex (eliminated by ____ Amendment-1920)
5. Income (eliminated by _____ Amendment banning the poll tax-1964)
6. Literacy (eliminated by __________________________)
7. Minimum age of 21 (eliminated by ____ Amendment-1971)
B. Current Qualifications (set by states):
•
Citizenship
Felons
•
Residency
Registration (except ND)
B. Voter TurnOUt in u.s. compared
to foreign nations
1. Voter turnout=number of those who voted/number of those ageeligible to vote.
2. V.A.P. :
3. V.E.P. :
•
Presidential Elections US ~50%, Midterm Congressional ~30-40%,
Lower state/local about 10% *Decline since 1960 but rose slightly in
2008 62.3%; 2012 - 57.5%
4. Comparable industrialized nations in West ~90% BUT
Vep: green
vap: yellow
Voter turnout: federal
elections 1964-2006
Percentage
Voter Turnout in Federal Elections
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
Reasons for low
Voter TurnOUt
A. Institutional barriers
1. Registration: National Voter
Registration Act of 1993
2. “Ballot Fatigue”
3. Excessive number of elections.
• General election > primary
election
• National election > state
• Presidential elections have
highest turnout compared to
Congressional
4. Absentee Ballot difficulties
5. YOUNG have lowest turnout
B. Political Reasons
1. Lack of political efficacy
2. Dissatisfaction with candidates,
parties, politics
3. Lack of strong 2-party
competition
4. Weakness of parties in
mobilizing voters
• 1890: Australian ballotgovernment printed ballot,
uniform in size and shape, cast
in secret
In the last half of the 20th century, voter turnout in
federal elections has declined. During the same
period, voter turnout has been higher in presidential
elections than in midterm elections.
• Identify two factors that have contributed to the overall
decline in turnout in federal elections and explain how
each factor has contributed to the overall decline.
• Identify and explain two reasons why voter turnout has
been higher in presidential elections than in midterm
elections.
Who participates in
politics?
Six forms of participation
1.
2.
3.
Inactive:(22%) don’t care,
don’t vote
Activists: (11%) participate
in all forms of politics
Voting specialists:
4.
Campaigners:
5.
Communalists:
6.
Parochial participants:
Who participates in politics?
A. Characteristics of those likely to vote:
1. Greatest predictor of voting EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT.
2. INCOME
3. AGE
4. RACE/ETHNICITY
5. SEX
6. RELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT
B. Does low voter turnout matter?
1. If cross section of U.S. represented then no but,
2. Class bias: older whites with higher incomes over-represented
C. Other forms of political participation:
•
Petitions
local party meetings
•
Demonstrations/marches/rallies
writing letters
persuading others
campaign contributions
Political participation by family income
Percent Engaging in Activity
Political Participation by Family Income
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
V. Low
Low
Med.
High
Family Income Level
Tried to Influence Votes of Others
Attended Political Meetings/Rallies
Gave Money to a Party or Candidate
V. High
Factors affecting Voter
Behavior:
A. Geography
1. Solid South:
2. Great Plains:
3. Rocky Mountain Region:
4. New England:
5. Far West:
6. Rust belt states:
7. Sun belt states
•
http://americanpast.richmond.edu/voting/
B. Political Party ID: Strongest predictor of voting behavior (7-point scale)
1. Straight ticket voting; decline in recent years, facilitated by party-column ballot
2. Split ticket voting; increase in recent years. Facilitated by office-bloc ballot.
3. Independents: rising number, tend to be young, college educated, above-average
incomes
•
http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm
C. Demographic Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sex: Male v FemaleRace/Ethnicity: White v. Nonwhite
Social Class: Lower v. Upper
Religion: Protestant v. Catholic v. Jewish
D. Issues
1.
2.
Retrospective Voting:
Prospective Voting:
E. Candidate Appeal: coattail effect of strong presidential candidate
F. Time
1.
2.
3.
4.
Maintaining elections:
Deviating elections:
Critical (“realigning” elections): long-term change in political alignment,
e.g. 1860, 1896, 1932
Midterm elections:
Ch. 10: Elections and
campaigns
Campaigns:
• Money, media, and polling
have taken precedence over
political parties as being more
important in elections
• Majority of campaign money
spent on media buys
• Two phases in elections:
1. Getting nominated
2. Getting elected
I. Congressional Elections:
1.
Elections are regularly
scheduled
• House:
• Senate:
2.
Fixed terms of office, no term
limits
3.
House: Winner-take-all/singlemember district system
4.
Senate: state “at-large”
Congressional
elections
Factors affecting outcomes:
1. Incumbency: greatest influence
2. Advantages of incumbents:
•
Franking privilege
•
Scope of incumbency
advantage:
•
Campaign staff already in place
•
~90% of congressmen who run
are reelected; ~80% of senators
•
Gerrymandered districts (“safe
seats”)
•
Lack of competitiveness:
charges of “permanent
Congress” and the call for term
limits (overturned by SCOTUS)
•
Committee service to district
•
Name recognition
•
Casework done for constituents
•
Pork barrel projects for district
(“earmarks”)
•
Money (incumbents outspent
challengers by 3:1 ratio)
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php (Re-election rates 1964-2012)
Congressional
elections
Type of election:
1. Incumbent campaigns less competitive (safe
seats)
2. Weak challenger campaigns uncompetitive,
but more so than incumbents
3. Strong challenger campaigns more
competitive than both
1.
Coattail effect in decline;
elections are largely
independent and evidence of
decline in party power
2.
Party affiliation is still a
strong predictor of voter
behavior
3.
Media, especially important in
Senate elections
4.
Issues, especially the economy
5.
Campaign consultants:
increasing importance of and
decreasing importance of
political parties
6.
technology
4. Open seat campaigns: the most competitive
5. House or Senate:
6. Midterm elections: loss of congressional
seats for party of president
Other Factors
Average Turnover in House of
Representatives by Decade
Average Percentage Turnover
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Decade
II. Presidential elections: path
to the presidency
Nomination Phase:
• Prior to nomination phase, there is the “invisible primary” or “The Great
Mentioner”
• Time and money to build a campaign
• Individual can give $2,600 (adjusted for inflation 2013-14 election cycle); PACs
$5,000
• Federal matching grants to pay for primary: must raise $5,000 in 20 states to qualify
• Organization of large paid staff, volunteers, advisers on issues
• Strategy and themes:
1. Incumbent vs. challenger
2. Tone
3. Theme
4. Timing
5. Target voter
Primary Elections
•
Part of the Progressive reform of the early 20th century
designed to weaken parties
•
Types:
1. Closed
•
•
Used in most states
Only registered party members can vote for partisan offices,
no crossing of party lines
2. Open:
•
Any voter may get ballot of any party they choose
3. Blanket:
•
•
Voters can “mix and match” their votes. Voters are not
required to affiliate with a political party and may vote for any
candidate on the ballot. The candidate from each political
party who receives the most votes in the primary advances to
the general election.
In CA: top two candidates proceed to the general election
regardless of party affiliation (effective 2012 – Prop 14) Similar
to a run-off election
III. Primary vs. general
ELECTIONS
A. Caucuses:
1.
2.
3.
Some states use conventions
method of sending delegates
to the national convention
Local caucuses—district
convention—state
convention—national
convention. Each level
selects delegates to attend
higher level.
Importance of IOWA:
B. Primaries:
1. Other states use presidential primaries as method of
sending delegates to national convention. Use of
primaries has increased in the last 30 years.
2. “Beauty contest primary:”
3. Delegate selection primary:
4. Importance of NEW HAMPSHIRE:
5. Dems use “superdelegates” (party leaders/office
holders) to restore prominence at convention
C. Nominating system
National Convention:
1. Selection of presidential nominee:
2. Selection of VP nominee
• Chosen by pres nominee and rubber stamped by
convention
• “balance the ticket”
• Development of party platform
• Reconciliation and unification of party by end of
convention
D. Analysis of
nominating system:
Pro:
1. Highly participatory: caucuses,
primaries, conventions
2. Testing ground-weeds out the
weaker candidates
Con:
1.
Low turnout rates
2.
Too lengthy
3.
Does not test candidates for qualities
necessary as president; media game
4.
Front-loading adversely affects states
with later primaries
5.
Voters in primaries tend to be better
educated and more affluent than those
in general elections
6.
Delegates at caucuses and convention
tend to be unrepresentative: more
ideological, more activist, more
education, less moderate, much more
wealthy
FRQ Practice
Nominees for the presidency of the two major parties are chosen
by delegates at national conventions. How these delegates are
chosen varies across states and between the political parties.
a.Define each of the following methods used by states to choose
delegates to party conventions.
• Open primary
• Caucus
b. Republican Party rules permit winner-take-all primaries.
Describe one consequence of this rule for the Republican
nomination process.
c. The Democratic Party has used superdelegates in the
presidential nominating process since 1984. Explain why the use
of superdelegates increases the influence of party leaders in the
Democratic nomination process.
d. Explain why a candidate’s strategy to win the nomination is
often different from the strategy developed to win the general
election.
E. Path to the
presidency
A. Fall campaign:
1.
Campaign issues:
•
•
2.
Position issues
Valence issues
Garnering support
•
•
•
TV: spots and visuals
Debates
Internet/direct mail
B. Election day
•
Tuesday after first Monday in November in every fourth year
C. Meeting of electors
•
First Monday after the second Wednesday in December
D. Formal election
•
January 6, joint session of Congress formally counts electoral votes and
declares winner
E. Inauguration day: January 20
The electoral
college
Rationale:
Allotment of electoral
votes to states:
• Poor communication
1.
Each state has as many
electoral votes as it has
members of Congress
(minimum of 3)
2.
D.C. has 3 votes (23rd
Amendment)
3.
538 electoral votes
4.
CA-largest at 55
5.
Each party develops a slate of
electors prior to election (loyal
party members)
• Desire to have the “best”
people select the president
• Compromise between direct
election and congressional
election
Winning of electoral
votes:
• Winner-take-all: Candidate
with most popular votes (only
a plurality is needed) wins all
of that state’s electoral votes.
• Concentration of campaigning
in large, competitive states.
• Electors meet in respective state
capitals in December to cast
ballots
Winning the election:
• Majority of e.v. (270) to win
• If no candidate has majority:
• House selects President from
among top 3 candidates
• Each state has 1 vote
• Senate selects VP from among
top 2 candidates
• Done in 1800 and 1824
Criticisms:
• President can be elected with only
a plurality, rather than a majority,
of popular votes, esp with presence
of strong 3rd party candidates
• Possibility of a minority president
• “faithless electors”
• Small states proportionally
overrepresented
• Inhibits development of third
parties
Alternatives:
• Direct election: each
person’s vote counts
• District system
• Proportional system
• Keep electoral votes but
abolish the electors
themselves
Why has the electoral college system not been abolished?
1. Tradition/reluctance to tamper with the Constitution
2. Amendment process
3. Opposition from small states
4. Opposition from urban racial minorities:
concentration of racial minorities in swing states give
them the clout to “tip the scales” towards their
favored candidates under the present system
Frq practice
A significant feature of the electoral college is that most states have a
winner-take-all system.
a. Describe the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college.
b. Explain one way in which the winner-take-all feature of the
electoral college affects how presidential candidates from the
two major political parties run their campaign.
c. Explain one way in which the winner-take-all feature of the
electoral college hinders third-party candidates.
d. Explain two reasons why the electoral college has not been
abolished.
How many points?
Campaign finance: FECA
Federal Election Campaign Acts, 1971-74: disclosure, subsidies, limitations
1.
Established Federal Elections Commission to regulate federal elections
2.
All candidates must disclose contributions and expenditures
3.
Pres candidates can receive federal subsidies – matching funds
4.
Contribution limitations:
•
Individuals: $1,000 per candidate, per election
•
PACs: $5,000 per candidate, per election, no overall cap; $15,000 to a national
political party. (Political Action Committees were created as a result of FECA’s
finance reforms; PACs are committees established by corporations, unions, and
interest groups to raise money for campaigns through voluntary contributions)
5.
CHALLENGED in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) – effect on FECA:
1. Court upheld limits on campaign contributions
2. Court struck down limits on congressional campaign spending. 1st Amendment protects
spending as a form of expression. (limits on presidential races allowed because subsidized
by fed gov)
Campaign finance: 2002
bcra/mccain-feingold
1.
BANS SOFT MONEY donations to national political parties. Soft money:
undisclosed, unlimited donations to parties for party building activities.
2.
Limits soft money donations to state political parties to $10,000; restricts use of
these donations to voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.
3.
Doubled individuals’ “hard money” donations to $2,000, and indexes future
increases to inflation (now $2,600 for 2013-14 election cycle). Hard money:
disclosed, limited donations to candidates.
4.
No change on PAC limits.
5.
Unions and corporations banned from giving soft money to parties.
6.
Challenged by McConnell v. FEC, 2003: UPHELD BCRA
7.
Challenged by Citizens United v FEC, 2010: STRUCK DOWN provisions
restricting electioneering communications, independent expenditures
Political Party Money
Millions of Dollars
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1992
1996
2000
Year
Soft Money Raised by National Political Parties
Hard Money Raised by National Political Parties
2004
Analysis of reforms
1. No subsidies for congressional campaigns, further incumbency
advantage
2. No limits on spending in congressional races
•
•
•
Massive spending, further incumbency advantage
Members of Congress spend great amounts of time fundraising
Late-starters discouraged
3. Citizens United overturned BCRA limits on corporate, union,
and individual independent expenditures: (money not directly
donated to party or candidate, but spent on behalf of a
candidate). Creation of “Super PACs”
4. Growth of 527 organizations: tax exempt groups that engage in
political activities can receive unlimited contributions and spend
them on voter mobilization efforts and issue advocacy ads that
praise or slam a candidate (cannot explicitly endorse)
analysis
5. Minor party pres candidates cannot receive subsidies
before the election unless their party earned at least
5% of the popular vote in the previous election
6. Parties are weakened since pres election fund goes to
candidates themselves: rise of candidate-centered
campaigns rather than party-centered campaigns
7. Growth of PACs and candidate dependence on
PACs, and after Citizens United, Super PACs.
8. Cost of campaigns has risen: more time spend
fundraising
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
Year
Total Campaign Expenditures
PAC Contributions as % of Overall Campaign Spending
Percentage
Millions of Dollars
Campaign Spending for Winning House Candidates
FECA vs. BCRA: What
did they do?
FECA, 1974
1. LIMITS on political
contributions
• Individuals: $1,000
• PACs: $5,000
• NO limits on spending own
money
2. DISCLOSURE of
contributions & expenditures
above certain levels ($100)
3. SUBSIDIES of presidential
elections in the form of public
matching funds
4. FEC created
BCRA, 2002
(McCain-Feingold)
1. BANNED SOFT MONEY (unlimited,
undisclosed contributions to national
parties)
2. HARD MONEY increases and indexed to
inflation
• Individuals from $1,000 to $2,000
• No changes for PACs
• Increases for national, state, & local party
committees
3. RESTRICTED “ELECTIONEERING
COMMUNICATIONS”
• Corporations & unions could not engage
in these 30 days prior to a primary and 60
days before a general
FECA vs. BCRA: court
challenges
FECA, 1974
• BUCKLEY V VALEO, 1976
• UPHELD: disclosure, limits
• STRUCK DOWN:
spending candidate’s own
money, limits on
independent expenditures,
campaign spending
BCRA, 2002
• MCCONNELL V FEC, 2003
• UPHELD: soft money ban,
increased limits on individuals
• CITIZENS UNITED V FEC,
2010
• REMOVED restrictions on
corporations and unions
spending on “electioneering
communications” (image &
name, not express
advocacy) and on
“independent
expenditures”
effects:
FECA, 1974
BCRA, 2002
1.
Increase in PACs
1.
Rise of 527s
2.
Increased the amount of
money spent on elections
2.
Rise of SuperPACs (post
Citizens United)
3.
Increase in money spent on
independent expenditures
from corporations, unions
3.
4.
Increase in soft money
spending
No limits on independent
expenditures from
individuals, PACs, 527s,
SuperPACs, parties
4.
Increase in cost of
campaigns
5.
Incumbent advantage
5.
Incumbent advantage
6.
Advantage for wealthy
Citizens United v. FEC, 2010
FYI: A Supreme Court divided along ideological lines struck down
several key provisions of landmark campaign finance legislation,
which held that corporations can be prohibited from using money
from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.
• SCOTUS removed limits on independent expenditures that are not
coordinated with candidates' campaigns. The 5-4 majority also
struck down part of the 2003 McCain-Feingold law that barred
union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of
election campaigns. The ruling leaves in place a prohibition on
direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Effect of Citizens
United v. FEC, 2010
1.
Both corporations and labor unions may now use their general
treasury funds to pay for unlimited independent expenditures,
including advertisements, for or against candidates at any time.
This can be done through what are known as “SuperPACs,”
which are independent-expenditure ONLY committees. In
addition to unlimited spending, they can also mount direct
attacks on candidates.
•
FYI: based on political giving patterns, labor unions are essentially an arm
of the Democratic Party. But corporate America is more oriented toward
supporting incumbents. As a result, while most businesses spread their
political giving around to both parties, the balance tends to go to the
majority in Congress. When Republicans controlled the majority in
Congress in 2004, corporate giving tilted roughly 60 percent to 40 percent in
the GOP direction. But for the last four years, with Republicans in the
minority, many businesses reallocated their giving 60 percent to 40 percent
in the Democrats’ direction. Other forms of corporate political investments
–such as advertising – could also take a pro-incumbent slant.
Reaction:
•
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest
money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and
the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of
everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful
response to this decision." - President Barack Obama.
•
"The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit
political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union." - Chief Justice John Roberts
•
"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." - Justice
John Paul Stevens, in the dissent.
•
"Speech about our government and candidates for elective office lies at the heart of the First Amendment,
and the court's decision vindicates the right of individuals to engage in core political speech by banding
together to make their voices heard." - Theodore Olson, who argued the case for Citizens United.
•
"Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited
the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important
principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the court has given corporate money a breathtaking
new role in federal campaigns." - Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
•
"I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and
union contributions." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.