Federal Election Commission

1. Federal Election Commission • Enforcement Mechanism for 1974 FECA • 6 member bipartisan commission to administer and enforce CF laws

2. Federal Election Commission • Responsibilities: • Collect and disclose campaign finance reports • Implement public funding provisions for presidential elections • Give advisory opinions to candidates • Enforce the FECA • Write regulations

3. FEC criticized as “toothless tiger” – • Punishment slow and slight – civil fines collected are typically a small portion of amount allowed (can fine vialator (donor) up to twice the amount of illegal donation and also fine the campaign • Agency always intended to be weak by Congress

4. Supreme Court rulings • Buckley v. Valeo 1976 • Upheld voluntary limits for Pres. Campaigns • Upheld contribution limits • Ruled against limits on independent expenditures • Ruled against mandatory spending limits • WHY ARE THE LAST 2 KINDS OF LIMITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

5. Court says *Ok to limit contributions DIRECTLY TO candidates, because can be corrupting *But independent expenditures – not corrupting because don’t go directly to a candidate *Spending limits also shouldn’t be limited because that limits the total amount of political debate, discussion (limits can only be VOLUINTARY)

6. Citizens United Ruling 2010 • First Amendment prohibits gov’t from restricting independent expenditures by corporations (including non profit ones) and unions AT ANY TIME prior to an election. • Can require disclosure of campaign donations, but can’t limit free speech. • First amendment issue…

7. Main “loopholes” today to get around contribution limits * Independent expenditure groups (Supreme Court has generally supported because don’t give directly to a candidate, so not “corrupting” like direct contributions) a) 527 groups: independent groups not subject to contribution limits, so long as don’t explicitly endorse – Swift Boat Vets, Moveon.org – report donations to FEC but amount = unlimited b) 501s: (such as 501c4) independent groups that can get unlimited donations, don’t have to report donations - disclose donors - to FEC so long as spend < 50 percent of funds on political activities c) Super PACS: can accept unlimited donations, can endorse, so long as “just express their views” and don’t give their money to a candidate – in 2012 first arose to support all pres. candidates. Must disclose donors

8. 2016 Election - Magelby How was Trump unique compared to other candidates in 2016?

9. Ability to gain free media attention (“earned media”) –why? in primaries estimated at $2 billion, in generals $5.9 billion v. $2.8 billion for Hillary Clinton Early on, criticized super PACs, as did Sanders

10. Trump’s general election fundraising = more conventional than fundraising in primaries *Did benefit from super PAC spending despite having criticized super PACs earlier *Spent heavily on social media, especially Facebook advertising (used social media more than any previous pres. candidate) * Reliance on joint efforts with RNC, just as Clinton worked with DNC

11. 2016 campaign finance compared to previous presidential elections Continuities – what was the same/what was different?

12. Individuals = still the main source of fundraising (by candidates, party committees, PACs and super PACs) – especially super PACS – every prescand. in 2016 had a super PAC. Overall, independent expenditures were a bigger part of campaign financing picture in 2016 than 2012 – super PACS and 501c groups – note 501c4s don’t have to report all spending to FEC so don’t know the full extent of their spending.

13. 4. Outside groups helped candidates with more activities than pre-2016 (used to be mainly TV ads - see table 1.6 for 2016 activities) 5. Even larger role for wealthy individuals in 2016 since bigger role for outside groups to which they gave donations 6. On flip side: success with small donors, especially Sanders (built on Obama and others)

14. 2016 - Does money matter in campaigns? *Hillary Clinton outspent Trump in the general elections (by over $360 mill) , but she still lost *Similarly, in the primaries, Jeb Bush raised the most of any candidate but still lost *Trump’s election raises question: Are there substitutes for campaign fundraising? Can other candidates do what Trump did with free media?

15. Clean Money Option – Donnelly and Fine • Refers to full public financing • Candidates agree not to take private money, just get a certain number of very small (e.g. $5) donations in order to qualify for public funding of their campaigns. • Donnelly and Fine like this better than other types of CFR such as lowering contribution limits, raising limits & increasing disclosure, partial public financing as in pres. elections

16. Implemented in place in AZ, ME in 2000 and in other states and cities, e.g. Portland OR • Candidates raise small number of small donations to qualify for public funding, agree not to raise private $ • Funded in Arizona through tax checkoff but also fees on county court cases (surcharge on civil penalties and criminal fines – paid by taxpayers); in Maine funded by tax checkoff and taxes • Supreme Court ruling 2011 McCornish v. Bennett: • A provision of the AZ public financing system unconstitutional- Can’t give participating candidates extra money if their non-participating opponents (or independent groups) outspend them– punishes free speech of those who support non-participating candidates’ campaigns. • But presidential matching fund system still okay – “nobody punished for free speech of someone else.”

17. Pros and Cons of clean elections https://wvcag.org/video-clean-elections-changing-the-face-of-america/ Pros: attract more “ordinary people” to run for office Cons: attract more “ordinary people” to run -- including very unqualified people who get a minimal # of $5 donations from friends to qualify (200 in Arizona for state legislature, less in Maine) Pro: Should lead to more competition (more “contested” races, rather than incumbent automatically winning, including in primaries, and more competition in open-seat races) – evidence is mixed on this, but does suggest there is more competition, decline in races with unopposed incumbents, reduction in incumbent vote margins. More women, underrepresented groups (African Americans, Latinos, Native American) run for office (don’t all win but…)

18. Negatives of clean elections? • Cons: Candidates may waste public $ on trivial things or help their own businesses, e.g. subcontract services for printing or web design to their own companies, host expensive sushi dinners, buy super-fancy computer equipment that they keep after campaign. (May get non-serious candidates who just want to buy stuff and have fun) • Cons: Candidates may enter race for devious reasons (Republican switches parties, runs as Green Party candidate to undermine the Democrat – this happens in “regular” elections too though, without public funding.

19. Seattle “Democracy voucher “ programpassed by initiative 2015 *Registered voters get four $25 vouchers *Funded by $8 increase in property taxes for average homeowner *Can give $ to candidates of their choice for city council Positive impact?