Name:
Hour:
AP American Government
Unit 4 Assignments:
Ch. 10 Elections and Campaigns
Ch. 11 Interest Groups
1
Chapter 10 overview: Elections and Campaigns
Vocabulary:
Incumbent
Coattails
Political action committee (PAC)
Malapportionment
Gerrymandering
Sophomore surge
Position issues
Valance issues
For the following 6 vocab words, use the definitions at the bottom of the page AND the box at the top of the
page to get more detail.
General election
Primary election
Closed primary
Open primary
Blanket primary
Runoff primary
Independent expenditures
Soft money
527 organizations
prospective voting
retrospective voting
Introduction
1. What are the two phases to getting elected? How are they different?
2
Presidential vs. Congressional Campaigns
2. Read pages 232-237 CLOSELY. Fill in the Venn diagram below with DETAILED notes concerning the
similarities and differences between Presidential and Congressional campaigns.
Primary vs. General Campaigns
3. Compare and contrast a caucus with a presidential primary.
4. Explain how a position issue could cause a party realignment.
5. Fill in the table below.
Television
advertising
News
Campaign debate
Internet
How this medium is used
by politicians on the
campaign trail.
Ways it can help a
candidate.
Ways it can hurt a
candidate.
Other important details
about these media... .
3
Money
6. Why is money so important to politics?
7. Explain the difference between private and public funding.
8. Analyze figure 10.1. Why is it misleading to say “It costs more to run for a House member than as a senator”?
9. Public funding
a.
Why do presidential candidates get some money from the federal government but congressional
candidates do not? (This is not spelled out for you in the book. )
b.
Explain the limits on funding and matching funds in the primaries. What are the requirements for
matching funds? (Use page 250 as well)
c.
What other “free money” do presidential candidates get?
d.
Can you think of any problems with the fact that congressmen must get all of their money from
individuals?
10. What event brought about campaign finance laws?
11. Why would the new laws provide tax dollars to federal candidates?
12. What kind of help can minor parties get from the federal government?
13. Identify and analyze the two problems the ’73 laws created.
4
14. What unintended consequences did the ’73 laws have?
15. What did the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 do?
16. What were some of the complaints concerning the 2002 law?
17. Explain 527 organizations.
18. How do our campaign finance laws prevent third parties from playing a major role in US politics?
19. Analyze the cartoon below. What is it saying about campaign finance?
5
20. List the limits on spending: Use the table on page 247 to fill out the following table.
General Rules
Presidential Election
Individual contributions
Independent Expenditures
PACs
Presidential Primaries
Ban on soft money
6
21. Overall, what do you think can and should be done about campaign finance laws in America?
What decides the Election?
22. Explain how each of the following impact the outcome of an election:
A. The Party
B. Issues
C. The Campaign
D. Finding a Winning coalition
The Effects of Elections in Policy
23. Why do some say it doesn’t matter who wins an election?
24. Analyze the data on page 260. What does it tell us about elections?
25. DOES it actually matter who wins an election? Is policy impacted in the end?
7
Ch. 10 practice Qs for the open-note quiz
1.
The increase in voter support that a member of the House receives in his/her first bid for reelection is
referred to as the
A. no-brainer march.
B. post-office bounce
C. two-time round-up
D. second-wind surprise
E. sophomore surge
2. Which of the following statements is incorrect?
A. Representatives must be 20 years of age.
B. Senators must be 30 years of age.
C. Representatives must be citizens of the U.S. for 7 years
D. Senators must be citizens of the U.S. for 9 years
E. Representatives and senators must live in the state in which they are elected
3. Bush generally won the votes of all of the following except
A. Protestants.
B. gun owners.
C. strong critics of abortion.
D. opponents of same sex marriage.
E. unmarried voters.
4. Many scholars argue that the forecast factor in determining how people vote is
A. debate performance
B. perception of the best candidate
C. campaign spending
D. the candidate’s image
E. party identification
5. One study of some 1,400 promises made in political parties’ platforms between 1944 and 1964 found
that some ______ percent of the promises were kept.
A. 12
B. 37
C. 52
D. 74
E. 93
Answers-No peeking! (1=E, 2=A, 3=E, 4=E)
8
Reapportionment: Changing the seats in Congress

States _________________ to get a new Representative for every 10,000 people they added to their
state

We ran out of room

We now stick with _____________________________________

Each state gets the percent of seats that equals the percent of the population they have

We use the census ______________________________________ to decide how many people (and
seats) each state has
Look at the map. Who is gaining? Who is losing?
Redistricting: Redrawing Congressional districts after the census
Once states find out what portion of the House they get, they have to
______________________________________________

These districts are supposed to have roughly _____________________ numbers of people

These districts (says the Supreme Court) should ____________________________________ or other
voting blocks

These districts should be connected (no islands that count as a part of another district)
Gerrymandering
There are a total of _______________ reps in the US House of
Representatives. Each state is guaranteed at least one
representative.
Define gerrymandering:
Why does a majority party in the state legislatures do this?
Draw a picture of what gerrymandering looks like:
9
Why is gerrymandering a problem? Is it legal?
After the 2010 Census, Michigan’s population dropped and after reapportionment we lost one representative.
The maps below show Michigan’s Congressional Districts after the 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Can you see any
gerrymandering?
Michigan’s 14 Congressional
Districts
2011 Apportionment Plan
10
Reapportionment Data, 1910 to 2010
Use the data below to complete the questions on the back. Use evidence from the chart.
2010 apportionment population
Number of representatives
State
Total
Alabama . . . . . . .
Alaska . . . . . . . . .
Arizona . . . . . . . .
Arkansas . . . . . . .
California . . . . . . .
Colorado . . . . . . .
Connecticut . . . . .
Delaware . . . . . . .
Florida . . . . . . . . .
Georgia . . . . . . . .
Hawaii . . . . . . . . .
Idaho . . . . . . . . . .
Illinois . . . . . . . . . .
Indiana . . . . . . . . .
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . .
Kansas . . . . . . . . .
Kentucky . . . . . . .
Louisiana . . . . . . .
Maine . . . . . . . . .
Maryland . . . . . . .
Massachusetts . .
Michigan . . . . . . .
Minnesota . . . . . .
Mississippi . . . . . .
Missouri . . . . . . . .
Montana . . . . . . .
Nebraska . . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . . .
New Hampshire . .
New Jersey . . . . .
New Mexico . . . . .
New York . . . . . . .
North Carolina . . .
North Dakota . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . .
Oklahoma . . . . . .
Oregon . . . . . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . .
Rhode Island . . . .
South Carolina . .
South Dakota . . .
Tennessee . . . . .
Texas . . . . . . . . .
Utah . . . . . . . . . .
Vermont . . . . . . .
Virginia . . . . . . . .
Washington . . . . .
West Virginia . . . .
Wisconsin . . . . . .
Wyoming . . . . . . .
Total
309,183,463
4,802,982
721,523
6,412,700
2,926,229
37,341,989
5,044,930
3,581,628
900,877
18,900,773
9,727,566
1,366,862
1,573,499
12,864,380
6,501,582
3,053,787
2,863,813
4,350,606
4,553,962
1,333,074
5,789,929
6,559,644
9,911,626
5,314,879
2,978,240
6,011,478
994,416
1,831,825
2,709,432
1,321,445
8,807,501
2,067,273
19,421,055
9,565,781
675,905
11,568,495
3,764,882
3,848,606
12,734,905
1,055,247
4,645,975
819,761
6,375,431
25,268,418
2,770,765
630,337
8,037,736
6,753,369
1,859,815
5,698,230
568,300
Resident
population
308,143,815
4,779,736
710,231
6,392,017
2,915,918
37,253,956
5,029,196
3,574,097
897,934
18,801,310
9,687,653
1,360,301
1,567,582
12,830,632
6,483,802
3,046,355
2,853,118
4,339,367
4,533,372
1,328,361
5,773,552
6,547,629
9,883,640
5,303,925
2,967,297
5,988,927
989,415
1,826,341
2,700,551
1,316,470
8,791,894
2,059,179
19,378,102
9,535,483
672,591
11,536,504
3,751,351
3,831,074
12,702,379
1,052,567
4,625,364
814,180
6,346,105
25,145,561
2,763,885
625,741
8,001,024
6,724,540
1,852,994
5,686,986
563,626
U.S. population
overseas
1,039,648
23,246
11,292
20,683
10,311
88,033
15,734
7,531
2,943
99,463
39,913
6,561
5,917
33,748
17,780
7,432
10,695
11,239
20,590
4,713
16,377
12,015
27,986
10,954
10,943
22,551
5,001
5,484
8,881
4,975
15,607
8,094
42,953
30,298
3,314
31,991
13,531
17,532
32,526
2,680
20,611
5,581
29,326
122,857
6,880
4,596
36,712
28,829
6,821
11,244
4,674
2010
435
7
1
9
4
53
7
5
1
27
14
2
2
18
9
4
4
6
6
2
8
9
14
8
4
8
1
3
4
2
12
3
27
13
1
16
5
5
18
2
7
1
9
36
4
1
11
10
3
8
1
2000
435
7
1
8
4
53
7
5
1
25
13
2
2
19
9
5
4
6
7
2
8
10
15
8
4
9
1
3
3
2
13
3
29
13
1
18
5
5
19
2
6
1
9
32
3
1
11
9
3
8
1
1990
435
7
1
6
4
52
6
6
1
23
11
2
2
20
10
5
4
6
7
2
8
10
16
8
5
9
1
3
2
2
13
3
31
12
1
19
6
5
21
2
6
1
9
30
3
1
11
9
3
9
1
1980
435
7
1
5
4
45
6
6
1
19
10
2
2
22
10
6
5
7
8
2
8
11
18
8
5
9
2
3
2
2
14
3
34
11
1
21
6
5
23
2
6
1
9
27
3
1
10
8
4
9
1
1970
435
7
1
4
4
43
5
6
1
15
10
2
2
24
11
6
5
7
8
2
8
12
19
8
5
10
2
3
1
2
15
2
39
11
1
23
6
4
25
2
6
2
8
24
2
1
10
7
4
9
1
1960
435
8
1
3
4
38
4
6
1
12
10
2
2
24
11
7
5
7
8
2
8
12
19
8
5
10
2
3
1
2
15
2
41
11
2
24
6
4
27
2
6
2
9
23
2
1
10
7
5
10
1
1950
3437
9
1
2
6
30
4
6
1
8
10
1
2
25
11
8
6
8
8
3
7
14
18
9
6
11
2
4
1
2
14
2
43
12
2
23
6
4
30
2
6
2
9
22
2
1
10
7
6
10
1
1940
435
9
(X)
2
7
23
4
6
1
6
10
(X)
2
26
11
8
6
9
8
3
6
14
17
9
7
13
2
4
1
2
14
2
45
12
2
23
8
4
33
2
6
2
10
21
2
1
9
6
6
10
1
1930
435
9
(X)
1
7
20
4
6
1
5
10
(X)
2
27
12
9
7
9
8
3
6
15
17
9
7
13
2
5
1
2
14
1
45
11
2
24
9
3
34
2
6
2
9
21
2
1
9
6
6
10
1
1920
435
10
(X)
1
7
11
4
5
1
4
12
(X)
2
27
13
11
8
11
8
4
6
16
13
10
8
16
2
6
1
2
12
1
43
10
3
22
8
3
36
3
7
3
10
18
2
2
10
5
6
11
1
1910
4435
10
(X)
1
7
11
4
5
1
4
12
(X)
2
27
13
11
8
11
8
4
6
16
13
10
8
16
2
6
1
2
12
1
43
10
3
22
8
3
36
3
7
3
10
18
2
2
10
5
6
11
1
The 1950 apportionment originally resulted in the previously fixed House size of 435 representatives; but in
1959, Alaska and Hawaii were both newly admitted to the United States, and each was granted one
representative—temporarily increasing the size of the House to 437. Then the 1960 apportionment reverted
back to the fixed size of 435.
1. How many Representatives currently serve in the House of Representatives?
2. How does a state’s population impact the number of seats a state receives?
11
3. Choose 3 states, and explain what the chart is telling you about its populations and Congressional
representation.
a.
b.
c.
4. Which states have the most Representatives today? The least?
5. Make a prediction-which states will gain Congressional seats (after the results of the 2020 census are
published)? Which will lose?
6. Why does it matter how many seats a particular state will receive relative to other states?
12
The Redistricting Game
Go to http://www.redistrictinggame.org/index.php
1. Click on “About the game” at the top, and summarize
what this game is about. What is it trying to teach?
2. Now click on “Game: Play Game”. Under “Mission 1: Fundamentals”, click on the red “Basic” button.
Let’s make this easy to start out. Follow the directions.
a. What is the overall goal of “Mission 1: Population Equality”? Why is this important?
b. How did redistricting go? What were the biggest challenges? How did the opposition feel
about it (after you “got feedback” on the left of the screen)?
c. Summarize the newspaper article written about your plan. Did anything surprise you?
3. Now go to “Mission 1: Partisan Gerrymandering”. Follow the directions.
a. What is the overall goal of “Mission 2: Partisan Gerrymandering”? Why does understanding
this aspect of redistricting impact elections?
b. How did gerrymandering go? What was tough about it? How did the opposition feel about it
(after you “got feedback” on the left of the screen)?
c. Summarize the newspaper article written about your plan. Did anything surprise you?
4. Now that you’ve played two rounds, have you picked up on the bias of this game? What is the
message it’s trying to send to American citizens? What are your thoughts on this and gerrymandering
in general?
13
5. Gerrymandering of the House of Representatives has aided in the fact that our congressional elections
are not competitive (every 2 years, 90% of members of the HofR are reelected, even though their
approval ratings are abysmal). However, gerrymandering is NOT the only cause here. Using your
book/notes, explain at least 3 reasons why the incumbency effect also plays a huge role. This website
may help: (https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/dollarocracy/02.php)
What is an incumbent?-
3 reasons that the incumbency effect plays a huge role:
A.
B.
C.
Presidential Election Timeline
2008 Presidential
Election-435 Reps, 1/3
of Senate, state and
local elections
2010 off-year election435 Reps, 1/3 of
Senate, state and local
elections
2012 Presidential
Election-435 Reps, 1/3
of Senate, state and
local elections
2014 off-year election435 Reps, 1/3 of
Senate, state and local
elections
2016 Presidential
Election -435 Reps,
1/3 of Senate, state
and local elections
14
Presidential Election Years:
1. January-June= Primary Season. These are “intra party contests.” What is a closed primary? Open?
2. During primary season, the big dilemma of the party out of power is to please party loyalists enough without
alienating the majority of the public. Why does this dilemma exist?
3. What about the party in power (like President Obama in 2012)? During primary season, the party that holds the
_______________________________ usually stays with the incumbent President as the party’s candidate or handpicked successor.
4. Most states have primaries today. Why have more states moved in this direction (and away from party caucuses?)
5. In 2012 Republicans have tried to prevent front-loading by punishing states that move up their dates. Why did they
create this new rule (this is review)?
6. California is tried a new primary system in 2012. It’s called a __________________________________, and it is
where voters are presented with a list of candidates from all parties and voters may switch back and forth between
parties to choose the top two candidates. It may result in two winners of the same party! What do you think about this
type of primary?
7. Once all states have held primaries or caucuses, the delegates from all states and territories gather at the convention
in strategically chosen cities and states to “unify the party.” Both parties discuss party rules, make keynote speeches,
conduct platform debates, formally nominate a candidate, produce a running mate, and the nominee then gives an
acceptance speech. Historically candidates will attempt to “balance the ticket” by selecting a running mate of different
regional and ideological backgrounds. What would be your strategy in selecting a running mate?
15
8. Early September-early November=the general election. This is the final contest between one Republican and one
Democratic candidate. There may be a third party participant like Ross Perot in 1992 or Ralph Nader in 2004 to create a
“spoiler” effect. Why are they thought to “spoil” an election? How can they actually benefit our democracy too?
9. Successful presidential debates do not necessarily lead to a victory for a candidate, as we saw in 2004 between GWB
and John Kerry, or again in 2012 between Romney and Obama (at least the first debate went really well for Romney).
Why not?
10. The cost of advertisement has sky rocketed. Candidates feel like too much of their time is taken up raising more
money instead of being able to actively campaign. Personal attacks are up, and seem to impact voters the most. Why is
this?
16
Practice Qs:
1. Criticisms of the election process include all of the following EXCEPT:
a. Disproportionate attention goes to the early caucuses and primaries.
b. Money plays too big a role.
c. The system allows little room for media involvement.
d. Participation in the primaries is low and not representative of the entire electorate.
2. In order to organize their presidential campaigns effectively, candidates must do all of the following
EXCEPT:
a. Line up a campaign manager who is skilled.
b. Get a fundraiser that raises significant money.
c. Hire a pollster who knows how to choose focus groups.
d. Announce their choice for vice president during the primaries.
e. Get positive media exposure.
3. If presidential candidates accept federal support in the form of matching campaign financing, then
they:
a. are no longer required to disclose their contributions
b. agree to limit their campaign expenditures to an amount prescribed by federal law
c. no longer have any limit to their campaign expenditures
d. are no longer required to disclose how they spend their money
e. no longer can accept PAC money
4. Presidential candidates must file periodic reports with the FEC, listing who contributed money and how
it was spent
a. if they receive matching federal funding
b. if they did not receive matching federal funding
c. regardless of whether or not they receive matching federal funding
d. only if their contributions top $1 million
e. if they receive any kind of PAC money
5. Few developments since the Watergate crisis have generated as much cynicism about government as
the:
a. explosive growth of special interest groups and PACs
b. lack of qualified presidential candidates
c. high turnover rate in the House of Representatives
d. high turnover rate in the Senate
e. difficulty of getting the Senate to approve Supreme Court justices
17
Let the Debates Begin:
ByBob SchiefferCBS NewsOctober 12, 2012, 1:48 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/let-the-debates-begin-57523073/2/
(CBS News) "There you go again . . . "
And here WE go again. The primaries are done, the conventions are over. Now to the debates, when the candidates for president and
vice president come face-to-face, and millions upon millions will be watching.
If the past is a predictor, there will be unforgettable moments, such as Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle, "You are no Jack Kennedy."
Those of us who've made reporting on politics our life's work learned a long time ago, the debates are about more than what the
candidates say.
"Most of the polls - as they are in this case - show that there are very few undecided voters. But there's still a huge number of people
who watch the debates," said PBS' Jim Lehrer. "And the reason they do that is to take the measure of the individual."
Lehrer is the dean of debate moderators - he's been at it for 24 years - and he has put more questions to more candidates than any of
us.
"I've always thought that the vote for the presidency was different than any other vote we cast," said Bob Schieffer. "The presidency, it
seems to me, comes down to, 'Who do we feel most comfortable with in time of crisis?'"
"That's exactly right," said Lehrer. "Bob Gates, the former Defense Secretary, said, 'Temperament. There's such a thing as presidential
temperament. You can smell it. You can feel it. It's there. And some people have it, and some people don't.'"
Considering the importance we place on debates, it's hard to believe they're fairly new to American politics. They began just 52 years
ago, with Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy's televised encounter on September 26, 1960.
"Some people who listened to it on the radio thought that Nixon won," said Schieffer. "But it was generally conceded that people who
watched it on television were pretty convinced that Jack Kennedy won."
"Absolutely," said Lehrer. "What you say is important, but what you look like can be also as important. In Nixon's case, he perspired.
He had the audacity to perspire during the presidential debate!"
Lehrer said that, as a consequence, candidates now negotiate how cold the debate venue will be. "It's like a meat locker, and that's the
reason . . . nobody wants to perspire because of what happened to Nixon'!" he laughed.
Even a great communicator like Franklin Roosevelt knew the risk of debating. He was a heavy favorite to win reelection in 1940, so
when Republican Wendel Wilkie demanded a debate, FDR ignored it. He knew that just appearing on the same stage with the
president enhanced the stature of any challenger.
It's hard to know where we'd be today if Nixon had followed Roosevelt's lead in 1960, but once burned, Nixon never debated again nor did Lyndon Johnson, who had preceded him to the White House. So there were no debates in 1964, 1968 or 1972.
Only after his poll numbers dropped did Gerald Ford agree to debate challenger Jimmy Carter in 1976.
"I asked Ford, 'Well, why did you agree to the debate?'" said Lehrer. "He said, 'It was my only hope.' He was down and out because of
having pardoned Nixon. That's why he was so far down. And he said, 'I needed to do something. And if I could get Jimmy Carter to
debate me, I might have a chance.'"
Yet, Ford ended up hurting his chances with this statement: "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be
under a Ford administration."
18
It was a serious gaffe in the Cold War era when the Soviet Iron Curtain extended across Europe.
But it made for compelling TV: Each of the Ford-Carter debates drew in more than 60 million viewers.
The public had spoken, and politicians heard the call: Debates were here to stay.
"No candidate could ever get away without debating in a national form on television now," said Lehrer.
In our highly-partisan era, they're maybe the one thing that can get tens of millions from both parties to sit down and hear what the
other side has to say.
And with just the candidates speaking for themselves, all the business of negative advertising and campaign spending that have
dominated recent elections fades into the background.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar on American elections with the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of
Pennsylvania , said debates "dampen down some of the effect of money and politics.
"When we institutionalized debates as a format, we're communicating to the world as well as to the country that we practice what we
preach. We believe that there's value in the clash of competing ideas. We believe that the public should judge individuals based on
what it is they say and how they argue and how they respond to each other, not simply on the way in which they advertise to us."
Even so, the reality is no candidate steps before the cameras without serious preparation - which is where Brett O'Donnell comes in.
"You know, most candidates look at political debates like 'Jeopardy,' said O'Donnell. "They tend to, you know, want to answer every
question and get every question right, thinking that, you know, 'I'll take the economy for $500.' And it's more than that; it's a
messaging opportunity."
O'Donnell made tiny Liberty University into a debating power house. Now he teaches politicians debate technique. He's helped
George W. Bush and John McCain, and he coached Mitt Romney during the primaries.
"The object is to capture the imagination of both the audience and the press, to make sure your message gets covered," O'Donnell said.
"And one way to do that is to have a clever line."
Time and again, Ronald Reagan proved that no one could deliver a one-liner better, like, "Are you better off now than you were four
years ago?"
And with these words - "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience" - Reagan turned
concern that he'd gotten old and dotty on its head. Challenger Walter Mondale said later, "When I heard that, I knew I had lost."
For all the prep, sometimes it's the little things that voters remember. When George H.W. Bush kept looking at his watch in 1992, it
was clear he wanted to be somewhere else.
When asked what he would consider a successful debate, Lehrer replied, "That the things that mattered - not necessarily the things that
are in the headlines the last 24 hours before the debate, [and] to hell with the candidates and to hell with the moderators and to hell
with the handlers and to hell with the pundits - but the things that the voters care the most about have been discussed, and have been
discussed in a way that they can now understand what the differences are. That's what these debates are really all about."
1. Remember, why was the 1960 debate so important?
2. Should candidates be required to debate?
19
Financing Campaigns: Vocabulary
For each term/concept below, highlight, annotate, and be ready to work with these terms. Look up
any words inside the definitions so that your foundation will be laid when we discuss these in class.
Your book may have touched on them in your textbook, but a lot has changed since 2004 when your
book was inked.
Advocacy ads: Ads criticizing or supporting a candidate's stand on an issue.
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (aka McCain-Feingold Law): A bipartisan act that
banned “soft” money; banned advocacy ads (those criticizing or supporting a candidate's stand on an
issue) 60 days before an election; and mandated contribution limits and donor disclosure
requirements.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: A U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled in a 5-4
decision in January 2010 to allow corporations and unions to use their general treasuries to pay for
political advertisements that expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate. The decision also
allowed nonprofit groups to use corporate or union funds to air electioneering communications within
30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election, which had previously been prohibited
since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA): 1972 legislation that required candidates to disclose sources
of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures.
Federal Election Commission: An independent regulatory agency created in 1975 whose members
are appointed by the president; responsible for overseeing campaign financing, including who can
give money, how much they can give, and how donations are disclosed.
“Hard money”: The regulated contributions from an individual or PAC to a federal candidate, party
committee or other PAC, where the money is used for a federal election; subject to contribution limits
and prohibitions and can be used to directly support or oppose a candidate running for federal office.
Independent expenditures: Advertisements that expressly advocate the election or defeat of specific
candidates and are aimed at the electorate as a whole.
Individual contributions: Limited, regulated contributions made by an individual to a candidate’s
campaign committee, a PAC or a political party.
Issue ads: political communications, usually in the form of advertising, that are framed around an
issue. Issue advocacy does not specifically instruct the audience to vote for or against a candidate.
Lobbyists: Individuals who try to influence how public policy is created and how members of
Congress will vote. Lobbyists must register with the Senate and House, and must disclose who hired
20
them, how much they are paid, what issues or bills they are lobbying on, and what federal agencies
they are contacting.
Persuasive appeals: Devices specifically used to persuade the audience; other rhetorical devices are
used to reveal persuasive appeals.
Political Action Committee (PAC): A political committee that raises and spends money to elect or
defeat candidates; restricted in how much money can be used to support specific candidates.
Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Under the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, presidential candidates can receive government subsidies if they accept
spending limits. Currently, they can obtain as much as $20 million in public subsidies. To be eligible
to receive the public funds, the candidate must limit spending to the amount of the grant and may not
accept private contributions for the campaign. In addition, candidates may spend up to $50,000 from
their own personal funds. During the 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama and John McCain both
refused to accept public funding for the presidential primary campaigns but McCain did accept public
funding during the general campaign.
Rhetorical devices: any manipulation of language, especially in persuasion.
“Soft money”: Unlimited and unregulated contributions to national political parties.
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission: A federal court decision in March 2010 that found
that it was unconstitutional to impose a contribution limit on groups whose sole purpose was funding
independent expenditures.
SuperPAC (independent expenditure-only committee): A type of political action committee that may
raise and spend unlimited sums of money for the sole purpose of making independent expenditures
to support or oppose political candidates. Unlike traditional political action committees, super PACs
may not donate money directly to candidates.
Tillman Act: An act that specifically prohibited direct contributions from corporations and businesses
to political parties and election committees; the first law on the books to specifically address
campaign funding on the federal level.
21
Task: Choose 3 vocab words from above that relate to each other in some way, and analyze their
connections. In other words, talk about why these ideas matter, in relation with each other. Write a
small paragraph below, and underline your key words as you write.
22
QW: Respond to the statement- “The current campaign finance structure
works for the country” with a 1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-disagree, 4-strongly
disagree, or 5-I don’t know. Pick your number, and explain why below.
Dollars & Votes: 2012 Election: Viewing Questions
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/thenews/thevote/story.php?id=19461&package_id=634)
1. Describe the type of organizations expected to spend the most money in this year’s election.
2. Explain why Congress outlawed corporate contributions for all Congressional and Presidential
campaigns after Teddy Roosevelt’s 1904 election.
3. Describe what the Tillman Act called for and who or what it and its subsequent amendments
affected most.
4. Describe the balance Congress has to find when passing campaign reform legislation.
5. Explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and
describe the Court’s reasoning.
23
6. President Obama was a critic of the Court’s decision in Citizens United. However his campaign
committee announced that a Super PAC would be formed to assist in President Obama’s reelection
in 2012. Describe the campaign committee’s reasoning for this decision.
7. Explain why it might be an advantage to Super PACs to not have to disclose their donor list.
8. In your opinion, does money equal influence in politics?
9. Based on what you have learned, how has your opinion about your QW changed?
Campaign Finance Reform History-Using the subsequent readings, fill out the organizer and
answer the two summative questions.
Reading #1
Intro: While fundraising amongst constituents for presidential races is not new within the history of the
United States, campaign finance reform has evolved so much in the past ten years that the political
fundraising efforts in the 2012 presidential election is a news breaker itself. As of August 2012, Mitt
Romney raised $524.2 million and President Obama raised $587.7 million for their reelection
campaigns. Though these totals are large amounts of money, they do not even include the indirect
contributions from the newly-created Super PAC’s, which formed after the landmark 2010 Supreme
Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Brief History of Campaign Finance: Campaign financial restrictions truly started in 1907 with the
Tillman Act, the legislation that specifically prohibited direct contributions from corporations and
businesses to political parties and election committees. Though the legislation was the first of its kind,
it contained loopholes that allowed businesses to give money to their employees, who were then
supposed to donate that money as individual contributions to the candidates the business owners
wanted to support. Because of loopholes similar to these in later legislation, the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1972 was passed with the stipulation that candidates had to disclose sources
of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. Soon after, the Federal Election Commission
24
(or FEC) was created to monitor campaign spending.
In 2002, Senator John. McCain and Senator Russ Feingold worked together to sponsor the Bipartisan
Campaign Finance Reform Act (also known as the McCain-Feingold Law). One of the first major
campaign finance laws in 25 years, the McCain-Feingold Law banned soft money donations for
political parties and made it illegal for individual political candidates to seek soft money donations. It
also deemed it illegal for special interest groups to spend soft money on so-called “issue ads” that
identify a specific federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary
election.
In 2008, a conservative nonprofit organization called Citizens United created a documentary
that contained negative political commentary against Hillary Clinton and her 2008 presidential
campaign. The FEC prohibited Citizens United from broadcasting the 90-minute video, or from
running advertisements for it. Citizens United took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court,
citing that it was the company’s right to voice its members’ opinions. In January of 2010, the Supreme
Court ruled by 5-4 that the government could not ban political spending by corporations during
campaign elections because it interferes with First Amendment rights of free speech. After this ruling,
corporations were allowed to spend unlimited amounts to support a candidate, provided that the
corporations were not working directly with the candidate. The decision also allowed nonprofit groups
to use corporate or union funds to air electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary
election and 60 days of a general election.
In March of 2010, a similar decision was reached in the Speechnow.org v. Federal Election
Commission court case: the Supreme Court granted corporations and unions the ability to use their
general treasury money for political expenditures. In the wake of both decisions, scores of new
groups --often called super PACs --declared to the Federal Election Commission their intent to raise
unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals. Super PAC differ from regular PACs
because PACs, or political action committees, are restricted in how much money they can donate to a
specific candidate. While Super PAC can raise funds indefinitely as long as they don't specifically
donate their money to a candidate or political party. PACs can only donate $5,000 to a candidate and
only $15,000 to a political party during an election.
Reading #2
CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION BRIEF
Topic: First Amendment, Commercial Speech
Appellant: Citizens United
Appellee: Federal Election Commission
Opinion: 558 U.S. ___ (2010), Thursday, January 21, 2010
Facts of the Case:
Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.
In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of
restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or
labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311
25
require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is
not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.
Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when
applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also
unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances.
The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not
unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that
determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express
advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section
203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not
unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the
McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an
unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those
circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell
v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the
speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the
First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot
be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts
and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens
dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor. The
majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true
because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure
requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a
"governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending
resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it
upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care
with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues
when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle
the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate
concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens'
understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations
are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations'
ability to spend money during local and national elections.
Decisions
5 votes for Citizens United (Kennedy writing for the majority, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas,
Alito). 4 votes against (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor). Source: The Oyez Project, Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission , 558 U.S. ___ (2010); (http://oyez.org/cases/20002009/2008/2008_08_205)
26
Pros and Cons of Citizens United
1. Should private companies, corporations, and labor unions be able to give as much money as
they wish to support candidates sympathetic to their interests? List three arguments, in favor,
and three in opposition, to the free flow of money from these sources to individual candidates.
2. Do you believe these companies, corporations, industries, and labor unions hope to receive
political favors in return for the financial contributions? If so, what form might they take?
3. Do limitations on campaign contributions from individuals who represent certain companies,
industries, and labor unions infringe upon their First Amendment freedom of speech? Explain.
27
How are candidates today financing their elections? Follow the money!
QW: Predict-Where will presidential candidates get most of their money?
Howard Dean was the first candidate to effectively use the _______________ to raise money.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3869597/clip-capitol-hill-stories
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/where-andwhen-do-candidates-raise-money-an-awesome-visualization/258083/
In the lab/library or with the chromebooks, go to www.opensecrets.org, go to the “Politicians and
Elections” tab, and select “Presidential.”
Select your preferred 2012 presidential candidate. Complete the following questions, and return back
to your QW to analyze your prediction.
1. Presidential candidate’s name:
2. Total amount raised to date:
3. Amount contributed by political action committee (PACs):
4. Money contributed by candidate (self-financing is ok-freedom of speech thanks to Buckley v
Valeo):
5. How much “cash on hand” does the candidate have to spend in the balance of this election
cycle?
6. How does the candidate’s fundraising totals compare with his/her competitors?
7. What is the balance between small and large individual contributions to the candidate? Why
might this matter?
8. Have any Super PACs been formed in support of this candidate? List them and the money
they have raised to date.
9. How complete are the candidate’s financial disclosures to date? Why is transparency around
campaign finance sources and expenditures important to voters?
10. Peruse the candidate’s personal finances. Is there anything here that captures your attention?
Explain. To what degree are personal financial records important in candidate selection?
28
11. How do we keep track of all of this info? The Federal Election Commission! Watch this short
video, and take notes on the history, the commission of the FEC, and which core democratic
value you think the FEC BEST reflects. http://www.fec.gov/info/mission.shtml
12. Watch this Times Topic video clip. Explain your stance on this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXGEictCR8k&feature=youtu.be
13. Wrapping up all campaign financing-What is working for the candidates, and what should be
reformed?
Practice M/C Qs
1. Campaign finance reform efforts have been minimal because
a. PACs have actually increased contributions
b. the issue of free speech has limited restrictions
c. lobby and interest groups seem to find a way around the controls
d. those that win from current systems see no reason to change
e. all of the above
2. Which of the following elections legally uses federal money during campaigns?
a. gubernatorial elections
b. local elections
c. presidential elections
d. congressional elections
e. none of the above
3. “Soft money” is the term used for campaign donations that are
a. raised through high-priced dinners involving big-name party figures
b. solicited through the Internet via individual candidate websites
c. gained by using the franking privilege
d. unlimited in amount, hard to trace, and hard to follow in terms of how a major party uses
the funding
e. placed on individuals within campaign finance law restrictions
29
Chapter 11 Overview
Vocab
Interest group
Incentive
Solidary incentive
Material incentive
Purposive incentive
Ideological interest group
Public-interest lobby
Social movement
Political cue
Ratings
Intro: Use the context of the intro to explain why you think interest groups are sometimes called lobby
groups.
Explaining Proliferation
1. List and explain the three reasons why interest groups are so common in the US.
a.
b.
c.
2. What are interest groups like in most European countries?
The Birth of Interest Groups
3. Explain what groups developed/ why the following decades are considered booms for interest
groups.
a. 1770s
b. 1830s and 40s
30
c. 1860s
d. 1880s and 90s
e. 1960s and 70s
4. List and describe the four factors that led to the rise of interest groups:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Kinds of Organizations
5. What is an interest group trying to do?
31
6. Compare and contrast institutional interests and membership interests in the Venn diagram
below.
7. Why join an interest group? List and describe the three main reasons people join and then
discuss which one you think is the biggest reason and why.
8. What do membership organizations rely on?
32
9. Summarize the section “Influence of the Staff”
10. What is a “public interest Law Firm”? Give examples (pg 272).
11. What is a think tank? Give examples (pg. 273).
Interest Groups and Social Movements
12. How is a social movement different than an interest group? How are they related to interest
groups?
13. Summarize each of the following social movements. Include who, what, where when and why
for each one.
a. The Environmental Movement
b. The Feminist Movement
c. The Union movement
33
Funds for Interest groups
14. For each way interest groups are funded, explain if you think that is a fair or good way for them
to get money.
a. Foundation Grants
b. Federal Grants and Contracts
c. Direct Mail
15. What is bias? Analyze the role of bias in understanding interest groups.
The Activities of Interest Groups
16. How do interest groups inform others? Who exactly do they inform?
17. Draw a political cartoon below that illustrates the idea of “grassroots lobbying”.
34
18. Summarize the section “Public Support: The Rise of New Politics”.
19. How did the 1973 FEC regulations impact the role of money and interest groups? How did
interest groups change in response?
20. Explain what is meant by the “revolving door”. What is the problem with this?
21. Read the “trouble” section. Write something below that will help you remember what you read.
35
22. List the ways interest groups are regulated. Next to each regulation, explain what this
regulation is for (why have it?). (you may not need all the rows)
Regulation
Why we have it
Practice ch. 11 IG Qs
1. The two periods in U.S. history in which the number of interest groups expanded most rapidly
were
A. 1790-1810 and 1970-1990.
B. 1860-1880 and 1950-1970.
C. 1900-1920 and 1960-1980.
D. 1920-1940 and 1950-1970.
E. 1800-1820 and 1940-1960.
2. The formation of antislavery organizations in the 1830s and 1840s was an example of interest
groups forming as a result of
A. government policy.
B. the emergence of talented leadership.
C. the enlargement of governmental responsibilities.
D. broad economic developments.
E. legislative capitulation.
3. The US tobacco industry is represented in Washington by a strong lobby that seeks to influence
public policy regarding the use of tobacco. This lobby is most accurately referred to as a(n)
A. membership interest.
B. solidary group.
C. institutional interest.
D. public-interest lobby.
E. referenced interest.
36
4. The National Association of Science Teachers offers its members reduced rates on automobile
rentals. Such benefits to members are called ___________ benefits.
A. solidary
B. material
C. purposive
D. party
E. concurrent
5. All of the following activities are specifically forbidden by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
except:
A. bribery.
B. refusal of a president to disclose income from stocks and bonds.
C. employment of a former government official by a lobbying group.
D. outside employment by a government official if such employment might create a conflict of interest.
E. solicitation of funds for the performance of duties.
Answers: 1-C, 2-B, 3-C, 4-B, 5-C
QW: Make a Venn Diagram analyzing political parties relative to
interest groups.
37
Interest groups and lobbyists-helpful or hurtful? Let’s debate.
Article #1: Corruption, American Style
Con men, swindlers and cheaters pay bribes. Sophisticates hire lobbyists because lobbyists get better, more lasting results while only
rarely landing in the slammer. We know intuitively that bribery and lobbying are related, and there are reams of academic papers that
try to draw the line between legitimate issue advocacy and corruption. President Barack Obama isn’t buying it. As he swore in his new
staff, he banned them from future employment lobbying the White House, “for as long as I’m president.”
Economists and sociologists don’t tend to spend a lot of time arguing in favor of illegal activities like bribing bureaucrats, so their
efforts tend to come down in defense of the K Street bandits. The common argument is that bribery happens in developing economies
where the rule of law is questionable, while lobbying is a more civilized activity that brings economic benefits.
Bard Harstad of the Kellogg School of Management and Jakob Svensson of Stockholm University have approached the problem as
one between developing and developed economies. But let’s set aside the debate over third- and first-world corruption. Narco states,
oligarchies, religious and secular dictatorships are ruled by graft because power and influence are traded in secret.
What’s telling about the Harstad and Svensson paper is that in an open society like the U.S., our brightest minds are unable to draw
meaningful distinctions between handing someone an envelope full of cash and flooding a senator’s campaign war chest, except to
point out that lobbying is far more effective. A briber wants a to circumvent the law. A lobbyist wants to change it.
The fact that laws affect everyone supposedly makes lobbying more legitimate, since the lobbyist isn’t typically asking for special
treatment the way a briber does. But maybe that’s the problem. Someone who pays a bribe might be rich, powerful and dangerous, but
they’re also uniquely vulnerable. They open themselves to extortion by the corrupt official they’re using, for example. Harstad and
Svensson write: “Promises by individual bureaucrats not to ask (or extort) bribes in the future are not credible, since such contracts
cannot be written when corruption is illegal and because firms deal with different officials over time.”
The lobbyist takes no such risk. The lobbyist’s goal is to make the government official depend on them for financing and support in
elections. A bribe works once. Cajoling or inducing a congressional representative to help get a law changed is the gift that keeps on
giving.
In his book Knowledge and Decisions, economist Thomas Sowell defends lobbyists as people who have acquired a great deal of
technical knowledge so that they’re better informed than the general public about whatever issue they care about most. They then
become, as Sowell describes, a powerful force in government because “reform through democratic legislation requires either ‘public
consensus or a powerful minority lobby.’” Sowell defends this influence since it comes from knowledge fairly gained and deployed.
But the power of the lobbyist is far greater than the power of the briber. A powerful lobbyist can get laws changed even if there’s no
public consensus to do so, and yet those laws still apply to everyone.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, doesn’t make a distinction
between the two activities. When asked by e-mail, “What’s the real difference between me bribing a customs agent so that I can bring
a banned substance into the country or me contributing money to a senator and then cajoling him into making the substance legal for
import?” Reich answered, “Frankly, I don’t see much difference. A bribe is a bribe. People authorized only to act in the public interest
may not use their office for private gain. Period.”
In the recently published Creative Capitalism, a discussion of corporate philanthropy and social responsibility, Reich argues that the
only thing corporations can do to make life better for the people around them is to “refrain from flooding Washington and any other
seat of government with so many lobbyists and campaign contributions so as to stymie democracy.”
Bribery is easily regulated because we all know it’s a crime. Somebody is trying to break a rule. Getting rules changed, on the other
hand, is part of the democratic system and our feelings about lobbyists depends on who they’re lobbying for. The novel Thank You
38
For Smoking is a funny book because it’s about the misadventures of an unlikable tobacco lobbyist. Make the main character a
lobbyist for furry little baby seals and it’s somehow less amusing.
When Obama first entered politics, he took money from lobbyists. He gradually changed his mind and when he ran in both the
primary and general elections in 2008 he said he wouldn’t take money from lobbyists. But he meant only federally registered
lobbyists. He had certainly taken money from interest groups that operated at the state level and he had taken money from people who
lobbied for only one company, trade or interest group (such people are, in the Byzantine regulatory world of registered lobbyists, not
technically lobbyists).
Obama’s recent declaration that nobody on the White House staff is allowed to work on regulations or contracts that touch on areas
where they had previously worked as lobbyists caused a minor kerfuffle because, of course, a couple of his staff picks do have some
lobbying experience and, of course, they’re best qualified to work in the areas where they worked as lobbyists. William J. Lynn III,
who Obama wants to have working at the Pentagon, had been a lobbyist for Raytheon . William Corr, who Obama wants at Health and
Human Services, had lobbied for Tobacco Free Kids.
The only way to remove lobbyists and their corruptive influence is for companies and interest groups to voluntarily disarm and work
on building a public consensus in support of their causes or to elect and appoint people who are entirely incorruptible. Obviously these
will never happen. But perhaps those living in rich, Westernized nations should be grateful that political corruption occurs in the
twilight world of lobbyists, where they can at least catch a glimpse of the action, rather than the midnight black deals struck daily in
the poorer sections of the world.
Michael Maiello is editor of Intelligent Investing for Forbes.
Summary-
Article #2: Jamie Dimon: Lobbying is good, Washington is bad
By Charles Riley @CNNMoney April 4, 2012: 6:22 PM ET
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is not a fan of Washington -- at the moment.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon defended his
bank's lobbying practices on Wednesday, writing in his annual letter to shareholders
that the firm's activities are wholly appropriate and that ham-handed government
officials are slowing down the recovery.
Dimon said it is JPMorgan's responsibility to "stay actively engaged" in "policy
debates that will affect our company" and that doing so is a "constitutional right."
"You read constantly that banks are lobbying regulators and elected officials as if this is inappropriate," Dimon wrote. "We don't look
at it that way."
39
"It is vital for officials and regulators to have input from people within our businesses who understand the intricacies of how financial
markets operate and the consequences of certain policy decisions," Dimon said.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks lobbying expenditures, JPMorgan (JPM, Fortune 500) spent more
than $7.5 million on lobbying in 2011.
That's just a couple hundred thousand less than Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), but about $2.5 million more than Citigroup (C,
Fortune 500), and $4.4 million more than Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), which spent $3.2 million on lobbying.
In total, the broader coalition of commercial banks spent just over $60 million on lobbying in 2011. Companies in other sectors, like
General Electric (GE, Fortune 500), Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) and Boeing (BA, Fortune 500), spent far more.
Dimon said that the negative connotations associated with lobbying shouldn't apply, and that his firm is often solicited by government
officials for advice and consultation.
"Our input," Dimon wrote, "as often as not, is at the request of government officials who want to draw upon the expertise of our
executives who work in the markets every day."
It's no secret that bank lobbyists have flooded the hallways of the Capitol in recent years as they seek to influence the torrent of rules
and regulations that Congress and government agencies are working to implement in the wake of the financial crisis.
Dimon is no fan of the way rules are being written.
"We have hundreds of rules, many of which are uncoordinated and inconsistent with each other," he wrote. "While legislation
obviously is political, we now have allowed regulation to become politicized, which we believe will likely lead to some bad
outcomes."
Dimon reserved special ire for the so-called Volcker Rule, the part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law intended to force banks out
of proprietary trading.
Dimon said the proposed regulations are of "mind-numbing complexity" and that "even senior regulators now recognize that the
current proposed rules are unworkable and will be impossible to implement."
Dimon's larger point, however, is that lawmakers and regulators are producing bad policy.
He specifically cited the debt ceiling fiasco as an example of a policy that "made the recovery worse than it otherwise would have
been."
"When economists 20 years from now write the book on the recovery," Dimon said, "it may well be entitled, 'It Could Have Been
Much Better.'"
Summary-
40
Article #3: Lobbying for good will put business and its leaders on the
right side of history
Corporate lobbying has a bad reputation but as the actions of past business leaders show, there is another side to the
story
Are corporate lobbyists akin to Lord of the Rings' Grima Wormtongue?
Paul Monaghan
Tuesday 10 June 2014 09.00 EDT
For many, corporate lobbyists are akin to Lord of the Rings' Grima Wormtongue –
quietly corrupting the ear of government with self-interest and accommodation with
wrongdoing. The tobacco sector's 50-year conspiracy (pdf) to resist regulation, the chemical industry's routine attempts to keep
products of proven toxicity on the shelves and fossil fuel's wholesale corruption of politics across the globe attest to why such a
negative perception is warranted.
But there is another side to the story.
There are examples of business and business leaders lobbying for good and making a substantive, positive difference to people and the
planet. In the 19th century it was Cadbury, Lever, Owen and Rowntree. In the 21st century it is Aviva, Gates, Ikea, Khosla, Maersk
Line, Midcounties Co-operative, Moore, Ramsay, Reid, Skoll and a host of others.
The glass is nowhere near half-full: the likes of the US Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope still wield far too much negative
influence. And it doesn't take a great effort to find inconsistencies in the approach of the aforementioned leaders – then again the same
can be said of all of us.
But, there is a small and growing group of companies and business leaders that believe that public policy intervention is an essential
component of the transition to a more sustainable economy. This is not only a positive development, but an absolute requirement for
the world to have a cat in hell's chance of reinvigorating serious progress on issues such as climate change mitigation and trade justice.
Significantly, most NGOs have reached the same conclusion as well, although few dare to shout it too loudly.
Past champions of corporate responsibility are often viewed through the crude lens of philanthropy and how much wealth they
donated. Yet the truly great business leaders throughout history have always grasped that legislative intervention can be a force for
good.
In the 19th century, William Lever's creation of the Port Sunlight garden village to house his company's workers attracted attention the
world over. Lever was also an MP and in his maiden speech called for the state to have a role in the provision of pensions, and later
went on to introduce a private members' bill on the issue. John Cadbury brought chocolate to the masses, while in his spare time he
campaigned against the use of young boys as chimney sweeps. Joseph Rowntree made sure that not all of the trusts he established
were organised as charities (with all their attendant restrictions on politicking) as he wanted them to be able to "search out the
underlying causes" of social ills and if necessary seek to "change the laws of the land."
Today, an emerging group of pioneers has realised that the business case for corporate responsibility will never be strong enough to
support an isolated business in its competition against the unscrupulous. Public policy intervention is required to change the rules and
shift the bar for the allowable lowest common denominator.
The likes of Ikea, Maersk Line and Aviva are rightly well known for their slick advocacy work – which works well in part because it
recognises the need to progress change in unison with campaigning NGOs such as Forum for the Future and WWF.
41
This year, Ikea and Unilever wrote to the UK secretary of state for business, innovation and skills urging the government not to water
down pending EU legislation requiring mandatory sustainability reporting by large business. Both have also been lobbying hard for
meaningful targets to be progressed in the EU's 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy policy.
Maersk Line has been a key player in establishing the Sustainable Shipping initiative, which is seeking "sustainable governance of the
oceans" and is in support of "progressive legislation aimed at significantly improving social, environmental and economic
sustainability across the shipping industry".
Perhaps more significantly, we are now seeing smaller players increasingly enter the arena, such as Co-operative Energy, which last
month helped force a little reported government U-turn on community energy tax relief in the UK.
Similarly, smaller businesses are taking on the big issues of tax avoidance, living wage and sustainable procurement via associations
such as the US Main Street Alliance and the UK Social Economy Alliance. Stories of small businesses marching up to the
headquarters of Microsoft demanding it pays its fair share of taxes could be a sign of things to come.
Lobbying for good is increasingly overriding the cultural aversion that rails against it. Getting on board puts you not only in the
company of some fantastic business leaders down the ages, but also on the right side of history.
Summary-
Article #4: 5 Myths About Lobbyists
By Megan Carpentier
Saturday, May 24, 2008; 12:00 AM
The presidential race turned into a game of hot potato this week, as Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack
Obama tried to bat away accusations of ties to lobbyists. In this game, the candidates are reflecting the views of (or, depending on
your point of view, pandering to) the public. Polls consistently find that a majority of Americans hold lobbyists in low regard, and in
one recent survey more than 70 percent of respondents favored reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in
Washington. I can't argue with the numbers. But as a former lobbyist myself, I can say that McCain and Obama are perpetuating
some misunderstandings and myths about lobbyists. Sure, there are people like Jack Abramoff who have made millions gaming the
system and partnering with corrupt politicians. But there are also plenty of decent, hard-working people who don't bribe Congress
and have never had three martinis for lunch. These, as Dick Wolf would say, are their stories.
Myth 1: Lobbyists are all wealthy fat cats.
Oh, how I wish that were true; I might never have left the profession. Certainly, some lobbyists make out exquisitely. The Post's
Citizen K Street series last year profiled lobbying star Gerald Cassidy, whose personal wealth surpasses $125 million. But many,
many lobbyists toil from morning until night -- checking emails, making phone calls, writing issue papers and, yes, lobbying members
of Congress and their staffers -- for salaries that make it hard to cover the cost of living in Washington. My first lobbying job after
graduate school in 2001 paid $32,000 a year. That's hardly the $145,000-$160,000 (plus bonus) that first-year lawyers can expect at
42
Washington's big firms. It's also only a little more than what a fresh college graduate makes for answering constituent mail in a
congressman's office. But, with more than 30,000 registered lobbyists in Washington, not everyone can be rolling in dough or else
who would do the grunt work?
Myth 2: Lobbyist is shorthand for soulless corporate shill.
Lobbyists get all kinds of flak for being intellectually promiscuous and ethically-lacking, because people assume they work for
whichever, and however many, corporate clients that are willing to pay them. Some lobbyists do have a stable of different corporate
clients. But many lobbyists work in-house. And it's not just corporations that hire them. So do trade associations and consumer groups,
universities and state governments. There's literally a lobbyist for every cause and every issue you can think of, and a bunch of ones
you've never thought of. Most people who lobby focus on a specific set of issues about which they feel pretty strongly. It's hard not to.
Working 60 hours or more a week on an issue you don't care about burns you out. (I tried and failed.) Oh, and even some of those
promiscuous corporate lobbyists also take work for smaller organizations representing issues near and dear to their hearts. Like
everything else in life, nothing is black and white.
Myth 3: Lobbyists don't contribute anything of value to the political system.
Some lobbyists are worthless, I can't argue with that. But most of them do serve a purpose. Thousands of bills are introduced in
Congress each year, hundreds will come up for consideration, and most of them generate very little constituent input. To help
members decide how to vote, it would be awfully inefficient if Congressional staffers reinvented-the-wheel to research every issue.
Instead, they usually try to weigh what different lobbyists with specific knowledge about that issue say. The process often helps
identify why a bill may or may not be in the interest of a district, along with unintended consequences of a particular section.
Myth 4: Lobbyists participate in politics only to help their clients or employer.
The vast majority of lobbyists started life as Congressional or campaign staffers -- that's one reason there's a whole section ethics law
dealing with when former staffers are allowed to lobby. Knowing how Capitol Hill works and the people who work there isn't
something you can pick up from a book or by reading the news, so working there is practically a prerequisite for lobbying. It's one of
the first things you get asked about in a job interview, even years into your lobbying career. But what it means in terms of the kind of
people that end up as lobbyists is that they are passionate about politics. They don't put in time on the Hill because they hope it will
someday lead to a more lucrative lobbying job. Similarly, they don't leave their family and friends for months on the campaign trail
because they hope it will be good for business. They go back to politics because it's addictive, and they can't stay away.
Myth 5: Lobbying is a game of quid pro quo in which campaign contributions are exchanged for votes.
No lobbyists I know expect their political contributions to get them legislative support. There may be a vague hope that giving to a
campaign might get them 15 minutes of face time with a staffer for a legislative pitch. But even maxing out the donation limits -$2,300 for an individual or $5,000 for a Political Action Committee ¿ doesn't get you a ton of attention from a politician who needs
anywhere from several hundred thousand dollars (for Congressional races) or several million dollars (for presidential candidates) each
cycle. A lot of lobbyists have tried to get noticed by becoming so-called bundlers, recruiting donations from other people and turning
over all the checks at once. But with hundreds of bundlers bundling, even that isn't going to get you much attention anymore.
In my experience, most lobbyists give primarily because of the pressure to give. Politicians treat donations as their due, rather than as
a favor for which they asked. And, as when the collection plates comes around in church, no one wants to be caught not tithing. I
would get several of calls and e-mails every day from campaigns and other lobbyists soliciting contributions, even when I didn't work
for an organization with a PAC and made hardly any money. And when Congress was at one point supposedly contemplating banning
lobbyist donations altogether, I heard lots of comments like "ohpleaseohplease let them make it illegal." They didn't.
Megan Carpentier spent seven years as a Washington lobbyist. She now writes for Glamocracy and Jezebel. © 2008 The Washington
Post Company
Summary:
43
What role do IGs play in modern American politics? In what ways can they be helpful to our
democracy, and in what other ways can they be hurtful? Fill out the following organizer and cite
specific quotes, and the article of origin.
Helpful
Hurtful
Have a small debate after sharing out your articles to try to summarize the role. What does your
group say about their impact on our democracy? Does your personal view vary at all?
44
Topics to study:
1. Compare Republican/Democratic Party conventions and delegate apportionment
2. SMD/First Past the Post/plurality vs. PR voting systems
3. Primary (closed, open, semi-closed, blanket) vs. Caucus
4. Coattail effect-define. How have its effects been reduced in recent years?
5. How does a presidential candidate “balance the ticket”? What factors does he/she look
for in a VP running mate?
6. Explain how “pork barrel” spending can be more common in a federal system like ours.
(Pork barrel is a derogatory term referring to appropriation of government spending for
localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's
district)
7. Which techniques of persuasion have been used more and more in recent years?-see
previous unit packet
8. Attempts at Campaign Finance Reform: Have they been successful? Explain.
9. Analyze the role of party loyalists/elite from primaries to the November General
election.
10. Critical Realignment election-define and implications
11. Use of federal $ in presidential elections-who is eligible?
12. Soft vs. Hard $
13. Why was Howard Dean a new type of politician (besides the “Scream”…)
14. Front loading in primaries
15. 2000 presidential election-controversies-see 4, 7, and 8 unit packet
16. Incumbent advantage
17. Changes in the 2010 census (who gained, who lost? See data sheet)
18. Pros and cons to TV time/debates (from perspective of a candidate)
19. Define interest group.
20. What would James Madison and his fellow Federalists have said about interest groups?
21. How do interest groups operate? (lobbyists, positive/negative additions to our political
system, what type is most numerous/powerful, influence peddling, PACs)
22. Bias in media/”spin”
23. FRQ topics:

Census, reapportionment, redistricting, and gerrymandering.

Interest groups vs. Political parties (differences in goals, role in system)
45