1 / 63

C HAPTER 8

C HAPTER 8. The General Election: Campaign Finance and Campaign Strategy. Once the field of candidates has been narrowed through the nomination process, the scene of the party battle shifts to the general election

korbin
Download Presentation

C HAPTER 8

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CHAPTER 8

  2. The General Election: Campaign Finance and Campaign Strategy • Once the field of candidates has been narrowed through the nomination process, the scene of the party battle shifts to the general election • Nominations are intraparty struggles, whereas the general election is an interparty struggle that operates in a different type of political environment • In the general election competition, there is normally a higher level of citizen interest, an expanded electorate, larger campaign expenditures, and greater media exposure

  3. Financing Elections • Although money is not the only critical campaign resource, without money the basics of a campaign are impossible to obtain, since it is needed to purchase a headquarters, consultants and staff, polls, media advertising, and travel • As the technology of campaigning has become more advanced and the electronic media has become an indispensable part of campaigns, campaign costs have escalated dramatically • The escalated cost of campaigns for House and Senate is shown in Table 8.1

  4. Table 8.1. Average Expenditures of House and Senate Candidates, 1986-2004 Source: Federal Election Commission data.

  5. Financing Elections • The level of campaign spending is related to the candidates’ chances of winning and the closeness of the contest • Because of the escalating cost of campaigns, the inevitable differences among candidates in their financial resources, there have been periodic demands for regulation of campaign finance • The resulting statutes have used the following methods to regulate campaign finance: 1. Public disclosure of contributions and expenditures 2. Contribution and expenditure limits 3. Public funding of campaigns

  6. Public Disclosure • The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires that all contributions of $200 or more must be identified and all expenditures of $200 or more must be reported • Candidate Committees must also file periodic preelection reports and a final postelection report with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) • The FEC maintains an online searchable database of candidates, parties, PACs, and donors to increase the transparency of the sources of candidates’ financial support

  7. Contribution and Expenditure Limits • Candidates for federal office may raise money from individuals, political action committees (PACs), and party committees: - Individual contribution limits to federal candidates were doubled after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) from $1,000 to $2,000 per campaign - PACs can give no more than $5,000 to any one candidate per campaign - Parties can give no more than $5,000 per campaign to any one candidate in House elections, and no more than $37,000 per campaign and candidate in Senate elections • In addition to direct contributions, party committees are also authorized to make coordinated expenditures on behalf of the party and its candidates (e.g. for polls, media production, and campaign consultants)

  8. 30 25 20 Millions 15 10 5 0 - 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Democrats Republicans Figure 8.1. Political Party Contributions and Coordinated Expenditures, 1976-2004 Source: Federal Election Commission

  9. Contribution and Expenditure Limits • Although political parties are restricted in terms of how much they may spend to support congressional and senatorial candidates, there are no overall spending limits for the candidates’ organizations • There are also no limits on how much of their own money candidates may spend • Because of concern about the growing number of successful self-financed candidates, the BCRA includes a provision which increases the contribution limits if a candidate’s opponent spends a certain amounts of his or her own money on the campaign

  10. Independent Expenditures, Issue Advocacy, and Soft Money • Independent expenditures are a campaign activity that is mainly the domain of large, well-funded groups such as the NRA, or the AFL-CIO • Issue advocacy involves public advertising of a specific issue, but not directly promoting, or advocating the defeat of a specific candidate, and is not regulated by the FEC, and thus constitutes a loophole around spending limits • The FECA contained major “soft money” loopholes that enabled individuals, unions, and corporations to evade contribution limits by giving large sums to so called “party building” activities

  11. The BCRA: Banning Soft Money and Regulating Issue Advocacy • In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) – the most significant campaign finance legislation since the FECA in 1974 • By mandating that the national party committees could only raise and spend money subject to contribution limits, the BCRA effectively eliminated the use of soft money by the parties • Under the BCRA, labor unions or corporations may not contribute to a committee that pays for issue- advocacy advertising identifying a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election • The BCRA also requires all candidates, interest groups, and parties to include a statement of responsibility for their broadcast advertisements

  12. 700 600 500 400 Raised (Millions) 300 200 100 0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Democrats Republicans Hard Money Soft Money Figure 8.2. Party Fund-Raising of Hard and Soft Money, 1992-2004 Source: Federal Election Commission

  13. Political Parties after the BCRA • Given the recent dependence on soft money contributions and issue-advocacy advertisements, changes made by the BCRA threatened to undermine the health of national party organizations • Both parties responded to the BCRA by increasing their emphasis on soliciting contributions subject to limits, which led to significant increases in contributions (Figure 8.3)

  14. 180 $165.77 $157.09 160 140 120 Amount Raised (Millions) 100 $91.05 80 $60.85 $59.49 60 $43.35 40 $12.66 20 $11.04 0 2000 2004 2000 2004 DNC RNC Contributions Less Than $200 Maximum Contributions Figure 8.3. Party Fund-Raising from Small and Large Donors, 2000 and 2004 Source: Federal Election Commission

  15. Political Parties after the BCRA • Given the recent dependence on soft money contributions and issue-advocacy advertisements, changes made by the BCRA threatened to undermine the health of national party organizations • Both parties responded to the BCRA by increasing their emphasis on soliciting contributions subject to limits, which led to significant increases in contributions (Figure 8.3) • The BCRA provided the parties with the ability to spend unlimitedly on behalf of their candidates • The BCRA also eliminated the transfer of large amounts of soft money from national to state parties

  16. PACs and 527s • Political action committees (PACs) are a type of “political committee” with the right to solicit and accumulate funds for distribution to candidates • Prior to the 1960s PACs were largely a labor union phenomenon, but statutory changes in the 1970s spurred an explosion in the number of PACs

  17. Figure 8.4. The Growth of Political Action Committees Source: Federal Election Commission

  18. PACs and 527s • Political action committees (PACs) are a type of “political committee” with the right to solicit and accumulate funds for distribution to candidates • Prior to the 1960s PACs were largely a labor union phenomenon, but statutory changes in the 1970s spurred an explosion in the number of PACs • Not only the number of PACs has increased, but also their share of the escalating cost of campaigns • One of the most striking characteristics of PAC contribution patterns to House and Senate campaigns is their preference for incumbents

  19. $350.00 $300.00 $250.00 Amount Contributed (Millions) $200.00 Incumbents Open Seats Challengers $150.00 $100.00 $50.00 $0.00 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Figure 8.5. Amount of PAC Contributions to Incumbents, Challengers, and Open Seat Candidates in House and Senate Elections, 1990-2004 Source: Federal Election Commission

  20. $140.00 $120.00 $100.00 $80.00 Amount Contributed (Millions) $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Democrats Republicans Figure 8.6. PAC Contributions Going to Republican and Democratic Candidates for the House and Senate, 1990-2004

  21. PACs and 527s • 527 committees are groups existing under section 527 of the tax code, which are tax-exempt and may engage in political activities, but cannot expressly advocate for or against candidates for federal office • Before the 2004 campaign, most 527s were tied to interest groups that also maintained PACs, but in 2004, new 527s emerged that were not necessarily tied to existing interest groups • The new 527 committees received significant funding in the form of large contributions from wealthy individuals, many of which had previously been contributors of soft money to the national parties

  22. Public Financing of Elections • The FECA authorizes public funding of general election campaigns for those presidential candidates who qualify and wish to accept the federal subsidy • A candidate who accepts public funding must agree to restrict expenditures to the amount of the federal grant and forego all private fund-raising • Since the public-funding features of the FECA took effect in 1976, every major-party candidate has chosen to accept public funding of his campaign • Clearly, the use of public funding in presidential elections has tended to equalize the resources available to the Republican and Democratic parties

  23. The Electoral College • The election of an American president is not a direct popular vote, but rather an indirect election process in which the voters select electors who in turn make the actual choice of a president • In designing this system, the Founders envisioned the presidential electors as a council of wise men who would render an independent judgment on the best person to hold the nation’s highest office • The founders also envisioned a nonpartisan selection process, but the contests for president early became highly partisan, where competing parties run slates of candidates for the positions of presidential electors

  24. Allocation of Electoral Votes among the States • Each state’s allocation of electoral votes is determined by its total number of senators and representatives in Congress (DC is entitled 3 votes) • In every state, the candidate who receives a plurality of the state popular vote for president receives all of that state’s electoral votes (Maine and Nebraska use a different system) • To be elected president, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes in the Electoral College (i.e. 270 of the total 538 electoral votes) • If no candidate receives a majority, the winner is chosen among the three candidates who received the largest number of electoral votes by the newly elected House of Representatives

  25. Electoral College Tendency to Exaggerate the Popular-Vote Margin of the Winning Candidate • In four instances, the presidential candidate who was the winner of the popular vote failed to gain a majority in the Electoral College • Most public discussion of the Electoral College has focused upon this possibility, but because it has occurred so rarely, Electoral College reform has not been of great concern, but the issue was sparked after the most recent instance – the 2000 election • The most striking example of the extent to which the margin of victory may vary was in 1980, when Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote and 90.0% of the electoral vote (Figure 8.7)

  26. 120 97.5 100 90.9 79.2 80 70.4 68.7 58.9 Percent 55.2 60 53.4 53.2 50.7 50.7 50.1 50.04 49.2 47.9 43 40 20 0 1976 Carter 1980 Reagan 1984 Reagan 1988 Bush 1992 Clinton 1996 Clinton 2000 Bush 2004 Bush (Dem.) (Rep.) (Rep.) (Rep.) (Dem.) (Dem.) (Rep.) (Rep.) Percent of Popular Vote Percent of Electoral Vote Figure 8.7. Winning Candidate’s Percent of Popular and Electoral Vote, 1976-2004 Source: Office of the Federal Register.

  27. Encouraging Two-Party Politics • The Electoral College system works to the advantage of the two major parties and to the detriment of minor parties • The combination of a winner-take-all system to determine the allocation of electoral votes and the requirement of a majority in the Electoral College makes it almost impossible for third parties to win a presidential election • Although unable to win, third parties may garner votes that may otherwise have gone to one of the major-party candidates, and may thus have a significant influence on the outcomes of elections

  28. Big State versus Small State Advantages • Small states are mathematically overrepresented in the Electoral College because of their over- representation in the House and the Senate • Because of the winner-take-all system, however, it is the large, populous states that mainly benefit from the Electoral College • This means that narrow victories in large states yield a much higher return in terms of electoral votes than do large pluralities in small states (Table 8.3) • Without carrying at least some of these states it is almost impossible for a candidate to be elected

  29. Table 8.3. The Impact of State Size on the Electoral College (based on 2000 census figures)

  30. Partisan Implications: The GOP “Lock” on the Electoral College Is Picked in 1992 and 1996 • In the presidential elections of 1968, 1972, and in the 1980s, Republican strength in the South and in the Mountain states led to a widespread belief that the GOP had a “lock” on the Electoral College, enabling them to focus their campaigns on competitive states • In 1988 Bush carried fourteen states with only 55 percent or less of the popular vote, and in 1992, a sufficient swing of the national sentiment away from the GOP enabled the Democrats to pick the “lock” • Although the 1992 and 1996 election shattered to notion of the GOP’s domination of the Electoral College, the South and West continued to constitute the party’s critical base of support (Figure 8.8)

  31. Number of Times Clinton Won State Twice (29) Once (5) Zero (16) Figure 8.8. Democratic Electoral Victories, 1992 and 1996

  32. Tight Electoral College Competition in 2000 and 2004 • With the Republicans winning 271 electoral votes and the Democrats 266 in 2000, the nation witnessed the closest Electoral College contest in over a century, and the 2004 election was close as well • This narrow division between the two major parties made clear that in the current era neither party has a “lock” on the Electoral College • Recent elections demonstrate that the Republican Electoral College base is the Mountain, Plains, and southern states, while the Democratic base is in the Northeast, West Coast, and industrial states of the Midwest, providing the potential for highly competitive contests for Electoral College majorities (Figure 8.9)

  33. Number of Times Gore/Kerry Won State Twice (18) Once (3) Zero (29) Figure 8.9. Republican Electoral College Victories, 2000 and 2004

  34. Reform: Direct Popular Vote versus the Electoral College • Most of the criticism of the Electoral College has been concentrated upon the possibility that the winner of the popular vote might not win the electoral vote and on the “undemocratic” character of the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes • Therefore, the great appeal of proposals for direct popular vote is that such a system would assure victory to the winner of the poplar vote • One effect of switching to a direct popular vote system of election would be to reduce the current special importance of the large states, making votes equally important across states

  35. Reform: Direct Popular Vote versus the Electoral College (continued) • One concern is that if a simple plurality of the popular vote is required for election, third-party candidates would still have little chance of winning • Another concern is the possibility that in a plurality system, a candidate can be elected with less than 40 percent of the vote – a solution would be to require a runoff election between the top two candidates • Such a system would greatly increase the potential influence of third parties • Another suggested reform would be a proportional allocation of a state’s electoral votes in accordance with each party’s share of the popular vote

  36. The General Election Campaign • Every campaign is different, depending on several factors: - who the contending candidates are (e.g. incumbents or not) - the nature of the office being sought (executive, legislative, or judicial) - the level of government (national, state, or local) - the applicable campaign finance and election statutes - the campaign resources of the candidates - the type of nominating campaigns that were conducted - the nature of the constituency - the tenor of times (e.g. which issues are salient to voters)

  37. When the Voter Decides • Most voters in presidential elections make up their minds about the candidate for whom they will vote before or during the nominating conventions • A substantial portion of the electorate does not make its decision until after the conventions, and therefore the impact of the campaign can be significant (Figure 8.10) • The one common condition that works against making campaigns decisive is the presence of a popular incumbent president

  38. 50 47 46 46 46 45 41 39 40 35 31 30 30 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 Figure 8.10. Percent of Voters Who Said They Decided on the Presidential Candidate They Voted for after the Conventions, 1976-2004 Source: National Election Studies.

  39. Incumbency • The resources and privileges of public office tend to enable incumbents to publicize themselves • The self-advertisement efforts of incumbent members of the House in their constituencies have made them well known, and they are normally thought of in positive terms • Incumbent executives are also in a position to claim credit for all the positive things that have occurred, but may also be blamed for negative things • A further advantage of incumbency is the easy incumbents have in raising money

  40. Incumbency (continued) • Normally, over 90 percent of the House incumbents gain reelection, while the reelection rate for senators is substantially lower (Figure 8.11) • House incumbents benefit from the relatively homogeneous nature of their districts when compared to the larger and more socially diverse statewide constituencies of Senators • The relatively high level of Senator defeat reflects several factors: - higher levels of interparty competition - higher levels of campaign resources put into these races - higher visibility of Senate contests

  41. 100 90 80 70 60 Percent of Incumbents Reelected 50 40 30 20 10 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1996 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1992 1994 Senate House Figure 8.11. Percent of House and Senate Incumbents Reelected, 1952-2004

  42. Majority versus Minority Party Status • Majority party candidates normally place more emphasis on partisan themes than minority party candidates • As the dominant party in terms of the electorate’s party identification since the 1930s, the Democratic Party nationally has more frequently emphasized partisan themes than the Republicans • As partisan appeals have become less effective in presidential elections, the significance in majority/minority status in determining campaign strategy has been reduced

  43. Debates • Debates have now become a standard part of presidential campaigns • Presidential debates have generally worked to the advantage of the challenger candidate • Because the media tends to hype the presidential debates and give them prime time coverage, the candidates tend to see them as very important • As a general rule, the candidate who is perceived to have “won” the debate tends to improve in the polls • The history of televised debates shows that the image of the candidates is increasingly important

  44. Issues • From the1930s until the 1980 election, Democratic candidates generally had a clear advantage over the Republicans when dealing with domestic issues • Following the bad economic conditions of the last years of the Carter administration, voters began to view the GOP candidate as the best for the economy • The Republicans’ traditional disadvantage on domestic issues was partially offset by an advantage they carried regarding foreign policy • This advantage was reversed in the 1976-1984 elections, when voters perceived the Democratic party to be better for peace • The public’s trust in the parties on certain issues is displayed in Figure 8.12

  45. 70 61 60 56 54 54 52 52 50 48 50 46 41 38 40 36 34 34 34 Percent 33 28 30 23 20 10 0 Taxes Economy Terrorism Gas Prices Education Health care Immigration Federal budget Situation in Iraq Democrats Republicans Figure 8.12. Which Party the Public Trusts to Handle Issues, May 2006 Source: The Washington Post/ABC News Poll, May 16, 2006.

  46. 100 92 90 80 74 70 60 54 Percent Agreeing 50 40 34 30 20 15 8 10 0 Homosexuality should be To be moral it is necessary to The government should do accepted by society believe in God more to protect morality. Liberal Democrats Conservative Democrats Figure 8.13. Differences between Liberal and Conservative Democrats on Social Issues, 2005 Source: The Pew Research Center, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: Republicans Divided About Role of Government - Democrats by Social and Personal Values,” May 10, 2005.

  47. Candidate Image • Personal characteristics that voters believe are important tend to vary depending on the condition in which the country finds itself • There is frequent commentary about how candidates manipulate their images through skillful use of the mass media, but candidate images are not easily created and altered • During hard times, effective leadership is a valued characteristic, and other important characteristics include trustworthiness and intelligence (Figure 8.14)

  48. 100 91 87 90 79 80 75 70 70 60 Percent Voting for Candidate 50 40 29 30 24 20 20 12 9 10 0 Strong Leader Takes Clear Stand Honest/Trustworthy Cares About People Intelligent on Issues Bush Kerry Figure 8.14. Vote Choice of Exit Poll Respondents Based on Most Important Personal Quality, 2004 Source: National Election Poll exit survey.

  49. The Role of Parties in Modern Campaigns • In the modern campaign, the candidate tends to be the focus, not the party, and candidates build a personal campaign organization • Parties do, however, matter, in that they can provide essential and timely financial support and in-kind contributions of services to candidates (Figure 8.15)

  50. 400 350 Grassroots 300 250 Media Expenditures (Millions) 200 150 Administrative 100 Fundraising 50 Other 0 DNC Kerry Campaign Bush Campaign RNC Democrats Republicans Figure 8.15. Candidate and National Committee Spending on 2004 Presidential Campaign Source: Thomas B. Edsall and James V. Grimaldi “On Nov. 2, GOP Got More Bang For Its Billion, Analysis Shows,” The Washington Post, December 30, 2004; Page A01.

More Related