Electoral systems in the USA.

Question 1

what is hard money

Answer 1

money donated directly to a political party of an individual candidates’ campaign. They are capped by federal law

Question 2

what is soft money

Answer 2

Soft money – money donated indirectly to political parties and political action committees and therefore not tightly regulated by law

Question 3

what are Political action committees (PACS)

Answer 3

a political committee that raises limited amounts of money and spends these contributions for the express purpose of electing of defeating candidates

Question 4

what are super PACS

Answer 4

a political committee that makes independent expenditures but does not make direct contributions to candidates

Question 5

why does campaign finance need to be reformed?

Answer 5

1. It makes it impossible for people who don’t have individual wealth or connections to run for office
2. Elected representatives may be more responsive to the needs and wishes rather than the voters because they are highly reliant on the individuals who fund their campaigns
3. Doners prefer to support candidates who have a proven record of electoral success and a record of supporting their interests. This means that incumbents usually have a high advantage in fundraising and a reduced change of being challenged

Question 6

why is having a lot of money in elections important?

Answer 6

despite it not guaranteeing victory, many politicians want to have a ‘war chest’ which is reserves of cash to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity

Question 7

what was the Federal election campaign Act 1971

Answer 7

the first piece of successful legislation to regulate campaign finance. It called for a more comprehensive and frequent reports and receipts of expenditures. It put limits on how much candidates could spend on advertising ect.

Question 8

Why was the FECA reformed?

Answer 8

After Watergate the federal election committee was established - was made to tighten up on the FECA. It was a direct result of Watergate scandal which brought down Nixon. This new law created the Federal Election Committee which was a governing body with six voting members. They must receive candidates campaign finance disclosure reports and enforce the law. It also put spending limits for all federal campaigns. In summary… it limits the hard money that individuals and corporations could give in order to reduce the reliance on wealthy donors and equalise the amount of money spent by both parties

Question 9

what happened in Watergate

Answer 9

Water gate - Several burglars were caught inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate building in Washington DC. Nixon tried to cover up that he hired them for his re-election so that they could wiretap phones and steal secret documents. He raised ‘hush money’ for the hired burglars and destroyed the evidence of him breaking in and fired staff who strayed from his game plan. Nixon resigned

Question 10

What was the introduction of soft money in 1979

Answer 10

congress weakened the law by allowing parties to raise money for ‘party building’ expenses which weren’t tied to a particular campaign. Therefore unlimited donations from corporations flowed in

Question 11

2002 Bipartisan Campaign finance Reform Act

Answer 11

Banning soft money donations to national parties, raises individual contribution limits (hard money) to $2000 per candidate per election, corporations and labour unions are banned from funding issue advertisement

Question 12

2014 McCutcheon v FEC in the Supreme court

Answer 12

rules that the aggregate cap places on individuals limiting the number of candidates they can donate to within an election cycle is unconstitutional

Question 13

Buckley V Valeo 1976 in the Supreme court

Answer 13

upholds the donation limits for elections but rules that spending caps amount to a violation of free speech

Question 14

What was a challenge in a supreme court case that challenged the Bipartisan Campaign Finance reform act 2002

Answer 14

Citizens united v FEC - which states that money is equal to free speech: corporations were free under the first amendment to donate money without restrictions. This led to the creation of Super PACs

Question 15

The citizens united v Federal Elections Commission 2010

Answer 15

citizens united, a non profit organisation brought the case to the SC because they wanted to both air a film critical of Hilary Clinton and to advertise that film on TV in 2008. The US district court of Columbia had ruled the broadcasts to be in violation of the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited broadcasts that mentioned a president candidate within 60 days of a general election. The SC reversed the decion in favour of Citizens United. It found that the McCain-Feingold act violated the first amendement’s protection of free speech.

This was a landmark SC decision

Question 16

why was the citizen united v Federal elections commissions decision important?

Answer 16

• it gave corporations the same rights of political free speech as individuals which gave them the right to unlimited independent political expenditure
• Creation of Super PACs which allowed them to accept unlimited contributions from individuals or corporations

Question 17

why is it so difficult to reform the campaign finance

Answer 17

the ability of groups to find loopholes (soft money) the 1st amendment and the ideological balance of the Supreme Court in striking down key provisions

the lack of legislation on the issue, which occurs both because it is difficult to pass legislation through Congress and due to unwillingness for politicians to regulate themselves

the difficulty in amending the Constitution to regulate elections, such as Sanders’s failed `Democracy for all’ amendment.

Question 18

what are matching funds

Answer 18

Between 1976 and 2008, pres campaigns were funded largely through matching funds. For every dollar a candidate raises, they are given a dollar by the FEC. It was given to candidates who met a certain criteria and agreed to certain limitations.

Question 19

does campaign finance undermine democracy? YES

Answer 19

1 - candidates are reliant on their doners eg trump defending the right to bear arms in the second amendment because he has several doners who their sole focus is that right. They don’t want the funding to be pulled. This increases polarisation because pressure groups are either very far right or left.

2- having more money allows for more opportunity and exposure to have any policy impact. If congress and the exec is made up of solely rich people, then that is not representative of the population which is not democratic.

3- as a challenger of an incumbent, you must raise a lot of money to even get any media and political exposure and name recognition. They cant raise as much money as an incumbent. eg in 2016 senate incumbents raised an average of $12,708,000 compared to $1,599,714 by the challengers; creates a vicious cycle

Question 20

does campaign finance undermine democracy? NO

Answer 20

1 - there are other factors that affect why doners give money such as their personal appeal. eg obama was the first ever black president or trump was not a politician who was a businessman. Its not always about the amount of money you raise, but what characteristics and experience you bring to the table
2 - incumbent are going to get reelected anyway, regardless of how much money they will make because doners prefer candidates who have proven a record of electoral success and a record of supporting their interests. its a safer option to throw more money with a better chance of success

Question 21

who is a president who opted out of matching funds

Answer 21

Barack obama - it left him free of any limitations imposed by the FEC and this allowed him to outspend his Republican opponent John McCain who took the $84 million in matching funds for his campaign.

This set a pattern for future election cycles

Question 22

what happened to matching funds after Obama set the trend

Answer 22

people stopped opting in for matching funds because you could raise more money without one. They were for people who wouldn’t have been able to raise as much money without. but because there is now a LOT more money in elections, this isnt useful now
In 2016 the FECs total payouts amounted to only just over $1 million and only one major candidate signed up for matching funds Democrat Martin O’Malley - he was massively disadvantaged by this because by then the team working for the FEC on matching funds was much smaller. He signed up to them from a moral standpoint because he disagrees with how much money is in elections

It took three election cycles to make matching funds non existent after Obama went against them