Functions of Parties

organized critique of the party in power
 a choice of leaders and programs
 recruit and nominate electoral candidates
 Provide cues to voters
 Mobilize voters
 Capital Intensive Politics
 Kayden vs. Greider
Buckley v. Valeo
 Limits
on spending are unconstitutional
 Limits on contributions are okay
 No limits on individual spending
Legacy of Buckley
 Public
financing is key
 All CFR is a constitutional issue

Who Gives



Individuals
Corporations/labor
unions
Political action
committees (PACs)

Who Receives



Candidates (hard $)
Parties (soft $)
"independent
expenditures“
(express advocacy)
How Much to Whom?
 INDIVIDUALS
 Hard
Money
$25,000 a year limit on all donations
 $1,000 limit per election per candidate (primary
and general)
 $5,000 limit per PAC

 Unlimited
soft money contributions to party
 Unlimited "independent expenditures"
How Much to Whom?

CORPORATIONS AND LABOR GROUPS



Hard Money from treasury- $0
barred from contributing to candidates
BUT, they can create PACs




$5,000 per candidate, per election (primary and general)
$15,000 a year to a party
Unlimited soft money contributions to party
Unlimited "independent expenditures"
Disclosure

Candidates must report


all PACs and party contributions
Name, address and occupation of any individuals
contribution >$200

disclose all expenditures exceeding $200
 Sunshine principle

candidates, parties and PACs must disclose how
they raise and spend money
Presidential Candidates

Public funding based on matching system
 candidates who accepted federal matching
funds could not spend more than $37 million
 $61.8 million in public money for campaign
costs
 $12.4 million for convention costs.
 could accept $11.9 million from their parties
Hard vs Soft Money

Hard money given to candidates



Given by PACs, individuals
Heavily regulated
Soft money given to political parties for party
building activities, GOTV


Corporations and unions may contribute soft
money to parties in unlimited amounts
not constitute election activity, may be used on
issue advocacy
Increasing Cost of Campaigns
Increasingly Expensive Races
Most Expensive Senate Races 2000
 New York Senate $83,698,388
 New Jersey Senate $71,408,718
 Minnesota Senate $23,649,774
 Michigan Senate $17,974,728
 Pennsylvania Senate $16,689,453
House Challengers in Battleground Districts in the 1992 Election
33.3%
$1mill+
1.4%
$800999
40.0%
2.3%
$600799
66.7%
2.8%
$400599
36.8%
8.8%
$200399
0-$199
13.0%
21.2%
0.0%
61.8%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
% of Challengers
who win
% of Challengers
Raising Amount
Challengers in Battleground Districts 1996 House Elections
$1mill+
$800-999
53.3%
6.9%
40.0%
4.6%
$600-799
9.2%
$400-599
0.0%
$200-399
0.0%
0-$199
0.0%
0.0%
% of Challengers
who win
% of Challengers
Raising Amount
25.0%
16.1%
16.1%
47.0%
20.0% 40.0% 60.0%
PAC contributions
Soft Money contributions 2000
Public Financing
Britain
No
Limits on
Spending
Yes
Denmark
Yes, to parties
No
France
Yes, to candidates
Yes
Italy
Yes, to candidates
No
Israel
No
Yes
Japan
No
Yes
Germany
Yes, to parties
No
US
NO
NO
Television
Free Time to
parties
Free Time to
parties on public
stations
Free Time to
candidates
Free Time to
parties
Free Time to
parties on public
stations
Free Time to
candidates; no
negative ads
Free Time to
candidates on
public stations
NONE
Two CF Systems
 Official
Post Watergate system
 Low
individual limits on giving
 Ban on corporate and labor contributions
 Disclosure/Sunshine
 Grey
market
 Unlimited
soft money contributions
 Unlimited issues ads/indep expenditures
 Leadership PACs
What is to be done?
 Clean
Money Solution (ME, NE, MA)
 complete
public financing
 spending limits
 Problems
 Primaries
 Issue
ads/independent expenditures
 Public resistance (David Duke problem)
McCain Feingold
 Ban
Soft Money contributions to
national parties
 Earlier versions
 60%
of funding from district
 Free TV time
Brookings Proposal
 Increase
individual contribution limits
 Increase limits on hard money
contributions/end soft money
 Require disclosure for issue ads
 Tax credit for small contributors
 Discount TV time
CFR is not a Problem View
 Free
speech costs money
 How much is too much
 $ guarantees audience not votes
 $ goes to like minded candidates, does
not buy votes
 Most issues have big $ on both sides
 Solution
 No
limits with full disclosure
CFR is a Problem
 Only
corporations/wealthy have $$$
 $150,000 annual income =25% of
contributions
 Increases political clout of corporations
 Uneven distribution of wealth + private
financing of elections =
 Solution= democratically/public
financing
Barriers
 Partisan
reforms
 Incumbent protection
 Ants in the kitchen/balloon analogy
Why the system is broke!
 Express Advocacy
 communication
whose purpose is to elect
or defeat a candidate for office
 "magic words" - "vote for," "vote against,"
"elect," "defeat"
 subject to limits and regulation by FEC
 all funds raised and spent must be
reported to FEC
But Independent Expenditures
 An
independent version of express
advocacy
 No coordination with candidate
 must be reported to the FEC
 Can be done by PACs, parties,
individuals (not corporations, unions)
Issue Advocacy
 purpose
is to promote a policy position
 Does not use magic words
 Not regulated by FEC
 No disclosure!