SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS

PACS

Special Interest GroupsFUNDAMENTAL GOALS

– Influence public policy• Health Care Reform

– Change laws

– Influence Congress• Supreme Court Confirmations

SIG support electoral goals of Political Parties

• Political Action Committee donations

• 527s

• Media campaigns

Organization / mobilization of people

• http://www.hsldapac.org

Endorsement of candidates

On Tuesday in the presence of the statewide community gathered for the 5th annual Advancing Equality Day on the Hill, I had the pleasure of announcing that TEP PAC has endorsed David Glasgow for the open Metro Nashville Council seat in District 18.David is a strong neighborhood advocate, a quality prized highly by the people of District 18.  Also impressive is how hard David has worked in this campaign.  David has knocked on countless doors and, according to the first financial disclosure, he is the leading candidate in fundraising with an impressive number of local contributors.  He has consistently demonstrated his commitment to put in the time needed to serve his neighbors, and the residents of his district are responding enthusiastically.

Information

GRASSROOTS MOBILIZATION

• Interest groups organize citizens who act to influence policy makers!

LOBBYING

• Direct contact with policy makers for the purpose of persuasion by providing information or political benefitis.

LITIGATION The use of courts

to gain policy preferences through cases or amicus curiae briefs.

IMPRESSION PAPER• WHAT WAS THE CENTRAL THESIS OF THE

DOCUMENTARY?

• WHAT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE DID THEY USE TO SUPPORT THEIR THESIS?

• WHAT WAS THE ANTITHESIS?

• WHAT DID THE DOCUMENTARY FAIL TO DO?

3 FACES OF THE PARTY

• Party-in-the-Electorate

• Party Organization

• Party-in-government

FUNDAMENTAL GOALS

– Elect people to office

– Gain control of government

– Divided government?

Party Organization• National Convention + Delegates• Party Platform

• National Chairperson + Committee

• State Central Chairperson + Committee

• County Chairperson + Committee

• Precinct Chairperson + Committee• Grassroots

Why a 2 Party System?• FEDERALISTS vs. Anti-FEDERALISTS

– National Politics vs. Sectional Politics– Class Politics vs. Political Socialization

• Winner-Take-All Electoral System– Plurality

• State & National Laws– State Laws require signatures to place

candidates on the ballot.– Based on total party vote in last general election– Campaign finance laws– Committee assignments

PURPOSE OF 3RD PARTIES

• New or different ideas or issues (single issues)

• Voice of fringe

• Safety valve for discontent

• Enhanced participation

• Room for critical voices

• Pushes major parties to include underrepresented concerns.

• Clarify major-party positions

3rd PartiesLargest (voter registration over 100,000)

• Constitution Party - socially conservative, economically conservative.

• Green Party - center-left; the third largest party in the United States.

• Libertarian Party - fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

Notable third-party Presidential candidates

• 1848 – Free Soil Party– Van Buren 10%

• 1856 – Know Nothings– Filmore

• 1856 – Republicans– Fremont

• 1968 – American Independent Party – Wallace (45 electoral votes)

• 1992 – Independent – Ross Perot 18.9%

• 2000 – Green Party – Ralph Nader 2.7%

Populist Parties1880 Greenback Labor Party

1884 Anti-Monopoly Party

1884 Prohibition Party

1892 Populist Party (won 22 electoral votes)

1900 Prohibition Party

1904 Socialist Party

1912 Progresive (Bull

Moose) Party

Greenback to Populist

The impact of Ross Perot on H.W. Bush’s re-election

Barriers to third party success

• Winner-take-all vs. proportional representation

• Campaign financing (rules/limits)

• Federal funding

• Ballot access laws

• Exclusion from debates

• Single-member plurality districts

Voting Amendments• 15th (1870) governments in the

United States may not prevent a citizen from voting because of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude (slavery)

• 19th (1920)

• 26th (1971)

Smith v. Allwright (1944)

• White Primary (Democratic Primary)

• Southern States claimed that the Democratic Party was a private organization

• 8-1: Primary elections must be open to voters of all races.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

• The State of Tennessee argued that legislative districts were political, NOT judicial, questions.

• Court ruled “One man, One Vote.”

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)• State legislature districts districts

had to be roughly equal in population.

• Los Angeles County, California; with 6 million people, had one member in the California State Senate, as did the 14,000 people of one rural county (428 times more)

Voting Rights Act of 1965• Outlawed literacy tests (Jim Crow Laws)

• provided for federal registration of voters in areas that had less than 50% of eligible minority voters registered.

• Dept. of Justice oversight to registration

• Dept. Justice approves any change in voting law in districts that had used a "device" to limit voting and in which less than 50% of the population was registered to vote in 1964.

VRA Section 4 & 5: Preclearance• States must get

clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before minor changes to voting procedures (moving a polling place) or major ones (redrawing electoral districts).

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

• Question: Do racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination?

• 5 – 4 Ruling

• 9 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia may change their election laws without advance federal approval.

Impact of Decision?

Texas 2011 photo ID

law was struck down

- Violated VRA 4 &5 -

It is now in effect.

Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)

• Held that states could set their own age limits for state elections.

• 26th Amendment

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

• Upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions

• Ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech

• The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

Congressional ReapportionmentDEFINITION

Reallocation of the number of representatives each state has in the House of Rep.

Important to States

1. Reapportionment INCREASES or DECREASES the number of seats in the House.

2. More representation means

a state has more influence.

3. Affects a state’s number of electoral votes

Congressional Redistricting

• Definition

Drawing/redrawing of House/congressional district lines.

EX. Gerrymandering

• GOALS– Weaken/strengthen

Party– Protects incumbents

or weaken challengers– Increase or decrease

minority representation– Punish foes or reward

friends

U.S. Supreme Court Limits to Gerrymandering

• Reynolds v. Sims (1964)• Shaw v. Reno (1993)• Miller v. Johnson (1995)

• Districts must be equally populated.

• Must be contiguous or connects

• Cannot dilute minority voting strength

• Cannot be draw solely based on race

• Must be compact• Communities of interest

must be protected

Illinois district Connects two Hispanic neighborhoods while remaining connected by narrowly tracing Interstate 294.

TEXAS GERRYMANDERING• 2002 15 Rep. 17 Demos

• 2006 24 Republican 11 Demos

• 2014 24 Republicans 11 Demos

 

• Austin, in particular, was divided intothree separate Congressional districts,

– two stretch to the Mexican border– the third of which stretches to

Houston. 

Federal Election Campaign Act

• 1971 - required broad disclosure of campaign finance.

• 1974 – post Watergate Amendments

• established a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement

• Public financing of presidential campaigns

• creation of Federal Election Commission

WINNER-TAKE ALL

• Strategy: Resource allocation or focus on competitive states, swing states, and large states where candidates spend their time or money or buy media.

• Choice of Vice-President (balancing the ticket)– JFK & LBJ– Michael Dukakis & Lloyd Bensten

2000 RESULTS

2004 RESULTS

2008 Results

Candidate Party Votes Pct.   Change from ’04

Electoral votes

Winner: John McCain

Rep. 4,467,748 55.5% -5.6% 34

Barack Obama

Dem. 3,521,164 43.8%   

+5.5    0

McCain-Feingold (2002)Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)

Eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees.

CHALLENGES TO REFORM

• 2003 McConnell v. FEC - Upheld key provisions of McCain-Feingold

• 2006 - Randall v. Sorrell - Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on spending was unconstitutional

McCain-Feingold (2002)

• Aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations

• Banned corporate or union money to pay for "electioneering communications" – broadcast advertising that identifies a federal

candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

• The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

• Corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the 1ST Amendment.

The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”

RAISING LIMITS on Individual Contributions

• Increasing the dollar amount individuals may give to a campaign, parties, or PACs

• Arguments in favor include:1. Limits are not indexed to inflation2. Candidates can spend less time

fundraising3. Decreases influence of PACs.4. Decreases reliance on less-regulated

forms of campaign funds.

Arguments Against

1. Allows the rich to

have or buy more

influence.

2. Drives up the cost

of campaigns

MATCHING FUNDS

• Candidates raise funds from private donors, but provides matching funds for the first chunk of donations.

• The government might "match" the first $250 of every donation. A system like this is currently in place in the U.S. presidential primaries.

Clean Money, Clean Elections

• Candidate are given a set amount of money. Candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions.

• The candidates are NOT allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding.

Clean Elections• 2000 - All statewide and legislative offices

in Arizona and Maine.

• 2005 - Connecticut , Portland, Oregon voted yes!– 69% of the voters in Albuquerque voted Yes

• Californians voted NO (2006 ) – 25.7% YES 74.3% NO

This scheme has two parts: patriot dollars and the secret donation booth.

All voters would be given a $50 publicly funded voucher (Patriot dollars) to donate to must be made anonymously through the FEC.

Why not abolish the Electoral College?

• Helps to ensure that a majority of electoral votes are earned by one candidate.

• Requires constitutional amendment

• Collectively benefits small states.

• Collectively benefits large states.

• Protects the vote of minority & interest groups

• Favors the two party system

US campaign price tag: US$1 billion Updated: 2004-08-21 08:53

Spending by US presidential and congressional candidates and the national party committees that support them already tops US$1 billion for the 2004 election cycle, with more than two months of campaigning to go.

U.S. President Bush alone devoted US$209 million to his re-election effort through July, a campaign finance report he filed Friday shows.

The spending by Bush, Democratic rival John Kerry, congressional candidates and national party committees had surpassed US$1 billion by the end of June, the period covered by the most recent finance reports many of them filed.

Kerry spent nearly US$150 million through June, his most recent finance report to the Federal Election Commission shows. His report covering July was due at the FEC by midnight Friday.

In addition, Senate and House candidates spent US$487 million from January 2003 through last June, and national party committees burned through more than US$400 million, their reports covering the 18-month period show.

The spending tops mid-election year levels in 2002 and 2000, when national party committees could still raise corporate, union and unlimited donations known as soft money.

Under a law that took effect starting with this election cycle, the biggest contribution they can collect is US$25,000 from an individual — limited donations known as hard money — and corporate and union contributions are banned. Individuals can give up to US$2,000 to a presidential or congressional candidate under the law, which doubled that limit.

“The parties and the presidential campaigns have just been hard-money machines,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC who tracks campaign fund raising and spending. “On the presidential side it’s both ends: money in those $2,000 increments, but it’s also a lot of small contributions for Bush and Kerry. And I think the same is true for the parties.”

In addition, nonparty groups that can still collect soft money are spending tens of millions on ads and get-out-the-vote efforts.

In the presidential race, advertising has been the single biggest expense, accounting for at least US$116 million of Bush’s spending and at least US$93 million of Kerry’s.