Chapter 7: Campaigns and Elections Flashcards
- What is the difference between coordinated and independent expenditures? Are there limits on either?
Coordinated finance must disclosed both the source of the money and where it’s being spent. Independent finance needs no disclosure so we don’t know where the money is coming from as well as what it’s being spent on. Coordinated finance has a limit depending on who is writing the check, but Independent finance has no limit since the money goes to political advocacy groups who then spend that money on helping candidates win.
- What was the driving force behind the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act? What about 1974
Amendments? Describe the negative effect as well as the positive effect of the Act.
Driven since corruption was widespread and open, many wealthy would give mountains of money to politicians in return for some form of favor, the 1971 FECA act addressed this. Although in effect abuse was still present so a commission to regulate campaigns was formed that punished bad actors. The good was that it regulated campaign fundraising but the bad was that it limited campaign spending, this part was eventually shot down by the courts.
- What was the driving force behind the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act? Describe the negative effect
as well as the positive effect of the Act.
Soft money going to political parties, over time this made it possible to bypass FECA laws to give politicians money and again buy back favors. The positive was that it strongly limited soft money going to parties, but also tried to eliminate and limit issue advocacy ads. This resulted in a ban on ads in the last 60 days of the election campaigns making it hard for corporations or other individuals to put out issue advocacy ads.
- What was the driving force behind the Supreme Court case of Citizens United? How did the outcome of
the case change campaign finance in the United States?
The BCRA heavily limited individuals, interest groups, and corporations from spending money (specifically on issue advocacy ads). Citizens United argue that this was unconstitutional as it attacked our freedom of speech. The supreme court agree and restored freedom of speech for groups, corporations, individuals, and more to spend as much as they want on ads and other advocacy without government restrictions. Effectively allowing us to spend an unlimited amount of money on advocacy groups who in return spend that money, without disclosure, on helping out candidates.
- In general, describe the “path” that campaign finance has taken over the last fifty years; provide examples
to support your points
Coordinated finance has definitely been regulated heavily with many of those restrictions surviving till today. Of the 7 areas that have been restricted only 2 had their restrictions lifted, those being media spending which was removed in 1976 by Buckley V. Valeo, and communitive contributions being removed in 2013 by McCutcheon V. FEC. All the other areas that were restricted remain till today.
On the other side, independent finance remains unrestricted. Not many restrictions have ever been imposed at all and the few that were placed were quickly removed such as restrictions in raising and spending money, and media spending with the BCRA in 2002 but later being removed by Citizens United in 2013. And although some groups require disclosure some aren’t so that’s why we don’t see a lot of 527 groups and we do see a lot of 501c4 groups.
- What is the difference between redistricting and gerrymandering? Why is gerrymandering used, and what
are the two main tactics when gerrymandering? Describe two negative consequences of gerrymandering
and one positive benefit of gerrymandering.
Redistricting is rebalancing districts equally in a state, even if no new district is made, gerrymandering is rebalancing in a way that favors one party. You draw a map that ensures your party will keep winning most, if not all, of the states district all or most of the time. Two main tactics exist but most of the time you would use both, the first is packing where you put as many like-minded people as possible to exclude the other party to ensure your party ALWAYS wins your district. Cracking is bunching up a people of the other party in a district that still has a big a population of people from your party in order to weaken chances of the other party gaining majorities in other districts. The first consequence is less competition, representatives becomes less willing fight for their votes since there is no opposition making voters leash on to the representatives weaker. Another consequence is increase polarization, when there is no competition there is no need for compromise since the other side can’t mount a sizeable opposition. So a gerrymandered district gets pushed further to one side, and compromise can lead to you losing vote. The only benefit is that living in a gerrymandered district ensures, if you are part of the majority, that your representative is like-minded.
- What is the purposes of the primary election? What is the difference between open and closed primaries?
What type of primary does Nevada use, and why?
The primary elections main purpose is to narrow down the field of candidates within a party so that the winner can go on to the general election. Open and closed primaries are similar you vote for one of the candidates, but in an open primary you can vote for whoever you want regardless of your party affiliation, but in a closed primary you can only vote for a candidate that is from the party you are registered under. Nevada uses a closed primary in the hopes of stopping crossover voter, and this is when people of the opposite vote for the weakest candidate in your party, hopefully allowing them to win the primary and thus have a greater chance of losing the general election to the stronger opponent. And this is only possible in a open primary.
- What was the original purpose of the electoral college (beyond electing the president)? How does the
Electoral College work today (just the process - not the benefits or drawbacks)? How many electoral votes
does the eventual winner need?
The original purpose really was to filter out the popular vote, by putting state legislators in charge of picking the best person for the role of President since these individuals will have the knowledge and experience to make the better choice. Not too much has changed but now parties choose electors who are bound to the outcome of the popular vote of their state. Then these electors vote for us. So when we go to the polls we aren’t voting in the president, we’re voting for a specific group of electors who make the vote for us instead. The winner will ned 270 electoral votes to win.
- What are the main benefits and drawbacks of the electoral college in the present day?
The main benefit is protecting the voice of smalls states, since electoral college ensure that candidates will need support from variety of states including small ones to win.
One drawback is wasted voter syndrome, losing sides votes go nowhere since winner takes all, so why vote in states that are solidly on one side. Another drawback is that swing states get most of the attention since they decide the election. A perceived drawback is that you could win with 11 states but this is unlikely since the combination of states belong to different parties. And even if we did want to switch off of the electoral college system we would need to change the constitution since the electoral college is in it.
- What are the various reform alternatives to the Electoral College, and what are the benefits and drawbacks
of those alternatives? Discuss at least three.
One is the national popular vote, candidates who receive the most votes win. Benefits is that one person is one vote, voter turnout would increase since everyone has equal say, and outcome perfectly matches representation. Drawback is that this would need constitutional change, and candidates would ignore smaller states.
Another alternative is a proportional vote system, where we give electoral votes according to state popular vote. Benefits is that better outcome representation and more participation as your vote will now be counted. Downside is that it will be hard to have one candidate gain majority.
Finally the congressional vote system, electoral votes distribution decided by the who wins each district, and the popular vote winner across the state wins the senate seats. This would again result in higher participation as people have more of a say. The downside is that it will make few districts more focused on and gerrymandering would occur more and be more more damaging.
