Congressional
Elections
Learning Objective 6:
Identify the role that money plays in elections and
analyze the impact that it has on election results
and re-election rates among incumbent candidates.
Introduction

U.S. congressional elections are regularly scheduled. As
opposed to Britain where elections are called by the gov’t.

Members of Congress have fixed terms

Term Limits imposed by states have been overturned by
Supreme Court. (U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton; AR. 1995).

Winner-Take-All System. Single member district system.
Candidate who wins popular vote wins the congressional
district.
Type of Election

Incumbent campaigns: least competitive. Often in districts w/
safe seats

Open Seat campaigns (most competitive)

House or Senate (Senate is more competitive)

Midterm elections (loss of seats for President’s party)
– Occurred in House every year 1938-1994
– Exceptions in congressional elections (1998/2002)
– Once again in 2006. President’s party lost seats, even control of
both Houses of Congress
Types of Primary Elections

Closed – Only registered party members can vote for partisan
offices, no crossing of party lines (Used in most states, OR., NY,
FL.)

Open – Independents may vote, crossing party lines allowed
(danger of damaging or “raiding” political parties; ID, TX, MO.)
Factors affecting outcomes of
congressional elections








Incumbency
Type of elections
Coattail Effect (Obama in “08)
Media, esp. in Senate elections
Party affiliation – still a strong predictor of voting behavior
Issues (economy)
Campaign consultants: increasing importance of these,
decreasing importance of political parties
Technology (social networking)
Incumbency: The greatest
influence


Scope of incumbency advantage – 90% of congressmen are
reelected ~ 80% senators; lack of competitiveness brings
charges of “permanent Congress” and the call for term limits
(unconstitutional)
Advantages:
- Franking Privilege (allow members to send official mail w/o
stamp)
-Campaign staff already in place
-Gerrymandering Districts. Drawing of districts to create “Safe
Seats”
-Committee service to district (Greg Walden- 2nd Dist. passed
bill to provide greater access to hospitals for rural oregonians;
2009)
-Name recognition
Incumbency: The greatest
influence
Casework done for constituents:
-Pork Barrel projects for district. – explosion of
“earmarks” in recent years. Pet projects that
members designate for their states/districts (Peter
Defazio of Oregon’s 4th dist. Secures $2.7 Bil. For
Oregon roads/bridges in Highway Bill)
-Money, e.g., in recent House elections, incumbents
outspent challengers by 3:1 ratio. “War chest” built to
discourage challengers from running
What wins elections





Safe district
Incumbency
Party
Issue
(“It’s the economy,
stupid!” – James
Carville, Clinton
campaign
strategist)

Learning Objective 6:
Identify the role that money
plays in elections and
analyze the impact that it
has on election results and
re-election rates among
incumbent candidates.
Oregon’s Congressional Districts
Campaign Finance Rules

Presidential General Election
 Candidates can accept federal funding,
but do not have to
– Total limit on spending ($85 Mil; 2008)
• No limit on unconnected issue spending by PAC’s
• No limit on unconnected party spending
– Soft Money (unregulated spending by party
committees)
– Campaign activities by RNC/DNC
Campaign Finance Rules

Individuals (“hard money”;
regulated by FEC)
– Not exceed $1000 per
candidate (now $2300)
– Not exceed $20,000 to
party
– No limit on
“independent
advertising”
– No limit on your own
campaign
Learning Objective 6:

Identify the role that
money plays in
elections and analyze
the impact that it has on
election results and reelection rates among
incumbent candidates.
Campaign Finance Rules

PACs
– Any corporation, union, or organization
– Must register with FEC
– Cannot exceed $5000 to one candidate
– Cannot exceed $15,000 per party
Growth of PAC’s (groups that raise funds for
favored candidates)



In 1974, only 600 PAC’s existed; Now: more than 4100
Reason: Cong. Legislation had intent of preventing a few
wealthy campaign contributors from helping candidates “buy”
elections. Instead, Cong. Wanted to “open up” campaign
contributions to the masses, as represented by PAC’s
FECA (1974) did just that:
– Indiv. Could contribute no more than $1000 (now $2300 for ’07-’08
cycle)
– Indiv. Could also contribute $1000 to a PAC w/ no limit on number
of PAC’s they can contribute to.
– Furthermore, PAC’s could contribute 5X (now 2 ½) what and indiv.
Could contrubute in a year
– In addition, there is no limit on the amount of independent
expenditures that a PAC could make
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Cannot limit political free speech,
including money
 Individual limit remained in place as well
as reporting
 Independent expenditures by candidate
is allowed.

Effects of Rules

Negative
– PACs have proliferated (527’s)
• Swiftboat Vets For Truth; 2004
• Citizens United v. FEC; 2009 (Corporations can
spend unlimited money on Ads
–
–
–
–
Elections have gotten more expensive
Control has shifted from parties
Advantage to incumbents
Advantage to wealthy candidates (wealth
coming from pac’s; not personal wealth)
– Advantage to candidate with strong ideological
appeal (e.g., Bush)
Campaign Finance Reform

1996 Defeated Attempt to outlaw PACs
– Bipartisan effort
– Common Cause, AARP support

McCain-Feinngold (2002)
– Ban all “soft” money to nat’l parties; not independent
groups
– Fed. Candidates would be prohibited from raising soft
money
– Increase individual contributions to state parties
(5>$10,000/yr.)

Disclosure