S. Schier
Office Hours:
414 Willis, ext. 4118
1:00-2:10 T Th
sschier@carleton.edu
2:00-3:15 MW
web page:
Fall 2010
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/POSC/faculty/schier/index.html
Political Science 202: Parties, Interest Groups and Elections
This course examines linkages between the mass citizenry and elite policy makers in
America. Its goals are four: (1) to explain the operations of parties, interest groups and
elections; (2) to examine the correspondence between public opinion and the activities of
parties and interest groups; (3) to explore campaign finance reform by debating the recent
Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling and (4) to analyze the 2010 midterm election
results in reference to broader historical midterm election patterns.
The course is organized around two group projects in which all students will participate.
During the first five weeks, the class will divide into Supreme Court teams to debate the
Citizens United ruling on campaign finance. A final group project involves exit poll
analysis of the 2006, 2008 and 2010 U.S. House elections. More detail on these occurs later
in the syllabus.
This class is owned by its students, but ownership has its share of obligations. You will set
the discussion agenda through your discharge of these obligations. Beginning on October
7, one of you will write a brief “critical analysis” of the readings for each class session,
responding to the questions about the assignments in the attached questionnaire for
analyzing the logic of an assignment. I will present the first critical analysis on September
28, on our initial campaign finance readings, to show you how to do it. Over the term,
each of you will write one critical analysis, worth 60 points toward your final grade.
The remaining members of the class must write at least three discussion questions or
critical observations on the daily assignments. Each one of these must be longer than a
sentence but no longer than a paragraph in length. All of this must be submitted to me
(via in-text e-mail – no attachments) by 8:30 AM of the day of the relevant class session.
Your discussion questions and actual class participation constitute fifteen percent (45
points) of your seminar grade. From September 14 to 29, when we consider electoral
basics, each student in the class must submit three discussion questions or critical
observations by the 8:30 AM deadline.
We will begin each class session with a media article or poll analysis provided by a
member of the class. Each of you will contribute one or more of these over the course of
the term. Please email your article or analysis to me by 8:30 AM on class day. We will
have much to discuss during the eventful 2010 midterm election season.
The following books are required and available at the bookstore:
Matthew J. Burbank, Ronald J. Hrebnar and Robert C. Benedict, Parties, Interest Groups
and Political Campaigns (henceforth BHB)
Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich and David W. Rohde, Change and Continuity in the
2008 Elections (henceforth AAR)
Morris P. Fiorina, Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics
Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Maris Hojnacki, David C. Kimball and Beth L.
Leech, Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses and Why (henceforth
BBHKL)
A recommended book is Andrew E. Busch, Horses in Midstream: U.S. Midterm Elections
and Their Consequences 1894-1998. Copies of this are in the bookstore and on closed
reserve. We will read several chapters of this via e-reserve. This book will figure
prominently in your end of term reports and take-home exam. Busch will meet with us to
discuss the 2010 midterm election results on November 4.
Final grades are calculated on the following basis:
Citizens United v. FEC paper (due Oct. 11, 2 pm )
Critical analysis of class reading
Class and group participation
Exit poll group project
Take-home final (due at scheduled final exam time)
25%
20%
15%
10%
30%
(75 points)
(60 points)
(45 points)
(30 points)
(90 points)
Final grades are figured from a class total of 300 points. A’s range from 270-300, B’s from
240-269, C’s from 210-239 and D’s from 180-209. NOTE that all take-home exams and
papers must have full bibliographic citations (parenthetical references to author and page
and a complete list of works cited), 12-point font and one-inch side margins.
My grading standards are as follows. An “A” on essay examination questions and papers
features clear, thorough and, above all, original analysis of the topic. Relatively few papers
and examination essays achieve this standard. A “B” grade on essay examination questions
and papers includes reasonably sound consideration of the topic, but an analysis that is
less than fully clear, thorough and original. “C” grades on essay examination questions
and papers contain serious thematic vagueness and/or factual inaccuracies. I am likely to
award “A”s, “B”s and “C”s as final grades in this class, with the modal category probably a
“B.”
What follows is a schedule of class sessions by topic.
1.
Introduction and elections video (9/14)
2. Understanding Political Parties, BHB chs. 1-3 (9/16)
3. Electoral Systems and the Electorate, BHB, chs. 4-5 (9/21)
4. Parties, Groups and Campaigns, BHB 7-9, conclusion (9/23)
5. Campaign Finance, BHB, ch. 6; Currinder, “Campaign Finance: Fundraising and
Spending in the 2008 Elections” (e-reserve) (9/28)
2
6. Exploring Citizens United v. FEC, Schmitt, “How We Got Here,” Hasen, “What the
Court Did – and Why,” Henderson, “Citizens United: A Defense,” Supreme Court
“Syllabus,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Opinion of the Court” (all on e-reserve) (9/30)
7. Debating Citizens United v. FEC, Concurring Opinions of Roberts and Scalia and
Partial Dissents by Stevens and Thomas (all on e-reserve) (10/5) DEBATE TEAM
OUTLINES DUE BY 8 AM THIS MORNING TO ME VIA IN-TEXT EMAIL
8. Understanding Midterm Elections I, Busch, Horses at Midterm Introduction, chs. 1, 4
(on e-reserve) (10/7)
Citizens United v. FEC papers due at my office – 414 Willis by 2 pm on
Monday, October 11 – hard copies only please
9. Understanding Midterm Elections II, Busch, Horses at Midstream chs. 5-7, conclusion
(on e-reserve) (10/12)
10. 2008: Voting Behavior and campaign ads, AAR, chs. 3-6 (10/14)
11. 2006, 2008 and 2010, AAR, “The 2006 Congressional Elections” (on e-reserve), AAR,
chs. 9-11. (10/19) EXIT POLL ANALYSIS GROUP PREFERENCES due to me via
email by 3 PM TODAY
12. MOVIE: “By the People: The Election of Barack Obama” (10/21)
13. Explaining the Disconnect, Fiorina, preface, chs. 1-4 (10/26)
14. Sorting and Reconnecting, Fiorina, chs. 5-8, epilogue (10/28)
15. Introduction to Lobbying, BHB, ch. 10, BBHKL, chs. 1-3, methodological appendix
(11/2)
16. Class visit by Andrew Busch on the 2010 elections (11/4)
17. Lobbying in Operation, BBHKL, chs. 4-8 (11/9)
18. Lobbying and Policy Change, BBHKL, chs. 9-12 (11/11)
19. Exit Poll Analysis 2006, 2008 and 2010, Group reports (11/16) GROUP REPORT
OUTLINES DUE VIA IN-TEXT EMAIL TO ME BY 8 AM THIS MORNING
CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROJECT
Once you are assigned to a group, you should first examine related information about
your group’s position by examining the assigned Citizens United v. FEC opinions, related
class articles and searching the web for information. One group will defend the majority
opinion and one will oppose it from dissenting perspective of Justice Stevens and liberal
3
opponents of the decision. Once you understand your group’s position, examine the web
for information on the rival position, looking for weaknesses in the arguments and
evidence employed in its support.
On October 5, each group will have 45 minutes to explain and defend its position and to
note the weaknesses of the rival team’s position. We’ll begin with the group defending the
majority opinion. For the first 20 minutes of its time, each group will defend its position
and argue against its critics. The opposing group will then ask questions of the presenting
group for the remaining 20-25 minutes.
Each group may develop a handout, no longer than two sides of an 8 ½ by 11 inch
sheet of paper for distribution to the class during your presentation. I MUST have
these handouts at my office by 8 AM on the morning of your presentations –
preferably via email. At the time of your presentation, each member of each group
must HAND IN a one-page explanation of her/his role in the group activities and of
the efforts of other members of the group.
Your paper should present your personal opinion of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling,
noting the strong and weak arguments both for and against the majority opinion. In your
paper, feel free to consider the topic of campaign finance more broadly as well. Be certain
to state your basic thesis at the outset and then present a clear justification for that thesis.
Be sure to include full citations of your sources, using parenthetical references (author,
page) and a complete list of works cited at the end of the paper. Your paper should be 6-8
pages in length, including your list of references.
EXIT POLL ANALYSIS PROJECT
In this project, you will organize into groups to examine the exit polls of the 2006, 2008
and 2010 national exit polls for U.S. House races. Each of the four groups will present a
20-25 minute PowerPoint analysis of trends and patterns in your subject area. The 2006
and 2008 U.S. House exit poll results are on e-reserve and also can be accessed at
cnn.com. The 2010 exit poll results will be available at cnn.com within hours of the final
poll closing on election night, November 2. You will also find much data of use in the
assigned chapters of Abramson, Aldrich and Rohde (AAR).
You will be assigned to one of four analysis groups: demographic analysis, issue analysis,
analysis by Democratic consultants, analysis by GOP consultants. The demographic
analysis group will examine House vote trends over the three elections in reference to the
demographic characteristics of voters – such as age, gender, sexual orientation, race,
religion, education, union membership, church attendance, marital status. The issues
analysis group will examine the relationship between issue opinions and House vote over
the three elections. The Democratic and GOP consultant groups will involve role playing
as partisan consultants. Each consultant group will examine how the parties fared in the
three elections, note the areas of strength and weakness for each party, and suggest how
their party can fare better in the future.
Each group should answer the following questions in their presentations. Which voting
trends are most important in your subject area? Why are they the most important?
4
Which voting trends are less important and why? What is the likely future of voting
trends in your subject area, based on your analysis of the three elections?
It’s best if you present a PowerPoint highlighting answers to these questions. Don’t use
too many slides and be sure to spend time fully explaining the slides you do present. You
can structure your PowerPoint presentation around the sequences of questions listed
above. Be sure to invite questions from the audience throughout your presentation and
plan for it to last 20-25 minutes.
By 3 PM on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, please let me know your group preferences in
rank order from one to four and let me know if you have had PowerPoint
experience.
On the day of a group’s presentation, each group member must hand in a one-page
report on the activities of each group member in preparing the group
presentation. Also, each analysis group should prepare a one-page outline (one
side of an 8 ½ by 11 inch sheet of paper) of your presentation. Submit that outline
to me via email by 8 AM on the morning of our presentations – TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 16. The take-home final will include an essay question regarding your
group presentations.
Template for Analyzing the Logic of an Assignment
1) The most important information in this assignment is
______________________________. (Figure out the facts, experiences, data the author
is using to support her/his conclusions.)
2) The main inferences/conclusions in this assignment are
_____________________________. (Identify the key conclusions the author comes to
and presents in the assignment.)
3) The key concept(s) we need to understand in this assignment is (are)
__________________. By these concepts the author means
_____________________________________________. (Figure out the most important
ideas you would have to understand in order to understand the author’s line of
reasoning.)
4) The main assumption(s) underlying the author’s thinking is (are)
_____________________. (Figure out what the author is taking for granted [that might
be questioned].)
5) a) If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are
____________________. (What consequences are likely to follow if people take the
author’s line of reasoning seriously?)
5
b) If we fail to take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are
_______________. (What consequences are likely to follow if people ignore the
author’s reasoning?)
Critical Analysis of Burbank, Hrebnar and Benedict, ch. 6 and Currinder (9/28)
Information
BHB: four central issues of campaign finance (95), goals of campaign finance reformers
(96), FEC 1971 and 1974 provisions (98) BRCA provisions (99), Supreme Court campaign
finance decisions (104-106)
Currinder: Post-2004 changes in campaign finance law (164-68), campaign finance limits
2007-8 (165), narratives of campaign finance in 2008 primaries and general election (168176), campaign finance in 2008 Congressional elections (176-183)
Inferences/Conclusions
BHB: Campaign finance reform does not restore public faith in politics (96-7), information
about campaign spending is scattered (101), the Supreme Court demonstrates increased
skepticism about certain regulations (106), 527 groups supplant certain party functions
(114-115), the campaign contribution relationship is bilateral not unilateral (121)
Currinder: 2008 campaign finance has ironic twists and turns (183), reformer McCain was
penalized by his own reforms (186), the Supreme Court favors First Amendment rights
over “leveling” the playing field (167), national party spending was very important in 2008
Congressional races (178), independent spending in 2008 helped Democrats pick up
additional Congressional seats (182)
Concepts
BHB: sham ads (99), independent and coordinated expenditures (99), hard and soft
money (100), independent spending (104), express advocacy (104), issue advocacy (104),
527 groups (111), entrepreneurial candidates (117)
Currinder: hard money and soft money (164), “millionaire’s amendment” (166), 527
loophole (167), top tier candidates (170), joint funding committees (174), Congressional
campaign committees (178), party independent spending (181), issue advocacy spending
(182), 507 © groups (182)
Assumptions
BHB: money contributions are part of a bilateral exchange relationship (96), campaign
finance reformers have a distinct set of goals (96), reformers expect too much of their
reforms (96-7), reforms must accept the reality of bilateral exchange relationships (121)
6
Currinder: changing the rules changes the campaign finance players and their actions
(164-168), 2008 produced big and probably lasting changes in campaign finance (163), the
Supreme Court is likely to defend first amendment rights in campaign finance rulings
(167)
Implications
BHB: Campaign finance reform must adapt to a more realistic understanding of the
campaign contribution relationship as bilateral not unilateral. Campaign finance and its
regulation will continue to evolve due to the numerous actors involved in campaign
finance and constantly changing electoral circumstances.
Currinder: Campaign spending will continue to grow in cost. Public financing of
presidential campaigns under current law has little future. Future Supreme Court rulings
(Citizens United v. FEC) will continue to favor First Amendment-based interpretations of
campaign finance law. Obama’s revolutionary fundraising methods will become the “new
normal” in presidential politics.
7